Georgia, a major suburb of Atlanta, was charged with operating a dual school system and underwent court-ordered desegregation oversight by the United States District Court. DCSS has been under the supervision and jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 1969, when it was ordered to dismantle its dual school system. DCSS had been operating a separate school system for
Caucasians and for African Americans since 1969. It had created a desegregation plan and had carried out the plans details. In 1986, after implementing the desegregation decree in student attendance and three other important factors, DCSS filed a motion for final dismissal from court-ordered desegregation. The District Court ruled that DCSS had not achieved full unitary status, but had done so in student attendance. DCSS was not a completely integrated school district at this time but had taken steps in order to pursue greater diversity in its schools. In its order, the District Court relinquished remedial control regarding those aspects of the system in which unitary status had been achieved, and retained supervisory authority only for those aspects of the school system in which the district was not in full compliance (Freeman v. Pitts, 1991).
As Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Milliken v. Bradley (1974), Estes v. Metropolitan Branches, Dallas National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) (1980), , Bell v. Board of Education, Akron Public Schools, (1982), and Freeman v. Pitts (1991) have shown, courts have attempted to step in and correct racial disparities with deep roots in both housing and school discrimination. Table 2
Table 2
Comparison of Related Cases to Dowell (1991)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Milliken v. Bradley (1974) Estes v. Dallas NAACP (1980) Bell v. Akron (1982) Freeman v. Pitts (1991) BOE of OKCPS v. Dowell (1991) Court Ordered Desegregation Decrees X X Residential Segregation X X X X School Segregation X X X X
Voluntary Desegregation Plans
In slight contrast, two very current desegregation cases allow for a look into the other side of forced segregation-voluntary desegregation. Parents Involved in
Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) were heard together and struck down together by the U.S. Supreme Court in a five to four vote on June 29, 2007. Parents Involved in
Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) occurred in Seattle, Washington and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) occurred in Louisville, Kentucky and will be henceforth referred to as the Seattle/Louisville (2007) cases. Both cases present the same issue, whether a public school that had not
previously operated segregated schools could choose to classify students based on race and use those racial classifications to make school assignments. (Parents Involved in
Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 2007 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 2007, p. 908-915) These two cases are now known as the Seattle/Louisville (2007) cases. Each case was ultimately struck down because of its use of race in student assignment plans. Both plans used race as one factor in attempting to achieve a more racially balanced school district. However, this violates the Equal Protection Clause. These two cases are distinguishable from their conscious use of race as a determinant in school assignment plans to attain greater student diversity. Previous desegregation cases, such as Freeman v. Pitts (1991) or BOE of OKCPS v. Dowell (1963-1991) were court ordered to implement desegregation plans in order to pursue greater student diversity. The Seattle School District and the Jefferson County Board of Education of Louisville followed plans that considered ethnicity more heavily than any other factor. Both cases utilized a race conscious method. They used student race as a factor in assigning students to schools solely for the purposes of achieving greater racial balance with their schools.
Consequently, the court invalidated the race conscious method for increasing and attaining greater student diversity. However, no single reason or rationale was agreed upon by the court. One Justice, Justice Kennedy wrote, at length, a separate rationale for it to be clear that student race can be used in developing student diversity as long as it is not the sole factor used. (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 2007 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of
Education, 2007, p. 908-915) The plans developed by these school districts were too narrow and failed to utilize other factors in assigning students to schools.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. (2007). A nonprofit group, Parents Involved in Community Schools, charged that certain considerations of race in student assignment plans put in place by the District to increase diversity were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Seattle Public Schools have shown a commitment to creating and maintaining desegregated and diverse schools. Seattle Public Schools has never been under court control for the desegregation of their schools. Seattle has made huge efforts to offer a diverse and equal educational experience. Before the beginning of the 1998– 1999 school year, the District put into place an open choice plan, or the plan that allowed students entering the ninth grade to select from any of the district’s 10 four- year high schools. Students were assigned according to their first choice. When too many students list a specific high school as their first choice, the district then employs a series of tiebreakers in the assignment process. The first tiebreaker considers other siblings attending the school. The second tiebreaker is utilized at the point when a high school is both chosen by too many students or, oversubscribed, and racially imbalanced. Then, race is applied as a single determining factor in the decision. Implemented in November 2000, this second tiebreaker is considered turned “off” whenever the ninth grade population falls within a 15% variance from the racial makeup of all students attending Seattle public schools (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1, 2007, p. 701). At this point, a student’s race is no longer considered in the assignment process. Furthermore, after the racial imbalance is corrected, replacing the “turned off” second tiebreaker, a third tiebreaker is
tiebreaker, the fourth tiebreaker, consists of a lottery used to assign any remaining students to high school.
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007). Jefferson County