Pics decision seattle

DeFunis, 82 Wash. We rejected his claim. We declared in DeFunis that "the constitution is color conscious to prevent the perpetuation of discrimination and to undo the effects of past segregation.

We found that this State had an overwhelming and compelling need to have minority judges and attorneys. This court has repeatedly and clearly found that segregation offends the values of our national constitution, be that segregation de facto or de jure, and that school districts are empowered to work to end that discrimination. Attempts to desegregate our nation's schools, businesses, and institutions have sometimes led to claims of reverse discrimination.

Historically, courts have distinguished between reverse discrimination and racially neutral programs. For our purposes, reverse discrimination refers to programs that grant a preference to less qualified persons over more qualified persons based upon race. Johnson v. Valley Sch. Reverse discrimination has sometimes been referred to as the "stacked deck" approach to achieve racial balance. See, e. Equity v. Wilson, F.

Racially neutral programs treat all races equally and do not provide an advantage to the less qualified, but do take positive steps to achieve greater representation of underrepresented groups.

Racially neutral programs have been referred to as "reshuffle" programs. Contractors of Cal. Unified Sch. This difference between "preference programs" and other types of affirmative action measures has been recognized in other contexts.

Said one scholar:. The writings of Justice Hale help to crystallize the distinction between preferential affirmative action or reverse discrimination and race neutral balancing.

Writing for the majority in Palmason, Justice Hale upheld a racially neutral bussing integration program which treated minorities and Caucasians alike saying:.

One year later in DeFunis, this court upheld, on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, a clearly "preferential" program where minorities with lower undergraduate grades and law school admission test scores were admitted to the University of Washington School of Law as part of an affirmative action program to achieve greater diversity among lawyers. There, Justice Hale dissented declaring: "Racial bigotry, prejudice and intolerance will never be ended by exalting the political rights of one group or class over those of another.

The circle of inequality cannot be broken by shifting the inequities from one man to his neighbor. Finally, of current significance is the movement during the late s aimed at curtailing affirmative action, which culminated in Washington with the vote on I Many of its proponents saw no significant difference between oppressive laws, traditions, and policies used to separateand subjugatebased on race, such as Jim Crow laws, and race conscious policies to end racial oppression and segregation.

Whether reverse discrimination was justified or necessary to reverse the effects or racial discriminatory practice of the past was hotly debated. Amid this heated national debate, California voters, in , passed Proposition , and two years later Washington voters followed suit by adopting I, now codified as RCW While similar in many ways, it was not the same measure as California's Proposition Most importantly, the language differed significantly.

Also, structurally, Proposition was a proposed amendment to the California Constitution, while I was a proposed statutory change. After the Washington election, the populist antiaffirmative action movement faded.

A clone of Proposition failed to reach the ballot in Florida. Sylvia R. With Washington's unique historical perspective in mind, we turn to the certified questions. We are invited by the Ninth Circuit and the parties to determine whether article IX, sections 1 and 2 of the Washington State Constitution requires measures to mitigate de facto segregation of schools, or merely permits such efforts. Because it is of such undoubted significance to the statutory questions, we will briefly address this before turning to the statutory question.

We have never squarely addressed this issue in the context of our state constitution. Our racial segregation cases have been analytically grounded on the Fourteenth Amendment. However, as Judge Rothstein noted, these cases were decided within the context of education and Washington's unique approach to the State's paramount duty to provide a general and uniform basic education to all children regardless of race, color, caste, or sex.

The School District argues that an integrated education is integral to a general and uniform basic education because a segregated education is an inferior education.

It contends that students who are provided a racially and ethnically rich educational experience are better equipped to live and succeed in a racially and ethnically diverse world.

Historically, courts have often treated racial balancing programs in education different from similar programs involving employment, public contracts and housing. Bakke, U. The goals of teaching tolerance and cooperation among the races, of molding values free of racial prejudice, of preventing minority students from becoming isolated from the rest of the educational system, and eliminating or preventing the emergence of a problematic class of "minority schools" are integral to the mission of public schools.

