Comfort ex rel. Neumyer v. Lynn School Committee

283 F.Supp.2d 328

Samantha J. COMFORT, on behalf of her minor child and friend, Elizabeth NEUMYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LYNN SCHOOL COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant-Intervenor.

Todd Bollen, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Lynn School Committee, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV.A.99-11811-NG, CIV.A.01-10365-NG.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

September 5, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ranjana C. Burke, Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA, for Abigail Thernstrom, Charles D. Baker, James Peyser, Roberta Schaefer, William K. Irwin, Jr.

Norman J. Chachkin, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., New York, NY, Nadine M. Cohen, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Under Law of the Boston Bar Association, Boston, MA, Dennis D. Parker, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., New York, NY, for Northshore Chapter of the National Association for the advancement of colored people, Anthony Murkison, Barbara Murkison, Pamela Freeman.

Richard W. Cole, Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA, for Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Chester Darling, Boston, MA, for Jean O'Neil, Samantha J. On behalf of her minor child and next friend Elizabeth Neumyer, William O'Neil.

Ross Wiener, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, for U.S.

AMENDED¹ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GERTNER, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
  I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................333
 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .......................................................335
    A. The Comfort Litigation .................................................335
       1. Parties .............................................................335
       2. Preliminary Injunction ..............................................336
       3. Motions to Dismiss ..................................................336
    B. The Bollen Litigation ..................................................337
III. TRIAL ....................................................................338
     A. Plaintiffs' Case ......................................................338
     B. Defendants' Case ......................................................339
        1. The Administrators: ................................................339
        2. The Parents and Students: ..........................................340
        3. Defendants' Experts: ...............................................340
     C. Plaintiffs' Rebuttal ..................................................341
 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT .........................................................342
     A. The Racial Imbalance Act ..............................................342
     B. Racial Imbalance in Lynn's Public Schools .............................344
        1. 1977: The First Warning ............................................344
        2. 1979: Washington, the First Magnet School ..........................345
        3. 1980s: Profound Changes in Lynn ....................................345
        4. 1986: A Series of Failed Voluntary Plans ...........................346
        5. 1987-1988: Greater Imbalance; More Accusations .....................346
        6. 1988-1990: Drafting the Current Plan ...............................347
     C. The Current Plan ......................................................347
     D. Continuous Monitoring .................................................349
     E. A Current Snapshot of the Lynn School District ........................350
        1. Residential Segregation and Geographical Separation ................350
        2. "White Flight" and Its Decline after Implementation of the Lynn
             Plan .............................................................350
        3. Racial Balance or Imbalance ........................................351
        4. The Special Problem of Poverty .....................................351
        5. School Construction and Renovation .................................352
        6. "Magnet" Schools ...................................................352
     F. The Lynn Schools at Present ...........................................352
        1. Observations by Participants .......................................353
        2. Expert Testimony ...................................................353
           a. Dr. Orfield: Desegregation Expert ...............................354
           b. Drs. Dovidio and Killen: Social and Developmental Psychologist
                Respectively ..................................................356
              (1) Intergroup Contact Theory ...................................356
              (2) "Critical Mass" .............................................357
              (3) Impact of Resegregation .....................................358
           c. Nancy McArdle: Limitations Imposed by the Demographics in
               Lynn ...........................................................358

           d. Plaintiffs' Rebuttal ...............................................358
  V. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...........................................................360
     A. Jurisdictional Issues .................................................360
        1. Amendments to Prior Decisions (Comfort Plaintiffs) .................360
        2. Partial Motion to Dismiss (Bollen Plaintiffs) ......................361
           a. Claims for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief ....................361
           b. Nominal Damages .................................................363
     B. Equal Protection ......................................................363
        1. Strict or Intermediate Scrutiny? ...................................364
        2. Facial Challenge to the Racial Imbalance Act .......................366
        3. The Strict Scrutiny Standard .......................................368
           a. Compelling State Interest .......................................369
           b. Narrow Tailoring ................................................371
              (1) Are the means necessary; are there adequate race-neutral
                    alternatives? .............................................371
              (2) Is the policy proportional to the compelling interest .......372
              (3) What Is the Impact on Third Parties? ........................373
              (4) Miscellaneous Concerns; Deference to School Boards' "Narrow
                   Tailoring ..................................................373
        4. The Goals of the Plan ..............................................375
           a. Curricular Goals: "Promoting Racial and Ethnic Diversity,"
               "Increasing Educational Opportunities for All Students and
               Improving the Quality of Education," "Ensuring Safety" .............375
              (1) Are These Curricular Goals Compelling State Interests? ......375
              (2) Is the Plan Narrowly Tailored to These Compelling Interests?.376
                  (a) Are the Plan's Means Necessary to Achieve its Ends? .....376
                  (b) Proportionality of the Means ............................377
                  (c) Minimal Burden on Third Parties; the Issue of Stigma ....377
              (3) Plaintiffs' Arguments Do Not Apply in Lynn ..................378
                  (a) A White/Nonwhite Distinction Is Appropriate .............379
                  (b) Additional Resources Would Not Have Been Adequate
                      to Accomplish the Curricular Goals; the Significance
                      of "Critical Mass" ......................................380
           b. Remedying the Effects of De Facto Segregation; "Reducing
               Minority Isolation" .............................................384
              (1) Is this Remedial Interest Compelling? ......................384
              (2) Is the Lynn Plan Narrowly Tailored to this Compelling
                   Interest? ..................................................386
              (3) Race-Neutral Alternatives are not Feasible ..................387
           c. Interest (5): "Providing an Education to All Students that
               Satisfies Federal and State Constitutional Requirements" .......389
              (1) The Command and Promise of Brown v. Board of Education ......389
              (2) State Constitutional Requirements ...........................391
     C. Other Federal Claims ..................................................392
        1. Title VI ...........................................................392
        2. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ..............................................392
        3. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 ..................................393
     D. Article 111 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights ................393
        1. Applicable Principles of Constitutional Interpretation .............394
        2. The Lynn Plan and the Purpose of Article 111 .......................394
        3. SJC Interpretation of Similar Language .............................396
        4. State Constitutional Harmony and Federal Constitutional Doubt ......397
 VI. CONCLUSION ...............................................................400

I. INTRODUCTION

The issues raised in this litigation are critically important, not just for the parties, but for the nation. This case and others like it around the country require courts to grapple with whether and how public school officials may implement race-conscious programs in order to fulfill the Constitution's promise of the Equal Protection of the laws, a promise articulated with special force fifty years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954).

Plaintiffs, parents of elementary school children in Lynn, Massachusetts, challenge their city's school assignment plan (the "Lynn Plan")² because...