1. Lecture 39 Discrimination III
Desegregation and Busing

2. This Lecture Pages 626-637 Busing and school desegregation
Massive Resistance
White Flight
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007)

3. Two Tracks The Deep South Other Areas (but not excluding the South)
Massive resistance
Desegregation done slowly and often by force of court order
Some by federal agents or national guard
Most schools do not desegregate until the late 60s/early 70s
Other Areas (but not excluding the South)
Segregation was more due to residential settlement
Neighborhood schools were largely of one race of students
Solution was to bus students across school districts to get a certain racial balance
Under supervision of federal judges
Epicenter of protests: Boston
This helped accelerate white flight out of cities to suburbs

4. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)
Background
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County were an unified school district
The racial makeup was 70% white, 29% black with 107 schools
2/3 of the black students were in 98% black schools
The district judge appointed an expert an implemented his report
It used gerrymandered geographical territories for high schools looking like pizza slices
The elementary school plans were less successful
So busing of black students to white areas was required
The 4th Circuit mostly upheld the district court order

5. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education- II
Arguments
For Swann
Dual race school systems are unconstitutional Green v. New Kent County
The district court should have set quotas for each school
Busing is an effective method of desegregation
For Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
There is no requirement that each school should have a certain racial balance
Compulsory busing is not a proper means reasonableness
Geographic zones are non-discriminatory

6. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education- III
Burger, C.J. for an unanimous Court
District Courts have broad power in equity to remedy violations of a school district being segregated once school authorities have failed in their duties
The nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy
Must find if there is a segregated school district to start with
Patterns of school closings and construction can perpetuate a dual system

7. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education- IV
More from Burger, C.J.
Four problem areas of student assignments
1) Racial balances or racial quotas
This can be a starting point for the remedy
2) One-race schools
Burden on school district to show these districts are non-discriminatory
3) Remedial Altering of Attendance Zones
Non compact (or contiguous) districts can be part of the remedial measure
Without a history of racial discrimination this may not be needed but may be necessary
No rigid rules can be set here
4) Transportation of Students

8. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education- V
More from Burger, C.J.
Four problem areas of student assignments
4) Transportation of Students
No rigid guidelines at this time
Bus transportation is a part of the American educational system
This can be part of a desegregation plan
The important takeaways from this case
District judges will be given broad discretion in equity to end segregated school districts
This must be limited to districts that had violated the Constitution
The remedy must be limited to the scope of the violation

9. Limits to Desegregation Efforts
There were limits Courts had little effect on
These desegregation plans work better with consolidated school districts
But even when consolidated in a county, families can simply move to the neighboring county which in many cases was rural and mostly white
This led to a rapid acceleration of so-called “exurbs” and other suburbs
Many of these white flight voters helped to become the base of the Republican Party
People were voting with their feet
With middle/upper class residents going to the suburbs, this hollowed out much of the tax base of core urban school districts

10. Easing the Burden
Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell (1991)
5-3 decision by Rehnquist, C.J.
Judicial supervision of the district could end if re-segregation was being caused by new residential patterns
This is because of the choices of parents, not governmental action
Freeman v. Pitts (1992)
Unanimous decision by Kennedy, J.
School districts that have partially complied with a desegregation order can have those areas withdrawn from court supervision
Courts can add more focus on the non-complying areas

11. Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007)
Background
Seattle School District
District: 41% white, 59% total minority
High school students could rank preference their school choice
With ties, preference given to siblings in the school, and then race, with residence last
Schools needed to be within 10% racial balance
Those that were not would give preference to those students that would put it in balance
They had never been under court supervision nor had ever violated the constitution

12. Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education- II
Background
Jefferson County Board of Education
This district included what is now Metro Louisville (all Jefferson County)
66% white, 34% black
They were found to have a segregated school system and placed under supervision in 1973
However, they were released in 2000
The new plan required non-magnet schools to be between 15-50% black
Map divided by geographical clusters blacks in Louisville mainly in the West End/Newburgh
Once a school hit the extremes of the race balance, no other students of that race could enroll
Parents could request a transfer, but race would still be taken into account

13. Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education- III
Arguments
For the plaintiffs
Racial balancing not required because there is no segregation that violates the law
Race is too much of a factor, violating Grutter v. Bollinger
This constitutes a racial quota
For the School districts
These policies have compelling state interests of a diverse student body, reducing racial isolation, and preventing segregation patterns from denying equal access
There is no interest in racial balancing
Race-neutral plans would not achieve these goals
The plans are narrowly tailored and not to be permanent

14. Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education- IV
A 5-4 decision by Roberts, C.J. (Parts I, II, III-A, III-B)
The Court will apply strict scrutiny due to a racial classification
Two factors to consider in a school context
Remedying past discrimination (Seattle never, Louisville ended in 2000)
Diversity in higher education
Grutter use of race individualized, part of broader goal of diversity
This appears to be more of race to achieve a racial balance
These are not narrowly tailored to achieve diversity, but only racial balance
“Racial balance not for its own sake” Freeman
Government should treat citizens as individuals not as members of groups Johnson (1995)

15. Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education- V
Plurality opinion of Roberts, C.J., joined by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ. (Parts III-B, IV) Kennedy, J. does not join in this part
Changing these plans would have only minimal effect on diversity (according to these judges)
The schools should try more narrowly tailored plans that do not use racial classifications
“The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”
Stop using racial classifications is where Roberts stands

16. Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education- VI
Thomas, J. concurring
Racial imbalance is not segregation
There is little risk of re-segregation
Voluntary housing choices not a state policy choice
Government should make no distinction based on race color blind Constitution
Kennedy J. concurring in part and concurring in judgment
He scoffs at Roberts’ statement on discrimination
Solutions to de facto segregation are much more difficult than the plurality says
He says they were too dismissive of the legitimate interest government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race
He would allow plans that achieve this
Diversity can be a compelling state interest

17. Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education- VII
Stevens, J. dissenting
He hits Roberts for quoting Brown as favoring this opinion
Says no member of the Court in 1975 would have agreed with this
No record of pre-Brown of white children wanting to go to black schools
Racial classifications here should be viewed differently from others

18. Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No
Parents Involved Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education- VIII
Breyer, J. joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ. dissenting
Four considerations to uphold these plans
1) Long history of the districts to act to prevent racial segregation in schools
2) Previous precedent to combat racial segregation in schools
3) These plans meet strict scrutiny
4) This case sets back efforts to keep schools desegregated
He thinks it harms the promise and work yet to finish from Brown
Note- These were cases involving school districts that wanted to remedy segregated schools- What will happen when we are dealing with areas that don’t want to remedy this?

19. After the decision

20. Next Lecture Pages 637-648 Application of different levels of scrutiny
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)
Interracial Marriage
Loving v. Virginia (1967)