Massachusetts News

February 11--Lawyers for the Commonwealth tried to persuade federal Judge Nancy Gertner yesterday that the state’s "1964 Racial Imbalance Act" was necessary to preserve order in the state’s public schools and that assigning students to schools based upon their race served a compelling governmental interest.

The case, Samantha J. Comfort, on behalf of her minor child, Elizabeth Neumeyer v. the Lynn School Committee and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is but the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by parents challenging government policies that assign students to schools based on race. 

The lawyer for the students told the court, "Here, the Commonwealth is arguing that racial balancing is the primary goal." Michael Williams, staff attorney for Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, said that this kind of blatant, race-based scheme will not withstand constitutional muster. 

The case, brought on behalf of five students of different and mixed racial backgrounds presents an interesting and dizzying dynamic that has not been present in other cases. One of the students is black, two are of mixed race, black and white, one is white, and one is Hispanic and white. 

"You have two sisters of mixed race," Williams said. "The city allowed one to transfer because they thought she was black. The other was listed as white, and she was denied the transfer. They were sisters."

Under Lynn’s plan, student assignments that contribute to "racial isolation" can be voided and replaced with an assignment that fosters greater diversity. Over twenty other cities and towns utilize the same type of "voluntary" race based plan used by Lynn, so the stakes are enormous should plaintiffs prevail and the court order the plan dismantled. 

Richard Cole, Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights, Civil Liberties Division of the State Attorney General’s Office, argued that if the court granted the injunction sought by students and ordered Lynn to abandon its student assignment policies, the state would stop providing Lynn with extra state educational aid, and the harm that would be inflicted by the loss of funds was serious enough to meet the exception that mandates that a judge refuse relief. 

Williams said he hoped the judge saw this for what it was, a threat. "Our response was, first of all, there’s no amount of loss of money that can make up for discrimination. That’s no excuse for discriminating against students. We pointed out that the argument always has been, ‘We can’t afford to do this,’ an argument they’re using now. Also, the city of Lynn finally answered plaintiffs’ request for admissions. In those responses they [Lynn] admitted that they never considered alternatives. That’s part of the narrow tailoring required by the Constitution." 

Williams said that the state’s argument, that failure to assign students to schools based on race would lead to a segregated system, is constitutionally obsolete; and that its argument that eliminating race will lead to racial strife is unconscionable. As for the first argument, Williams said, "The Supreme Court has already rejected that argument before. It is only unconstitutional when you have state-imposed segregation." 

Williams said he expects the judge to rule on the motion for injunctive relief no later than March, since that’s when the new student assignments start. Lawyers for the state were given until February 21st to file a response to CPCR’s briefs.

One other factor may also alter the course of this case. It has been reported to Massachusetts News that Governor Cellucci’s new budget proposes that school funding no longer be based on whether the community uses a racial balancing assignment plan. The new budget would base spending on the financial need of the school district. Williams said, "That would be a common sense way of doing things. The beneficiaries of that kind of spending program would be poor communities." 

Chester Darling, whose group has taken on this and other controversial issues with unexpected success in the past was emphatic. "The federal court has the obligation and duty to stop the discrimination against school children funded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." 

The state’s Attorney General Tom O’Reilly sat quietly in the gallery watching the proceedings.
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE