Developments in the Cruz-Guzman Litigation Part II (What the Plaintiffs Want)

     Jvonkorff on Education has begun a series inspired by Judge Robiner's recent order denying the Cruz-Guzman Plaintiffs request that the court order the State forthwith to impose a desegregation order as to the Minneapolis and St. Paul school District and area charter schools. The Plantiff's proposed order -- which Judge Robiner refused to issue at this time --helps us understand what the Cruz Guzman plaintiffs are trying to achieve and serves as a jumping off point in trying to understand the policy and legal issues raised by Cruz-Guzman.  

Cruz-Guzman Plaintiffs Requested Injunction

The below bulleted points are taken directly from the order that Cruz-Guzman plaintiffs asked the Judge to sign:

• Defendants have violated the Education Clause of the Minnesota Constitution, Article XIII, Section 1, by failing to provide the Plaintiff Class with a general,uniform, thorough, and efficient system of public schools, by reason of Defendants’ instituting, maintaining, permitting, and failing to correct public schools segregated by race and socioeconomic status in the Minneapolis and St. Paul Public School Districts;
  
  
• Defendants are ordered and permanently enjoined to cease forthwith all such violations of the Education Clause. 
  
  
• Defendants are ordered to remedy forthwith all such violations of the Education Clause and to conform to the mandate of the Education Clause to provide a non-segregated general, uniform, thorough, and efficient system of public schools in the Minneapolis and St. Paul Public School Districts.

What would this order actually have required?  Usually, we lawyers expect an injunction order to contain more clarity and precision than this: judges don't like issuing an order to the state unless the order clearly states what is being required, and it would take a whole other post or two to dive into all of the technical issues raised by this order.   Among those issues are:

• Is Segregation intentionally caused racial imbalance: We know from the Cruz-Guzman brief, that when plaintiffs use the word segregated, they include racially isolated schools and districts, whether intentionally caused or not. But that is not the definition generally given to segregation in the court.   While states have considerable latitude under the United States Constitution to remedy intentional segregation in schools, there  are significant federal constitutional barriers to steering students to achieve racial balance not the product of governmental intentional segregation  (See the US Supreme Court case, Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, (2007).  Ordering a remedy to unintentional racial imbalances opens a pandora's box of difficulties. 
  
  
• There is a strong suggestion in the Seattle School District case that in order to justify enrollment policies designed to achieve racial balancing, a state must make a strong showing that the re- balancing is necessary to achieve important educational benefits, as the Court stated: "that the level of racial diversity necessary to achieve the asserted educational benefits happens to coincide with the racial demographics of the respective districts."  However the Cruz-Guzman plaintiffs are asserting that the benefits justifying the Court's order derive from the balancing itself.   In other words, although the plaintiffs complaint asserts that integration will improve educational results, they did not tender proof of that contention in support of their motion. They are asking the court to find that the balanced racial makeup is the benefit that justifies racial balancing.
  
  
• The relief proposed in the order contains no guidance as to how much balancing would be required; how it would be accomplished, and what would happen if, as in the original desegregation order, the order does not accomplish rebalancing.

To recapitulate: there is a grave constitutional difficulty with achieving involuntary racial rebalancing under the federal constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court when the rebalancing is not being used to remedy intentional segregation.  As the plaintiffs themselves explain "The United States Supreme Court has required discriminatory intent in cases challenging school segregation under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744-45 (1974). And, the Seattle School District questions the state's authority to accomplish forced rebalancing except at least upon a strong showing that it is necessary to achieve educational goals. 

 Cruz-Guzman's Description of Racial and Socioeconomic Imbalance in the Metropolitan Area

 The Cruz-Guzman plaintiffs argue that charter schools are an important cause of racial segregation.   They say:

The Twin Cities metropolitan area now contains 181 charter schools, over 60 percent of which are segregated by race, socioeconomic status, or both. For the 2019-20 school year, over half of these charters (94 of 181) were more than 90 percent non-white students.  About 46 charter schools are alleged to be 100 percent non-white in composition.   In contrast about 28 charter schools have less than 25% non-white enrollments.

The Complaint lists numerous traditional public schools in Minneapolis with enrollments of 85 percent non-white students or more, and it lists twelve schools with non-white enrollments of 18 to 40 percent.  Similar statistics are provided for St. Paul.  The demographic composition of St. Paul and Minneapolis district schools, both as to socioeconomic status and race are substantially different from many suburban districts.  And, they contend, the disparities are getting more pronounced:

"Segregation by race and socioeconomic status in the Twin Cities metropolitan area public schools has been increasing for over two decades. In the 26 years from 1995 to 2021, the number of schools in the Twin Cities metropolitan area made up of more than 90 percent students of color increased by more than 12 times, from 11 to 144. The number of students of color in those highly segregated environments rose by more than 22 times (from 1,863 to
49,782), a percentage increase from 2.4 percent to 23 percent. "  Cruz Guzman memorandum. 

Racial Imbalance:  Cause or Effect

JvonKorff Comment

 

 Is imposing racial balance likely to result in more integrated schools and facilitate far better educational results: or might it simply undermine public support for those schools? In the following posts we'll summarize the respective positions of the State of Minnesota and the Intervenors -- Higher Ground Charter and others.    As we do that, it will be well to consider whether ordering racial balance is the most effective way of achieving it.   Could it be, that increasing racial imbalance is being caused instead by the increasing perception that traditional public schools are failing to provide an adequate education to a large proportion of students, who disproportionately are students of color, English language learners, and lower income students.  
Would families uproot themselves and leave their public schools if all students were progressing?   Families of students who are not doing well naturally look for an alternative.  They may blame the differing demographics for the school's failure:  "If they didn't have so much diversity, the teachers would have time for my kids!" 

Why not try a school that advertises that it specializes in meeting needs of children like mine?  At least there is staff who understands us and believes in us.   The teachers there don't say they can teach my children, because its our fault.  And so on.

Could it be that the very best strategy to create a more integrated public school system would be to make sure that all students get a first class successful education in whatever public school that they attend.   Instead of trying to integrate by pushing families to attend schools against their will, might it be a more effective strategy to require every school to use strategies that are designed to make sure all children can learn to read, whatever their race, class and ethnicity.   Instead of advertising you have to go to our school, how about advertising, if you send your kids to our school, they are going to going to thrive and excel.   We educate all of our students. 

In the next post we'll look at the state's response to the Cruz-Guzman motion, and then that of the charter intevenors.  Then we'll try to explain what Judge Robiner decided.

• 
  
  Although remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination is a compelling interest
  
  

  Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 702, 127 S. Ct. 2738, 2742, 168 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2007)
  Although remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination is a compelling interest
  
  

  Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 702, 127 S. Ct. 2738, 2742, 168 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2007)