EQUITY & DISCRIMINATION
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined (on Monday, December 5, 2005) to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's decision in
Comfort v. Lynn School Committee, Docket No. 05-348, upholding the Lynn School Committee's (MA) voluntary desegregation plan that uses race as a factor in assigning students to schools.
The suit was brought in 1999 by a group of (Lynn, Massachusetts) parents who sought to overturn the student assignment plan on the grounds that it is racially discriminatory.
Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, who defended Lynn, says, "'I think the message is that Lynn's voluntary school assignment plan is a system that works and a plan that meets constitutional muster." On the other hand, attorney Chester Darling, who represented the (Lynn) parents (who want to end the desegregation voluntary program), calls the plan a "quota system." "'Color coordinating should be confined to judges' homes, not classrooms," says Mr. Darling.
(The City of) Lynn (School Committee) adopted its student assignment plan in 1989 to achieve racial balance after white enrollment plummeted. Lynn Mayor Edward Clancy, Jr., who is also chairman of the school committee, insists that the student assignment plan has been effective in dealing with "the difficult and potentially divisive issue
racial balance in the schools." However, Tracey Maclin, a constitutional law professor at Boston University, cautions that the Supreme Court's refusal to review the case does not signal the Court's acceptance of the use of race in student assignment plans. He says, "There's nothing in the denial itself that suggests the court was thinking one way or the other."
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2005/12/06/high_court_wont_hear_lynn_plan_for_schools/
(bold-faced type emphasis added by TaleWgnDg) .
What all this means is that the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refused to hear the review (appeal) of the federal appeals court opinion that the Lynn, MA desegregation plan is A-okay u/ our federal constitution. And, that
it means that Lynn, Massachusetts will continue its public school desegregation plan that it instituted in 1989. Nothing else should be "read" into SCOTUS rejecting this review/appeal. Why? Because there may be a multitude of legal reasons why SCOTUS doesn't grant review/appeal. Broadly speaking, we, lawyers, learn early-on in law school
never attempt to get into the minds of the 9 Justices to guess the rationale of denial of review (
certiorari) is ordered.
BTW, Chester A. Darling is the "darling" of the uber-rightwingnut contingency of Massachusetts. He "adores" taking rightwing cases whether it's against homosexuals marching in a parade or same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, or denying affirmative action or civil rights on the basis of race or homosexuality or gender. You find Darling on the side of the rightwing crying "foul!" and "I'll see you in court, federal court!" Intimidating? Well, Chester, you lost this state and federal case but cost the taxpayers of Lynn, Massachusetts and Massachusetts a lot of costly litigation and emotional drainage.
On the other hand, Massachusetts AG Tom Reilly should be thanked for his tenacity, once again, fighting on in federal court to uphold the Lynn desegregation program. Thanks, Tom!
(To obtain Attorney General Tom Reilly's further case work, go to
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/ . . . then go to left-hand column, enter "cases" in search site box then hit "enter" . . . )
_________________________
edited to add hyperlink to underlying lower federal appellate court case (the First District Federal Appeals Court, Boston, MA) opinion,
Comfort v. Lynn School Committee (#03-2415, June 15, 2005):
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2415.01A.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
