Thursday, June 28, 2007

Supreme Court Rules On Race Based School Assignments

The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it further restricts how public school systems may attain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. The court's four liberal justices dissented.

Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy would not go as far as the other four conservative justices, saying in a concurring opinion that race may be a component of school district plans designed to achieve diversity.

To the extent that Roberts' opinion can be interpreted to foreclose the use of race in any circumstance, Kennedy said, "I disagree with that reasoning."

He agreed with Roberts that the plans in Louisville and Seattle violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

The two school systems in Thursday's decisions employ slightly different methods of taking students' race into account when determining which school they will attend.
The decision can be found here. It's a 185 page decision, so teasing out various aspects of the case will take some time.

SCOTUSblog has a breakdown on the two school plans at issue and what it could mean going forward. Chief Justice Roberts' key line:
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,"
Stevens took exception to that, claiming that the Court was essentially rewriting Brown v. Board of Ed and following cases.

At what point do we stop using race to determine who gets to go to which schools and when do we base such decisions purely on merit? In some areas of the country, we have levels of integration and diversity that would not require onerous requirements, while other parts of the country may still require additional attention. This isn't a one-size fits all answer. Roberts seems to be of the opinion that race-based education decision should come to an end, but does that truly hew to the facts on the ground?

No comments: