Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority: "... Before Brown , schoolchildren were told where they...
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority:
“… Before Brown [v. Board of Education, 1954], schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases [Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky.] have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again — even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way ‘to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis’ … is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Justice Clarence Thomas,
- Amazon.com just tip of Seattle boom
- Boeing retools Renton plant for 737's big ramp-up
- 14 million spilled bees on I-5: 'Everybody's been stung'
- Nelson Cruz drives in five, including winning run
- Aaron Hernandez: A $40 million murderer
Most Read Stories
“… Racial imbalance is the failure of a school district’s individual schools to match or approximate the demographic makeup of the student population at large. Racial imbalance is not segregation. Although presently observed racial imbalance might result from past de jure segregation, racial imbalance can also result from any number of innocent private decisions, including voluntary housing choices. Because racial imbalance is not inevitably linked to unconstitutional segregation, it is not unconstitutional in and of itself.” …
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who concurred but also wrote his own opinion:
“… School boards may pursue the goal of bringing together students of diverse backgrounds and races through other means, including strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones with general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance and other statistics by race. These mechanisms are race-conscious but do not lead to different treatment based on a classification that tells each student he or she is to be defined by race, so it is unlikely any of them would demand strict scrutiny to be found permissible.”
Justice Stephen Breyer,
“… I do not claim to know how best to stop harmful discrimination; how best to create a society that includes all Americans; how best to overcome our serious problems of increasing de facto segregation, troubled inner-city schooling, and poverty correlated with race. But, as a judge, I do know that the Constitution does not authorize judges to dictate solutions to these problems. Rather, the Constitution creates a democratic political system through which the people themselves must together find answers. And it is for them to debate how best to educate the nation’s children and how best to administer America’s schools to achieve that aim. The court should leave them to their work. And it is for them to decide, to quote the plurality’s slogan, whether the best “way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” … The last half-century has witnessed great strides toward racial equality, but we have not yet realized the promise of Brown. To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown. The plurality’s position, I fear, would break that promise. This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret.”