In School Diversity, Berkeley Unified Shows the Way

July 25 - 31, 2007 by Maya Harris, The Post Newspaper

The U.S. Supreme Court case I described in last week’s column—the case that struck down the racial diversity plans in the Seattle and Louisville public schools—was certainly bad news. But it’s not the end of the road.

Although the court decision undoubtedly made it more difficult to address segregation in our schools, it did not shut the door on all voluntary integration efforts. A majority of the court made clear that a range of affirmative measures, including some race-conscious measures, are still available to school districts seeking to achieve diversity in their student body.

For example, one of the justices allowed for a “nuanced, individual evaluation of schools needs and student characteristics that might include race as a component.” He also suggested “strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones with general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race” as ways of promoting a diverse educational environment.

On this score, Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) may be able to show the way for others.

Earlier this year, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Y. Smith threw out legal challenges to BUSD’s elementary and high school student assignment plans, finding that BUSD does not violate the law when it considers racial demographics of students’ neighborhoods as one of many factors in assigning students to schools. Other factors considered in placing students include students’ preference, family wealth and parents’ educational level.

Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal organization, had sued Berkeley, saying the district’s diversity plan violates Proposition 209, a 1996 state law banning affirmative action. Not so, decided Judge Smith in April 2007. She upheld Berkeley’s plan because it does not consider any individual student’s race.

This was the second time in recent years that Berkeley’s integration efforts have come under attack—and survived the challenge.

A few years ago, a parent, once again represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, sued the school district claiming that Berkeley’s integration plan at that time violated Proposition 209. In rejecting that claim in April 2004, Alameda County Superior Court Judge James Richman ruled: “Although Proposition 209 specifically applies to public education, its text does not mention voluntary desegregation plans or otherwise indicate that prohibited discrimination or preferential treatment includes a race-conscious school assignment plan that seeks to provide all students with the same benefit of desegregated schools.”

More than a vindication of BUSD’s dedicated efforts, these victories demonstrate that school districts can continue to take proactive steps to integrate public schools within the bounds of state and federal law. In both these cases, the ACLU stepped in to represent BUSD parents in voicing support for the district’s student assignment plan, along with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights.

BUSD may very well be a model for school districts in California and across the nation.

Following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, a citizens’ commission found that Berkeley suffered from severe housing segregation that led to racial isolation in the schools. Years later, in 1968, Berkeley became the first school district in the nation to voluntarily integrate its public schools. And it has been standing up for this important principle ever since.

Now, that’s an example for us all.