Successful Desegregation Plan Struck Down
On October 20, 2004, the federal First Circuit Court
of Appeals struck down a successful school desegregation
plan in effect in Lynn, Massachusetts, a city with a
long history of racial strife. The plan, and the accompanying
school improvements, had been lauded by educators, parents,
and experts because the effect it had on race relations
in the city was remarkable. Racial tension diminished
considerably. Students of different races sought each
other out in the classroom and in the lunchroom, and
cross-racial friendships were common. Public school
attendance rose and, correspondingly, private school
attendance dropped. In addition, test scores rose for
Lynn’s students. In invalidating the plan, the
three-judge panel on the First Circuit noted that while
desegregation is a compelling interest for a school
system, this plan was not sufficiently narrowly tailored
to accomplish this goal.
Background
Lynn, Massachusetts, has had a long history of racial
segregation and racial tension in neighborhoods and
in schools. Various school desegregation plans were
tried and failed over the years. Part of the failure
was attributed to actions and inaction of city school
officials. The result was a stubbornly segregated school
system by the late 1980’s. In addition, in the
1980’s public school attendance was down dramatically,
and private school attendance was on the rise.
Lynn Plan
In 1989, Lynn officials crafted the desegregation plan
at issue. The plan allowed children to attend their
neighborhood schools. If a child desired a transfer
to a non-neighborhood school, s/he was allowed to do
so, unless the transfer threatened the racial balance
of the sending or receiving school.
The race-conscious voluntary transfer plan was coupled
with a comprehensive overhaul of the educational system,
including: increased investments for facilities and
educational resources, improved curriculum, and multicultural
and multiracial educational opportunities. The plan
was monitored continuously with monthly reports. Experts,
educators, officials and parents agreed that the plan
was a success.
The Challenge
Several parents of white students challenged the transfer
system on constitutional equal protection grounds. The
federal District Court, in a lengthy opinion, upheld
the Lynn plan. The court noted that, unlike in a factory
or even in a law school, where the ultimate aim of the
enterprise is not diversity, an important aim of public
K-12 school system is to teach children to live together
in a diverse society. Thus, for public schools, achieving
diversity is central to the educational goal of the
institution. This observation was especially true in
Lynn, which is a diverse city with a history of racial
strife.
The court found that this plan was tailored to the
compelling interest of the school system because: (1)
it was flexible, and would automatically end when schools
achieved racial balance; (2) it did not unduly burden
children not in the protected class because all children
could attend their neighborhood schools, all schools
were of equal quality, and those denied a transfer could
appeal; and (3) the district considered and rejected,
for good reason, less restrictive race-neutral alternatives.
The court noted that experts such as Dr. Gary Orfield
of Harvard University conducted studies on the Lynn
plan and found it to be a model of successful desegregation.
The First Circuit Opinion
In a decision that seemed to ignore the success of
the plan, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the District Court’s decision. It held that, while
achieving diversity is a compelling interest in public
education, the Lynn Plan was not narrowly tailored to
achieve its goal. The court invalidated the plan on
three grounds: (1) the transfer provision unduly burdened
white students; (2) the plan was inflexible in its time
period because it did not include a sunset provision
or periodic review; and (3) although the plan stated
that it aimed for a “critical mass” of students
of a certain racial background to achieve diversity,
its true aim was racial balance and this goal was impermissible.
The court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s
decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz
v. Bollinger, which involved admissions to law
school and university, respectively, and which were
handed down after the District Court decision in this
case. The First Circuit discounted any difference between
competitive applications to institutions of higher learning
and a non-competitive transfer provision in a public
K-12 program. In addition, although there was ample
evidence at the trial of decreased racial tension as
a result of the transfer plan, the First Circuit claimed
that the use of race in the plan would “breed
cross-racial tension.”
Several civil rights and education groups had filed
friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the Lynn plan,
including: The Council of Great City Schools, the American
Association of School Administrators, the National Association
of Secondary School Principals, the National Education
Association, the National School Boards Association,
the Public Education Network, the American Psychological
Association, The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund,
the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law, the Massachusetts Coalition for Equitable Education,
and the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
In addition, the Attorneys General of Iowa, New York,
Maine and Utah joined in an amicus brief in support
of the plan.
The full First Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed
to rehear the case in response to an appeal by the attorney
general. The new hearing is set for February 7, 2005.
Prepared by Wendy C. Lecker, November 29, 2004
|
