This is a discussion post I just wrote for my Constitutional Law class. I found it topically relevant to the goings on of the day and thought I'd share it.
The question: "Both the majority and the dissent in Parents Involved v Seattle claim the mantle of Brown v Board. Which side has the better argument?"
My post:
A state
of emergency was declared in Ferguson, Missouri yesterday after violence ensued
during Sunday night’s protest marking a year since police killed an unarmed
black teenager. At the same time, demonstrators
gathered in Arlington, Texas in remembrance of an unarmed black teenager who
was shot on Friday night. At the
demonstrations, people could be heard chanting “black lives matter” and holding
signs stating the same.
Yesterday
is the most recent example I can give of racial tension and unrest in America. To pretend we live in a society that is no
longer concerned about discrimination based on race would be foolish. It is with that in mind that I approach this
discussion question.
The unanimous Court in Brown v. Board of Education handed down
an opinion that made it clear that de
jure segregation (segregation as a matter of law) was a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and therefore unconstitutional.
The case
of Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v.
Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 127 S. Ct 2738 (2007) involved two school
districts who were being accused of violating that same Equal Protection Clause
through the use of their student assignment plans. Each district considered student race as a
deciding factor in student assignment to schools in certain situations. The goal of each district was to keep the
schools in the district racially integrated.
The
opinion of the Court in Parents Involved
found the assignment plans unconstitutional, and the dissenters sharply
disagreed with the logic of that decision.
Each side referenced Brown v.
Board of Education although clearly disagreed on the implication of the
decision in Brown on the case at
hand.
In his dissent, Justice Breyer made some compelling
arguments. To Justice Breyer, context
was key in matters argued under the Equal Protection Clause. He stated in his dissent:
This context is not a context
that involves the use of race to decide who will receive goods or services that
are normally distributed on the basis of merit and which are in short supply.
It is not one in which race-conscious limits stigmatize or exclude; the limits
at issue do not pit the races against each other or otherwise significantly
exacerbate racial tensions. They do not impose burdens unfairly upon members of
one race alone but instead seek benefits for members of all races alike. The
context here is one of racial limits that seek, not to keep the races apart,
but to bring them together. (Parents
Involved 2818)
Justice Breyer continued with his
argument that the Equal Protection Clause was to be viewed in light of context
when he said, “The Equal Protection Clause […] has always distinguished in
practice between state action that excludes and thereby subordinates racial
minorities and state action that seeks to bring together people of all races.” (Parents Involved 2834-35)
The dissent made it clear that the
outcome in Brown should steer the
Court toward allowing assignment plans that aimed to prevent re-segregation of
the schools. The school districts argued
that the assignment plans at issue in Parents
Involved were designed with the idea that racial integration was the
desired outcome.
Justice
Breyer believed that the reason behind the plans (or the context) achieved the
outcome desired in Brown. He pointed out that Brown v. Board of Education issued a “promise of true racial
equality—not as a matter of fine words on paper, but as a matter of everyday
life in the Nation's cities and schools.” (Parents
Involved 2836)
The dissent did not believe that
the intention of Brown was to just
make it a legal principle that schools were not to be segregated but to make
absolute certain that schools were, in fact, not segregated. The argument for the dissent was that any
plan that sought to achieve schools that were actually racially balanced was allowable and was in the spirit of
what was intended in Brown.
Chief
Justice Roberts delivered the Opinion of the Court in Parents Involved. The point
the Chief Justice made which I found most salient was when he said, “As the Court explained in Rice v. Cayetano, 528
U. S. 495, 517 (2000), ‘[o]ne of the principal reasons race is treated as a
forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person
to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential
qualities.’” (Parents Involved
2777) To that I would add “and
individual needs.”
According
to the decision in Parents Involved, the
decision in Brown did not have
anything to do with the “context” of classifications made by race. The
argument put forth by Chief Justice Roberts was that it was the mere separation
of children on the basis of race that generated a violation of the constitution. It did not matter what the intention was behind
the racial classification. It did not
matter if the goal was to keep schools balanced. The only thing that mattered was that there
was any sort of classification based on race.
“What do racial classifications at issue here do, if not accord
differential treatment on the basis of race?” (Parents Involved 2778)
The
assignment plans at issue did not look at students as individuals. Instead, the plans classified students by
race and used that as the sole “tie-breaker” on a student’s choice of schools
in one district and as the deciding factor on a request to transfer in the
other district.
One of the
students who was affected in Seattle wanted a placement in a biotechnology
program to which he had been accepted.
He was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia and was having success with
hands-on learning, and it had been decided (by his mother and middle school
teachers) that the biotechnology program was best for his continued
success. Despite his acceptance to the
desired program, his placement at the school hosting the program was denied
based on his race.
In such an
instance, the assignment plan did not factor in what was best for the
individual student at issue. There was
just a blind placement made on the basis of race without regard for his
individual needs for success. It makes
no sense that the Court in Brown
would seek to maintain racial balance at the expense of what is best for the
success of each individual child. The
Court in Brown was interpreting the
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause as insuring that people are
treated as individuals without consideration of the color of their skin. “As counsel who appeared before this
Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: ‘We have one
fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this
argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the
equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording
educational opportunities among its citizens.’ Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown
I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952).” (Parents Involved 2778)
The Opinion
of the Court puts forth a better argument than the dissent in Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle
Sch. Dist. No. 1 with regards to the application of Brown v. Board of Education.
I disagree with Justice Breyer’s assertion that “the
limits at issue do not pit the races against each other or otherwise
significantly exacerbate racial tensions.” Any classification of people based on
race has the potential to pit races against one another and exacerbate racial
tension. Reducing individuals to nothing
but their race for any reason (and
certainly to make a potentially life-altering decision for them) has the
potential to create tension amongst people.
The goal we should seek in education is
to treat students as individuals and do what is best for each student
regardless of race. The public school
system should seek to train students to be individuals who are able to obtain
the education necessary to succeed.
Diversity is absolutely important to the success of students at any
level. We cannot learn and grow to our
full potential if we are not exposed to people of different backgrounds, races,
cultures, sexual orientations, religions, etc.
That does not mean that children should ever be reduced to nothing but the
race they marked on a form and placed in a classroom strictly to achieve a
certain number of students of each race in each school. That was not the purpose of the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and that should
not be the way we determine where we will educate children.
WORKS CITED
Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v.
Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 127 S.
Ct. 2738, 2818 (2007)