Goose Creek Consol. As one court noted:. Booker v. We are not so far removed from the time when minorities were systematically excluded from educational benefits to not be wary of any policy or practice that might deprive any child of an ample, general and uniform education. Further, there is strong empirical evidence that a racially diverse school population provides educational benefits for all students. Most students educated in racially diverse schools demonstrated improved critical thinking skillsthe ability to both understand and challenge views which are different from their own.

Research has also shown that a diverse educational experience improves race relations, reduces prejudicial attitudes, and achieves a more democratic and inclusive experience for all citizens, PICS I, F. In some circumstances the federal constitution requires positive measures to overcome racial segregation.

Admittedly, we have never explicitly held that the state constitution requires racial integration. We have, however, been unwavering in holding that article IX imposes upon the State the paramount duty to provide an ample, general, and uniform basic education to all children.

However, given the procedural posture of this case and the fact that we can answer the certified question without deciding the constitutionality of RCW We accordingly turn to the statutory questions. The court must decide whether the open choice enrollment plan violates RCW This turns on the meanings of two words; "preference" and "discrimination.

Alternatively, they argue that to the extent RCW If the statute's meaning is plain and unambiguous, as PICS claims, then no construction is necessary. If it is not, consideration of other authorities, such as case law and ballot materials, is appropriate. We must decide whether the terms apply to reverse discrimination as we have defined it where a less qualified applicant is given advantage over a more qualified applicant , or, as is urged by PICS, whether the initiative forbids all cognizance of race by the State, even to serve the core mission of the schools.

We find several difficulties with PICS's position. This clause strongly implies that RCW PICS argues that subsection 3 is merely a restatement of subsection 1 , but stated differently.

PICS would have us read the initiative as if words did not exist; in this case all of the words in subsection 3. If at all possible, we are required to "give effect to every word, clause and sentence in a statute," leaving no part superfluous. Cox v. Helenius, Wash.

Subsection 3 unequivocally states that some government action within the subject area of the initiative would not be affected, and thus strongly suggests to the average voter that some race conscious action by the government is permissible.

Subsection 3 carves out from the prohibition of the statute government action cognizant of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin that does not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment based on the enumerated characteristics. The word "preference" also appears in article IX, section 1 of our constitution, which obligates the State to provide ample education "without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

A racially neutral plan, which gives no race an advantage over another, was not a preference within our parlance in , nor is it now. If the School District used a random selection process as a tie breaker a flip of the coin, for example , we would not, in common parlance, describe the selection as a "discrimination" or "preference.

The meaning of "discriminate against" is less clear. One dictionary defines "discriminate" as either "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a class or categorical basis in disregard of individual merit against a certain nationality.

We conclude that RCW When interpreting RCW Our courts have repeatedly defined basic education broadly to include preparing students for citizenship and to succeed in the world. Further, there is considerable evidence that a segregated education is an inferior education.

The average informed voter would be aware of the distinctions drawn between reverse discrimination and race neutral balancing programs sometimes referred to as "stacked deck" and "reshuffle" programs. Subsection 3 of the statute suggests that some race conscious decisions or actions by the State would be permitted. We agree with the School District that the average informed voter would have believed that I only prohibited reverse discrimination where a less qualified person or applicant is given an advantage over a more qualified applicant.

An average informed voter would understand that racially neutral programs designed to foster and promote diversity to provide enriched educationally environments would be permitted by the initiative. Third, where the court finds that a law is susceptible to multiple interpretations, the standard tools of statutory construction apply to determine the voter's intent, including resorting to extrinsic sources.

The proponents of the initiative's own ballot statements provide strong support for our conclusion. The proponents included prominently a statement limiting the reach of I Given this language, an average voter would have understood that I does not ban all affirmative action programs, and would only prohibit the type of affirmative action we have described as "reverse discrimination" or "stacked deck" programs. Other ballot statements bolster our interpretation.

The effect of the proposed measure would thus depend on how its provisions was interpreted and applied. This would have put the reasonably informed lay voter on notice that at least some "preferential treatment" may be allowed based upon interpretations and applications. PICS correctly notes other ballot statements which support its interpretation. Arguably, anything that takes race into account is not colorblind.

However, the Statement For I goes on to say "[b]ut instead of ignoring race, the government uses it through the use of racial quotas, preferences and set-asides. Thus, the emphasis is again placed upon instances of "reverse discrimination," such as college quotas and minority set asides. We find the analytical frameworks and analysis of all of our sister courts useful, but we do not find the comparisons between I and Proposition compelling. First, and critically, although very similar in language, Proposition did not contain the language found in subsection 3 :.

Since this language strongly suggests that I would not prohibit all government acts cognizant of race, the language of I is strikingly different from the language of Proposition Second, the history of California, and in particular the history of its constitution, civil rights legislation, and California courts' jurisprudence in the field of education and civil rights, differs from that of Washington.

See generally Hyytinen, supra. California has no equivalent to our seminal Seattle School District No. Further, I and Proposition play different roles structurally. Proposition is an amendment to the constitution of California.

I was proposed legislation, subject to the constitution of the State of Washington and the underlying principles of article IX, section 1 which mandates as paramount the duty to provide an education to impress upon our children the principles of morality, truth, justice; the critical skills needed in the modern world to equip our children for their roles as citizens and potential competitors in market as well as the marketplace of ideas.

Third, the ballot statements for Proposition and I are markedly different. The ballot statement for Proposition did not have the illuminative language contained in the Statement For I that, "Initiative does not end all affirmative action programs.

It prohibits only those programs that use race or gender to select a less qualified applicant over a more deserving applicant The only cases decided before the vote on I lend support to the proposition that Proposition did not apply to school desegregation programs. See Wilson, F. Kidd v. California, 62 Cal. It does not prohibit the Seattle School District's open choice plan tie breaker based upon race so long as it remains neutral on race and ethnicity and does not promote a less qualified minority applicant over a more qualified applicant.

We hold that the open choice plan's use of a racially cognizant tie breaker does not violate RCW The School District's open choice plan does not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as meant by law. To the extent the tie breaker is race conscious, it furthers a core mission of public education; to make available an equal, uniform and enriching educational environment to all students within the district.

While we do not reach the constitutional question, we note that article IX imposes on the State the mandatory and paramount duty to provide an education that prepares students for citizenship. This may require positive steps to provide a diverse, culturally rich and racially integrated educational experience. The majority stretches to read ambiguity into RCW I believe the dissent correctly concludes the terms "discriminate" and "preference" in the statute are not ambiguous.

The only reasonable interpretation of "discriminate" in the context of this statute is to treat a person or class less favorably than another without regard to individual merit. Webster's Third New International Dictionary Granting preferential treatment means to provide some advantage to some person or group not available to others. See majority at These two terms represent two sides of the same coin; the statute prohibits both more favorable and less favorable treatment on the basis of a person's or group's race.

However, while I agree with the dissent's conclusion that there is no ambiguity in the statute respecting these terms, I do not agree that the dissent's conclusion follows. In my view, the Seattle School District's open school plan, including its tie breakers, does not favor or disfavor any person or group on the basis of race. All individuals and groups of a particular race are treated the same as those of another race, with the goal of mirroring the community's diversity in the schools.

Sometimes that means that an African-American student will prevail in a particular tie breaker situation, and sometimes that means a Caucasian, or Asian, or other racially classified individual will prevail. No particular race is singled out for preferential treatment, and no particular race is discriminated against. I would find that the statute is unambiguous and that the Seattle School District's open school plan, including its second tie breaker providing for consideration of race, does not violate RCW Accordingly, in response to the federal court's certified question, I would answer "no," the Seattle School District's use of a racial tie breaker to determine high school assignments does not "discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question of Washington law to this court:.

