Federal judge rejects Louisiana school district’s desegregation plan
In an unexpected twist, a federal judge has refused to sign a controversial proposed consent decree that would have helped resolve a decades-old desegregation suit in the Jefferson Parish public school system, saying that the document failed to provide a "narrowly tailored solution" to fully desegregate the district and root out pockets of racial inequality. Engelhardt's rejection represented a considerable setback for the school system, which is attempting to get out from under federal oversight by achieving fully desegregated status. It also signified a victory of sorts for dozens of magnet school parents and others who oppose the changes outlined in the decree and have been fighting to halt its progress. Jefferson Parish School Board members have called a public meeting to discuss the capability of their legal representation on this matter over the past year. Board President Mark Morgan said he was "embarrassed" by the way attorney Charles Patin had represented the board and its interests. "We're a year into the process and we're further back now than we were a year ago," Morgan said. Patin said he would have to read the judge's remarks before determining whether attorneys would have to scrap the existing decree and start from scratch. More than a legal directive, the proposed consent decree has come to symbolize a year of labored negotiations and concessions on the part of attorneys for the school district and plaintiffs of the longstanding suit, community members, administrators and the School Board. While board members have openly acknowledged the document's imperfections, they also have referred to it as the best possible solution for the district and unanimously approved it at a meeting in February.
In his ruling, Engelhardt accepted the attorneys' recommendations in two areas, transportation and extracurricular activities, and declared the school system fully desegregated in both of those. But he found significant problems with four main aspects of the consent order. The first involved transfer permits, which allow students to attend schools outside their home districts. Under the proposed decree, attorneys for the plaintiffs and the board are responsible for approving or denying the permit requests. If a student with an extraordinary circumstance were denied a transfer by attorneys, the School Board could contest the decision. But Engelhardt argued that parents should be given the opportunity to contest the matter in court, independent of the board. The second issue involved changes to the district's policy regarding student discipline. The proposed decree would require the district to track all discipline referrals according to race. If disciplinary figures at a school exceed the racial balance at that school by more than 15%, officials would have to determine reasons for the disparity. Engelhardt objected to establishing a benchmark percentage, saying it allowed educators to use race, not behavior, as a reason to punish or withhold punishment. Carter, the plaintiffs' attorney, argued that the measure would help monitor whether punishment was being doled out unfairly.
Engelhardt also objected to the proposed decree's plan to bisect the district using the Mississippi River. The stipulation requiring students to stay on the side of the river where they live is a cornerstone of the consent decree, enabling attorneys to allow students in the parish to attend schools in their neighborhood and avoid cross-river busing. Since educational opportunities on both sides of the river are not equal, denying children access to both sides would be unfair, Engelhardt ruled. Engelhardt's final objection involved the proposed decree's failure to identify specific schools or facets of the district that remain outside of compliance, or are substantially segregated. Carter said the proposed decree left those decisions open, to be identified at a later time by the school system. Patin acknowledged in court that the document was far from perfect but insisted that it represented a solid compromise and contained the input of many parties.
Source: New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/15/08, By Jenny Hurwitz
[Editor’s Note: For background, see below.]
NSBA School Law pages on desegregation plan