C-SPAN begins streaming
C-SPAN has begun streaming oral argument in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District. Options for both listening and “watching” online can be found here.
C-SPAN begins streaming
5 Comments »
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Standing and mootness briefly came up as issue in the oral argument, with respect to whether the parents group had standing to challenge the policy.
The case doesn’t seem moot, since although the Seattle Schools have temporarily stopped using race pending litigation, they are strongly ideologically committed to the use of race.
On their web sites, they have made the following bizarre claims:
(1) They have claimed that “concepts such a melting pot” and being “colorblind” are outmoded and “unsuccessful.”
(2) They have claimed that “individualism” is a form of “cultural racism”
(3) They have claimed that different races have different characteristics rooted in stereotypes (i.e., that whites plan ahead (have a “future time orientation”); and
(4) They have claimed that only whites can be racist.
These positions illustrate that the Seattle Schools are very hostile to colorblind public policy, and are likely to abandon race-neutral assignment policies as soon as they can if the lawsuit against them is dismissed.
Thus, the case is not mooted by the temporary suspension of the use of race pending litigation.
As the Supreme Court observed in its Adarand and W.T. Grant decisions, a case is not mooted by voluntary cessation of the challenged policy unless it is absolutely clear that the challenged policy will not be reinstated.
Comment by Hans Bader — December 4, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
As the Solicitor General argued, and Justice Kennedy suggested, racial classifications are not the same as race-consciousness. Striking down the Seattle School District’s use of race thus does not call into question laudable attempts to achieve a melting pot in our schools and our society.
It is permissible to be race-conscious when making making government decisions, like choosing where to site a new school so that both white and minority students will leave near it and find it convenient to attend, or setting up a magnet school in hopes that its offerings will attract students of an underrepresented racial group.
It is not permissible, however, to use racial classifications in assigning students, such as barring whites from a school with too many whites, or barring Asians from attending a school with too many other minorities, unless there is a compelling state interest for doing so, and the use of race is narrowly tailored.
Racially classifying students, or denying a student admission to a school based on his or her race, is divisive, harmful, and potentially stigmatizing, in ways that considering racial demographics in choosing where to site a school is not.
And as Justice Kennedy (I think) observed, the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)emphasized that “racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.”
Racial balancing is what the Seattle School District is doing. That has been pointed out even by liberal Supreme Court reporters who support affirmative action, as I noted in my prior blog comments about this case.
Seattle’s attorney argues that since all students in Seattle can go to some school, even if not their preferred school, that distinguishes the Seattle case from the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions case (Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)), which struck down an admissions system in which some students were not admitted at all because of their race.
It doesn’t. In Gratz, the students were able to go to some school in the University of Michigan system, too. They were rejected by the University of Michigan AT ANN ARBOR under its race-based admissions system. But they had the opportunity to go to the University of Michigan AT DEARBORN, where Gratz in fact attended.
Thus, Seattle’s race-based assignment policy, just like the University of Michigan’s race-based assignment policy, inflicts a competitive injury upon students.
Comment by Hans Bader — December 4, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Hans,
I am not a prohpet. But if you think your side of the case is having an easy time at oral argument, you haven’t been listening to the oral arguments.
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — December 4, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Any idea where/when an on demand or downloadable file will be available?
-Bradley Gottfried
Comment by bradleyjg — December 4, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
It’s available now, Brad.
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — December 4, 2006 @ 1:45 pm