Indeed, no case illustrated this fact more so than Milliken v. Bradley Milliken I, Milliken I was actually three cases consolidated in Michigan. These cases addressed whether multi-district desegregation remedies were constitutional. At its core, this decision came down to the value of local control Superfine, and the policy tools they implement Armor, So while Green, Swann, and Keyes highlighted the centrality of federal control Superfine, and the remedies under which local desegregation plans existed, Milliken I underscored a turning point, ushering in a new policy regime.

Ensuing cases consequently dealt with restricting policy tool definitions. For example, Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman Dayton I challenged the use of a district-wide remedy when segregation exists only in certain schools. The Court found such idiosyncratic behavior on the part of schools did not merit district-wide desegregation. Equally, such divergence was demonstrated in Crawford v. Board of Education and Washington v.

Likewise, Seattle centered on Initiative , which had prohibited school boards from requiring students to attend schools located outside of their residential neighborhood. Despite their similarities, the Court handed down conflicting opinions, thereby contributing to the incoherence in K desegregation law that began under Milliken I.

Dowell Dowell II eliminated mandatory busing remedies within a school district. In this way, the Court became laissez-faire about enforcing specific policy tool remedies for desegregation, so long as they had complied in good faith. Locally, however, this had unintended consequences— particularly for urban communities Heise, Suddenly, children went back to neighborhood schools Conneeley, — schools that exhibited stark differences in racial make-up and wealth.

Indeed, these policy shifts spurred by Court jurisprudence continued with two other rulings. First, Freeman v. Pitts found it constitutional to lift parts of a Consent Decree when those provisions were satisfied. Second, in Missouri v. Jenkins Missouri II , the Court found it unconstitutional for a district to implement an intra-district integration plan with the purpose of attracting nonminority students.

Taken together, the Supreme Court not only limited the extent to which Consent Decree provisions would be enforced but what voluntary remedies could be introduced by local districts. By the turn of the century, the Court appeared to be wholly disinterested with K desegregation. They refused to hear such cases as Belk v. In doing so, they signaled both a decentralization of authority and an inability to continue managing desegregation policy tools Superfine, Indeed, Brown sought to rid the vestiges of American slavery, succeeding Jim Crow laws, and their impact on K public education.

Towards these ends, the Court found federally mandated desegregation ensured educational equality for all. Nevertheless, when one examines the PICS and Meredith decision, there is an epistemological change in the means by which equality and diversity are viewed under law. Why racial diversity matters.

First, according to the Government Accountability Office , from school years to , the proportion of K public schools reporting high percentages i. Within urban districts, these numbers are more pronounced. Second, findings show racial segregation is correlated with high rates of poverty Ananat, and disparate learning opportunities in neighborhood schools Lleras, Still, the U.

Taken together, this paper will empirically illustrate such issues— particularly for urban districts Ravitch, —and the extent to which PICS and Meredith may have played a role. Methods Sample As discussed, Chicago Public Schools was selected as a case for studying the efficacy of ensuing proxy policies replacing race-based student assignment strategies. Patton argues while studying one case does not yield broad generalizations, it does, however, afford logical generalizations from the weight of evidence produced.

At the same time, CPS sought to be a policy innovator post-PICS, producing one of the most comprehensive, race-neutral student assignment policy tools in the nation. On the other hand, we also selected a comparison group of 19 open enrollment neighborhood CPS schools. Their inclusion helps to account for changes in overall community demographics that may generally impact student racial demographics in our selective enrollment sample.

These 19 open enrollment schools were selected based on their geographic proximity, as determined by postal code, to one or more of the selective enrollment high schools included in our study.

Geographic proximity for open enrollment school selection was determined using the school locator tool found on the CPS website Chicago Public Schools, c. NCES public school data is taken from the Common Core of Data CCD surveys that are conducted annually and collect general descriptive information, student and staff characteristics data, and fiscal data from all public schools in the United States. Five separate analyses were conducted using percent African American enrollment, percent Asian enrollment, percent Hispanic enrollment, percent Native American enrollment, and percent White enrollment as dependent variables in the analyses with selective or open enrollment schools used as the between-schools factor.

