The debate regarding social equity and financial reparative mechanisms, for instance, affirmative action plus other techniques of attaining racial assimilation have remained persistent for a long time. The United States Supreme Court on June 28th 2008 further exacerbated this incendiary debate. The concerned cases; Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Bd. Of Education (merged to be Parents Involved in Community Schools v.
Seattle School District No. 1) entailed separate claims when parents alleged that the voluntary and positive integration school district programs within Jefferson County, Washington ,Seattle, and Kentucky breached their kids’ rights. Before this Supreme Court ruling, lower national courts supported such arrangements and numerous school districts all over America had set up similar arrangements to encourage ethnic diversity.
However, the Supreme Court later ruled that ethnic integration did not constitute a strong enough reason to permit one’s ethnicity to ultimately determine their admission or rejection of admission into particular public learning institutions (Rennan Center for Justice, 2007). Chief Justice Roberts, together with Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia, created the ruling. It was decided that ethnicity should not be employed to achieve diversity within community schools. The plaintiffs argued that such school assimilation programs breached Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
They claimed that plans that utilize ethnicity when assigning learners to community schools are illegal, even in instances whereby societies have willingly developed such programs so as to offer their kids more varied learning opportunities. Seattle school district and Jefferson County backgrounds are quite different, however, the rationale that made such districts use the disputed programs are comparable. The Seattle School District employed the disputed program so as to correct different fundamental residential isolation levels that were rampant and to encourage ethnic diversity.
Learner assignment strategies, that regarded ethnicity as dictating the schools particular students could enroll at, were voluntarily adopted. Seattle School District has by no means run legally separated schools and has as well not been subjected to court-ordered integration (Miller, 2009). Seattle decided to use some diversity plan in order to abolish actual segregation within schools plus offer district students equal and diverse learning opportunities. Despite the fact that Seattle employed ethnicity in order to post learners to specific schools, usage of ethnicity is not a routine mechanism.
Ethnicity is only considered when: some school gets oversubscribed, that is, when excess incoming 9th graders select such school as their initial choice secondary school; sibling row breakers are instituted, that is, learners with siblings in such oversubscribed schools get admitted; and such schools are ethically imbalanced, that is, when such school’s ethic makeup varies from the ethnic makeup of learners in the District by above fifteen percent (http://www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/05-908. ZO. html).