Summary

John Glover Roberts Parents Involved in Community Schools v… (2007)

The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics. Racial balancing is not transformed from "patently unconstitutional" to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it "racial diversity." While the school districts use various verbal formulations to describe the interest they seek to promote—racial diversity, avoidance of racial isolation, racial integration—they offer no definition of the interest that suggests it differs from racial balance.
Source: Wikisource

John Glover Roberts Parents Involved in Community Schools v… (2007)

Seattle argues that Parents Involved lacks standing because none of its current members can claim an imminent injury. Even if the district maintains the current plan and reinstitutes the racial tiebreaker, Seattle argues, Parents Involved members will only be affected if their children seek to enroll in a Seattle public high school and choose an oversubscribed school that is integration positive—too speculative a harm to maintain standing.
Source: Wikisource

John Glover Roberts Parents Involved in Community Schools v… (2007)

The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as [p. 748] Jefferson County, the way "to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis," Brown II, supra, at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature