Oral Presentations - Session 2B: UC 327
PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL. (2007): RACE-BASED ASSIGNMENT PLAN
Presentation Type
Presentation
Faculty Mentor’s Full Name
James Lopach
Faculty Mentor’s Department
Political Science
Abstract / Artist's Statement
The Fourteenth Amendment promises all citizens of the United States equal protection of the laws, but it’s not always clear how equal protection is accomplished. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. (2007), the districts in question were challenged for programs that allocated entry into public schools based on race in order to “balance” the composition of the student body. The Seattle School District argued that its race-based assignment plan was to prevent the unconstitutional practice of racial segregation and to assure racial diversity in schools. In a 5-4 decision the court ruled in favor of Parents Involved and found both programs unconstitutional. The study of constitutional law sheds light on how different interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause can be construed and affect the legality of something like Seattle’s assignment plan. The significance of this case, which I intend to highlight, is not in the decision itself but in the differentiation between the majority and dissenting interpretations of the precedent Equal Protection case Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The majority in Seattle held that Brown completely forbade race-based admission into schools under the Fourteenth Amendment, whereas the dissent argued that Brown promised to make racially integrated schools available. Because a court can take the same precedent case and still come to radically different conclusions, I will in my presentation analyze the facts and reasoning of each side and conclude with which I believe to be correct.
Category
Social Sciences
PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL. (2007): RACE-BASED ASSIGNMENT PLAN
UC 327
The Fourteenth Amendment promises all citizens of the United States equal protection of the laws, but it’s not always clear how equal protection is accomplished. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. (2007), the districts in question were challenged for programs that allocated entry into public schools based on race in order to “balance” the composition of the student body. The Seattle School District argued that its race-based assignment plan was to prevent the unconstitutional practice of racial segregation and to assure racial diversity in schools. In a 5-4 decision the court ruled in favor of Parents Involved and found both programs unconstitutional. The study of constitutional law sheds light on how different interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause can be construed and affect the legality of something like Seattle’s assignment plan. The significance of this case, which I intend to highlight, is not in the decision itself but in the differentiation between the majority and dissenting interpretations of the precedent Equal Protection case Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The majority in Seattle held that Brown completely forbade race-based admission into schools under the Fourteenth Amendment, whereas the dissent argued that Brown promised to make racially integrated schools available. Because a court can take the same precedent case and still come to radically different conclusions, I will in my presentation analyze the facts and reasoning of each side and conclude with which I believe to be correct.