1. The districts offer no evidence that the level of racial diversity necessary to achieve the asserted educational benefits happens to coincide with the racial demographics of the respective school districtsor rather the white/nonwhite or black/other balance of the districts, since that is the only diversity addressed by the plans. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U. S. 467, 494 (1992). Because [o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens, such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional. It was about the nature of a democracy that must work for all Americans. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 6 (1971); see also Monroe v. Board of Commrs of Jackson, 391 U. S. 450, 452 (1968). To do so provides further reason to believe that the pluralitys approach is legally unsound. 2d 750 (opinion of Powell, J. [31], The opinion came less than two months before the start of the regular school year in King County and less than three weeks before the start of year-round school in the District. The enduring hope is that race should not matter; the reality is that too often it does. 2d 304. For the dissents purposes, the relevant hard-won gains are the present racial compositions in the individual schools in Seattle and Louisville. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peńa, 515 U. S. 200, 240 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Similarly, the citation of Crawford v. Board of Ed. See, e.g., Swann, supra, at 2627; Montgomery Co. Bd. The specific interest found compelling in Grutter was student body diversity in the context of higher education. Ibid. Pp. See Education Commission of the States, Open Enrollment: 50-State Report (2007), online at http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=268. v. Seattle Sch. However, racial imbalance without intentional state action to separate the races does not amount to segregation. I shall consequently ask whether the school boards in Seattle and Louisville adopted these plans to serve a compelling governmental interest and, if so, whether the plans are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Contrary to the dissents argument, post, at 44, the Louisville school districts interest in remedying its past de jure segregation did vanish the day the District Court found that Louisville had eliminated the vestiges of its historic de jure segregation. Post, at 22. Without attempting in these cases to set forth all the interests a school district might assert, it suffices to note that our prior cases, in evaluating the use of racial classifications in the school context, have recognized two interests that qualify as compelling. The board opposed dissolution, arguing that the old dual system had left a demographic imbalance that prevent[ed] dissolution. In 2000, after reviewing the present plan, the District Court dissolved the 1975 order. Justice Stevenss reliance on School Comm. And what of respect for democratic local decisionmaking by States and school boards? When a court subjects governmental action to strict scrutiny, it cannot construe ambiguities in favor of the State. And during the same time, hundreds of local school districts have adopted student assignment plans that use race-conscious criteria. The districts here invoke the ultimate goal of those who filed Brown and subsequent cases to support their argument, but the argument of the plaintiff in Brown was that the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from according differential treatment to American children on the basis of their color or race, and that view prevailedthis Court ruled in its remedial opinion that Brown required school districts to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 300301 (emphasis added). And my view was the rallying cry for the lawyers who litigated Brown. By this term, I mean the school districts interest in eliminating school-by-school racial isolation and increasing the degree to which racial mixture characterizes each of the districts schools and each individual students public school experience. Laws arise from a culture and vice versa. This school was 10 miles from home, and Meredith sought to transfer Joshua to a school in a different cluster, Bloom Elementary, whichlike his resides schoolwas only a mile from home. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 920 (1995), and I shall subject the tailoring of their plans to rigorous judicial review. Grutter, 539 U. S., at 388 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). 05908, at 103a (describing application of racial tiebreaker based on current white percentage of 41 percent and current minority percentage of 59 percent (emphasis added)). Court-Imposed Guidelines and Busing, 1972 to 1991. There is reason to believe that those who drafted an Amendment with this basic purpose in mind would have understood the legal and practical difference between the use of race-conscious criteria in defiance of that purpose, namely to keep the races apart, and the use of race-conscious criteria to further that purpose, namely to bring the races together. They constitute but one part of plans that depend primarily upon other, nonracial elements. The Seattle school district classifies children as white or nonwhite; the Jefferson County school district as black or other. In Seattle, this racial classification is used to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. of Oral Arg. This sentence reminds me of Anatole Frances observation: [T]he majestic equality of the la[w], forbid[s] rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.[Footnote 1] The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools. The Ninth Circuit dismissed fairly briefly the contention that PICS did not have a personal stake or suffer an actual injury, reasoning that it was satisfied because some of the parents had children who would reach high school age within the next several years. Public School Dist., 34 (Apr. Here the racial balance the districts seek is a defined range set solely by reference to the demographics of the respective school districts. To Harris? [Footnote 18]. The District contends that the first two benefits are important because public schools are responsible for developing good citizens. In doing so, it distorts precedent, it misapplies the relevant constitutional principles, it announces legal rules that will obstruct efforts by state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing resegregation of public schools, it threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation, and it undermines Browns promise of integrated primary and secondary education that local communities have sought to make a reality. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a sharply worded short dissent in which he accused the plurality of misusing and misapplying previous Supreme Court precedents including Brown v. Board of Education. The notion that a democratic interest qualifies as a compelling interest (or constitutes a part of a compelling interest) is proposed for the first time in todays dissent and has little basis in the Constitution or our precedent, which has narrowly restricted the interests that qualify as compelling. | University of Virginia School of Law Even when it comes to race, the plans here employ only a limited notion of diversity, viewing race exclusively in white/nonwhite terms in Seattle and black/other terms in Jefferson County. See App. 05908, p. 38a. in No. of Cal. Thus, at worst, a student would have to spend one year at a high school he did not pick as a first or second choice. See, e.g., post, at 21, 4849, 66. The panel determined that while achieving racial diversity and avoiding racial isolation are compelling government interests, id., at 964, Seattles use of the racial tiebreaker was not narrowly tailored to achieve these interests, id., at 980. The District Court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding that state law did not bar the districts use of the racial tiebreaker and that the plan survived strict scrutiny on the federal constitutional claim because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The plan paired (or triaded) imbalanced black schools with imbalanced white schools. Individual schools will fall in and out of balance in the natural course, and the appropriate balance itself will shift with a school districts changing demographics. The Ninth Circuit asked whether the Seattle school districts particular use of race in its admission process violated the state constitution. Four of Seattles high schools are located in the northBallard, Nathan Hale, Ingraham, and Rooseveltand five in the southRainier Beach, Cleveland, West Seattle, Chief Sealth, and Franklin. . Accord, post, at 61 (At a minimum, the pluralitys views would threaten a surge of race-based litigation. in No. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Brief for Petitioners at 27. One can attempt to identify a construction of Jefferson Countys student assignment plan that, at least as a logical matter, complies with these competing propositions; but this does not remedy the underlying problem. Sch. Neither of the parties has arguednor could theythat race-based student assignment is necessary to provide a bulwark against anarchy or to prevent violence. In Brown, this Court held that the governments segregation of schoolchildren by race violates the Constitutions promise of equal protection. In addition, Meredith sought damages in her complaint, which is sufficient to preserve our ability to consider the question. As for the Seattle case, the school district has gone further in describing the methods and criteria used to determine assignment decisions on the basis of individual racial classifications. The Seattle School Board challenged the constitutionality of the initiative. in No. 2006). The NAACPs First Legal Challenge and Seattles Response, 1969 to 1977. The Courts decision in that case was a grievous error it took far too long to overrule. v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406, 413 (1977); Dayton Bd. This Court has made many decisions of widespread effect; none would affect more people more directly in more fundamental interests and, in fact, cause more chaos in local government than a reversal of the decision in this case). First, in an open choice district like that in Seattle, using race as an isolated factor for admission may deny some students the opportunity to attend the school of their choice, thereby burdening those families affected. 1996) (Perhaps desegregation does not have a single effect, positive or negative, on the academic achievement of African American students, but rather some strategies help, some hurt, and still others make no difference whatsoever. 10 on Reargument in Brown I, O.T. 1953, p.15 (Summary of Argument). Sometimes a court refers to it as an interest in achieving racial diversity. Other times a court, like the plurality here, refers to it as an interest in racial balancing. I have used more general terms to signify that interest, describing it, for example, as an interest in promoting or preserving greater racial integration of public schools. In doing so, it consulted widely with parents and other members of the local community, using public presentations, public meetings, and various other methods to obtain the publics input. Without the racial tiebreaker, the class would have been 39.6 percent Asian-American, 30.2 percent African-American, 8.3 percent Latino, 1.1 percent Native-American, and 20.8 percent Caucasian. The dissent refers to an opinion filed by Judge Kozinski in one of the cases now before us, and that opinion relied upon an opinion filed by Chief Judge Boudin in a case presenting an issue similar to the one here. past cases have est. v. Barksdale, 348 F.2d 261, 266 (CA1 1965). Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal does not mean they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it, or that their racial classifications should be subject to less exacting scrutiny. wa.us/ The compelling interest at issue here, then, includes an effort to eradicate the remnants, not of general societal discrimination, ante, at 23 (plurality opinion), but of primary and secondary school segregation, see supra, at 7, 14; it includes an effort to create school environments that provide better educational opportunities for all children; it includes an effort to help create citizens better prepared to know, to understand, and to work with people of all races and backgrounds, thereby furthering the kind of democratic government our Constitution foresees.