Chief seattle speech pdf

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Seal of the United States Chief seattle speech pdf Court.

Parents Involved in Community Schools, Petitioner v. Jefferson County Board of Education, et al. The student assignment plan of Seattle Public Schools and Jefferson County Public Schools does not meet the narrowly tailored and compelling interest requirements for a race-based assignment plan because it is used only to achieve “racial balance. Public schools may not use race as the sole determining factor for assigning students to schools. Race-conscious objectives to achieve diverse school environment may be acceptable.

The Court recognized that seeking diversity and avoiding racial isolation are compelling state interests. 4 on key aspects of the case, with Justice Kennedy writing the swing vote opinion. With respect to avoiding racial isolation, Kennedy wrote that, ” compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. He went on to say that, “hat the government is not permitted to do, absent a showing of necessity not made here, is to classify every student on the basis of race and to assign each of them to schools based on that classification. According to Justice Kennedy, “The cases here were argued upon the assumption, and come to us on the premise, that the discrimination in question did not result from de jure actions. Justice Breyer questioned the utility “of looking simply to whether earlier school segregation was de jure or de facto in order to draw firm lines separating the constitutionally permissible from the constitutionally forbidden use of ‘race-conscious’ criteria. Justice Breyer notes, “No one here disputes that Louisville’s segregation was de jure” and cites a 1956 memo where the Seattle School Board admitted its schools were de jure segregated as well.

All of the dissenting Justices acknowledged that “the Constitution does not impose a duty to desegregate upon districts,” if the districts have not practiced racial discrimination. However, the dissenters argued that the Constitution permits such desegregation, even though it does not require it. Regents of the University of California v. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal. Asian-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and African-Americans were all treated solely as “non-white” for purposes of the tiebreaker.

scroll to top