An anti-affirmative action group backed by former University of
California Regent Ward Connerly filed two lawsuits against the Los
Angeles Unified School District last week claiming that its
policies violated Proposition 209, the 1996 statewide initiative
that banned preferential treatment by race in California public
institutions.
The American Civil Rights Foundation’s lawsuits targeted
the school district’s use of race as a consideration in its
effort to desegregate city schools.
The school district takes race into account when determining
voluntary teacher placement and student acceptance into magnet
schools, which draw students from outside their designated
enrollment areas for special programs.
According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, the firm that filed
the lawsuit, these practices violate Proposition 209 and are
harmful to the school district.
“(Proposition 209) tells the school district they
can’t use discrimination for any reason, because the victims
are going to be the students or the teachers,” said Sharon
Browne, the lead attorney at the firm. Browne has worked
extensively with Connerly to ensure Proposition 209’s
enforcement.
The first lawsuit states that the school district’s
Teacher Integration Transfer Program violates Proposition 209
because racial preferences are used in teacher-placement
decisions.
The program’s goal is to get the percentage of minority
teachers at K-12 and magnet schools to reflect the ethnic makeup of
the entire district. Schools that need a minority teacher to
achieve racial “balance” may show preference to a
minority applicant and schools that need a white teacher may give
preference to a white applicant.
The second lawsuit states that the school district’s
magnet program gives preference to students whose race or ethnicity
will help balance the student population at the school. The
district’s busing program, Permits with Transportation,
provides free transportation to students wishing to attend another
school if the students’ race or ethnicity helps the school
achieve “balance.” A minority student will be accepted
into the program over a white student if both apply to obtain a
Permit with Transportation to a predominately white school.
Browne said Proposition 209 has made all three of the
district’s programs unconstitutional.
The school district was somewhat taken off guard by the lawsuits
because proponents of Proposition 209 had previously said public
school integration programs would not be challenged, said Kevin
Reed, general counsel for the LAUSD.
“I’m frankly surprised that the PLF has bothered to
file these lawsuits,” he said.
And rather than seeing the efforts to integrate as a problem,
Reed called the desegregation effort “one of the most
successful programs LAUSD has going.”
The LAUSD agreed to a voluntary desegregation plan in 1981 after
ending a controversial three-year experiment with mandatory busing.
As part of the plan, which was mandated by a federal judge, the
school district created the current programs.
Affirmative action in education remains controversial because it
is perceived as giving a boost to underrepresented minority
students over more qualified white students.
Opponents of affirmative action claim the practice assumes
minority students are incapable of entering universities on their
own. Supporters argue that underrepresented minority students have
fewer opportunities for academic achievement than their white and
Asian counterparts, which places them at a disadvantage when
applying to UC schools.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has said Proposition 209
has had an overall negative impact on California schools.
“I am an experimental scientist, and in my view the
experiment with (Proposition) 209 has been done ““ and my
conclusion is that it has done serious damage,” Birgeneau
said.
With reports from Bruin wire services.