In addition to comparing CPS selective high schools with open enrollment schools, upper-tier academic performance selective schools were also compared to lower-tier academic performance selective schools.

Upper- and lower-tier academic performance schools were identified using multiple criteria, including CPS school quality ratings, percent acceptance rates, percent college enrollment, and U. Using these criteria, Whitney M. Due to the further reduced sample size, this comparison was made using descriptive statistics and visual inspection of longitudinal graphs.

However, because the overall sample size was small due to the nature of this study as a pilot for examining a specific case of race-neutral enrollment policies, individual mean differences in enrollment were still examined where the overall ANOVA was not significant. At all three time-points, white student enrollment was significantly higher at selective schools compared to open enrollment schools, however there was no significant change in either school type across time.

The results for enrollment of students of color in selective schools compared to open enrollment schools from can be compared to these patterns of change for white students see Figure 1. However, there were no significant differences between selective and open enrollment schools at any single time-point.

However, there was no significant change in Asian student enrollment following the SES Tier Policy implementation in There were no significant changes in Asian student enrollment across time-points in neighborhood schools. The overall ANOVA comparing Hispanic student enrollment between selective schools and open enrollment schools from was not significant. At all three time-points, there is no significant difference in enrollment of Hispanic students between selective and open enrollment schools.

However, there were no significant differences in Hispanic student enrollment at selective schools between i. There were no significant differences in Hispanic student enrollment in neighborhood schools between any time-points. However, there is no significant difference in Native American student enrollment at selective schools from to i. This result indicates that there was an existing Native American enrollment disparity in CPS between selective and open enrollment schools, but that disparity was not significantly exacerbated by the race-neutral, SES Tier Policy.

See Figure 1 below for illustrative version. Upper-tier schools had an increase in percent enrollment of white students from to compared to a decrease in white student enrollment at lower- tier schools from Despite implementing a sophisticated Tier system utilizing U. Census data, African American enrollment since its adoption has significantly decreased while White enrollment is on the rise. These findings reinforce research showing African Americans typically attend the worst K public schools Rothwell, Additionally, descriptive statistics see figure 2 show Asian enrollment post-PICS at upper-tier selective schools has declined dramatically.

This is surprising given Asian students generally academically outperform other minorities Joo, Reeves, Rodrigue, and attend better schools on average Rothwell, Put simply, although demographically making up Certainly, Chicago is just one case with a smaller sample of 11 select schools.

Yet our findings are particularly troublesome. At the same time, such circumstances are not unique to Chicago. The Century Foundation has also found more than districts subscribe to SES student assignment policies as a proxy for individual race— most of which enroll high proportions of minorities Frankenberg, In this way, the change in policy regime and subsequent influence on Court jurisprudence typifies the importance of designing such tools as a means to alternatively promote racial diversity Frankenberg, , For Chicago, these issues have resulted in poor policy design and implementation.

Gentrification Siegel-Hawley, , tier-fraud FitzPatrick, ; Matthews, and selective enrollment test preparation companies promising higher scores Chanen, have complicated these efforts. Therefore, we argue evolving Court jurisprudence has played a key role in the bifurcation of educational equality and racial diversity in public education—from race-based to race-neutral—resegregating some urban settings in the process. Conclusion From a policy analysis perspective, this divergence in K desegregation policy tools is significant.

Such changes are furthering negative conditions for minority students in urban settings— e. On the other hand, these circumstances illustrate a shift in policy regime and Court jurisprudence, particularly as it relates to promoting diversity within K public schools. Voluntary, race-based policy tools were thereby replaced with race-neutral policy tools.

Taken together, we argue the current policy regime, the Courts, and many local districts no longer emphasize racial diversity as a compelling interest. Ferguson p. Finally, we argue more empirical research is needed to shed light on this access issue— especially concerning the decrease in Asian enrollment. Despite our significant findings, Chicago is one case, characterized by some contextual limitations. Moreover, U. Supreme Court decisions often have effects that are delayed, inconsistent, or both McDermott et al.

Therefore, researchers need to play a critical role in understanding this intersection between K desegregation law and policy. The wrong side s of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3 2 , Armor, D. Forced justice: School desegregation and the law. Ayscue, J. The complementary benefits of racial and socioeconomic diversity in schools Policy brief No. School segregation and resegregation in Charlotte and Raleigh, Educational Policy, 32 1 , Balfanz, R.

Orfield Ed. Barrow, L. The expansion of high school choice in Chicago Public Schools. Economic Perspectives, 5, Bechteler, S. Beekhoven, S. Explaining academic progress via combining concepts of integration theory and rational choice theory. Research in Higher Education, 43 5 , Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, F. Belsha, K. Behind sale of closed schools, a legacy of segregation. Chicago Reporter. Dowell, U.

Bonilla-Silva, E. Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and racial inequality in contemporary America 3rd ed. Brown v. Board of Education, U. Quality education for African Americans after Parents Involved. Education and Urban Society, 41 5 , Browne, S. Spirit of Brown in Parents Involved and Beyond. Miami L. Catalyst Chicago. A selective advantage. School integration in practice: Lessons from nine school districts. Washington, DC: Author. With selective enrollment scores on the rise, tier system takes center stage.

The Warrior. Student desegregation for the Chicago Public Schools: Recommendations on educational components and student assignment. Chicago, IL: Author. Chicago Board of Education. Admissions policy for magnet, selective enrollment and other options for knowledge schools and programs. Policy briefing: Adopt a new admissions policy for magnet, selective enrollment and other options for knowledge schools and programs.

School data. Useful tools and information: Tier process. CPS school locator. Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24 4 , New approaches to understanding federal involvement in education. Plank, G. Schneider Eds. A handbook for the American Educational Research Association. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Conneely, N. Texas J. Cox, T. CPS selective enrollment schools leaving out black kids, aldermen say. Crain, R. The effect of research methodology on desegregation achievement studies: A meta-analysis.

American Journal of Sociology, 88, Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, U. Duma, M. Prospects: The congressional mandated study of educational growth and opportunity. Washington, DC: U. Department of Education. Ellison, G. The efficiency of race-neutral alternatives to race-based affirmative action: Evidence from Chicago's exam schools No.

Esping-Andersen, G. Slavin, Robert E. Collis, Betty. Journal Articles. Reports - Research. Reports - Descriptive. Reports - Evaluative. Guides - Non-Classroom. Opinion Papers. Information Analyses. Guides - Classroom - Teacher. Guides - General. Collected Works - Proceedings. Collected Works - General. Guides - Classroom - Learner.

Collected Works - Serials. ERIC Publications. Reference Materials -…. Reports - General. Postsecondary Education. Secondary Education. Elementary Education. High Schools. Middle Schools. Adult Education. Early Childhood Education. Junior High Schools. Grade 4. Preschool Education. Intermediate Grades. Primary Education. Grade 5. Grade 8. Two Year Colleges. Grade 6. Grade 7. Grade 3. Grade 1. Grade 9. Grade 2. Media Staff. Support Staff. United Kingdom.

United States. New York. United Kingdom England. North Carolina. New York New York. South Africa. No Child Left Behind Act Elementary and Secondary…. Individuals with Disabilities…. Education Consolidation…. Job Training Partnership Act…. Education for All Handicapped…. Education Amendments Americans with Disabilities…. Race to the Top. Rehabilitation Act …. Comprehensive Employment and…. Bilingual Education Act Carl D Perkins Vocational….

Every Student Succeeds Act…. Manpower Development and…. Aid to Families with…. Library Services and…. Rehabilitation Act Carl D Perkins Vocational and….

Pell Grant Program. Emergency School Aid Act