Reply to tired of "diversity for Deal and Wilson" as an argument

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "tired of "diversity for Deal and Wilson" as an argument"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Cite your arguments. Saying it's a very winnable lawsuit without any appeal to legal precedent or even legalistic arguments contributes little to the discussion. Saying it so matter-of-factly when you have limited legal background is yet worse. [/quote]

In 1970, Deal was redistricted to include Mann and Hearst, and the redistricting was challenged in court. Judge Skelley Wright ordered the redistricting reversed, and writing that: 
[quote]
any action by the Board itself which further imperils the integrated status of one of the few remaining District schools where real integration is possible ... must be treated by this court as a violation of its 1967 decree.
[/quote]
(see http://www.leagle.com/decision/19701040320FSupp720_1890)

The "1967 decree" was the ruling in Hobson vs. Hansen, which abolished tracking and any other school organizational schemes which were discriminatory in effect.

This ruling has governed DCPS ever since, that no redistricting can reduce the diversity of an integrated school. Note that intent is not a consideration, just the outcome. 
[/quote]

However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) would likely be interpreted as overruling Hobson vs. Hansen.  From Wikipedia,

[quote]The legal rule created in Washington is that under the constitution's equal protection jurisprudence, "a law or other official act, without regard to whether it reflects a racially discriminatory purpose, [is not] unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact." Thus, in addition to proving a discriminatory effect, a plaintiff must prove discriminatory motive on the state actor's part to receive redress under the constitution. The court noted that "disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution". The purpose-based standard elucidated in the Court's 1976 opinion has made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in discrimination suits arising under the constitution.[/quote]

In a school system with a stated preference for neighborhood schools, redrawing the boundaries of an overcrowded neighborhood MS to bring enrollment down to capacity would probably survive a legal challenge, even if it has the effect of reducing minority enrollment.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics