Fifty years ago, in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme
Court held that the intentional segregation of students on the basis of race in public schools
violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Subsequent federal legislation and
court decisions also mandate that school officials not discriminate against students on the basis
of sex, national origin, language barrier, religion, or disabilities. The Educational Opportunities
Section enforces these statutes and court decisions in a diverse array of cases involving
elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education.
Specifically, the Section enforces Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Educational
Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as other
statutes such as Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act upon referral from other governmental agencies. The Section may intervene in
private suits alleging violations of education-related anti-discrimination statutes and the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Section also represents the Department of
Education in lawsuits.
As a result of its compliance activities, the Section regularly achieves a number of consent
decrees and favorable decisions that enhance desegregation in affected school districts. In United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, the parties reached a settlement
agreement that dismissed the case but retained federal court jurisdiction to enforce the agreement's
terms. The key terms require the State of New York to provide $300 million between 2001 and 2006
to the Yonkers School District to implement over forty remedial educational programs. The Section also reached a settlement agreement in Davis and United States v. East Baton Rouge
Parish School Board, a case filed in 1956 by Thurgood Marshall and other attorneys, whereby the
school district agreed to create new magnet schools, provide enhanced resources to inner city
schools with predominantly black student enrollments and increase enrollments in desegregated
schools over the next four years.
The Section also continues to work on behalf of English Language Learner students (ELLs). In
June 2003, the Section signed a three-year settlement agreement with the Plainfield, New Jersey
School District regarding its obligation to provide appropriate instruction and services to ELLs
under the EEOA. The agreement includes requirements regarding: identifying and serving ELLs;
integrating ELLs with native speakers of English; making libraries and media centers accessible to
ELLs; and providing academic support to ELLs enrolled in general education classes. In October
2003, the Section signed a three-year settlement agreement with the Bound Brook, New Jersey School
District regarding its ELL-related obligations under the EEOA. The agreement requires the district
to provide, among other things: timely assessment of all students with non-English speaking
backgrounds; quality curricula and instruction for ELLs; adequate teacher training; and careful
monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of ELLs who are currently enrolled in the program
and those who have exited from the program.
The Section has undertaken a systematic review of its desegregation case docket to ensure that
districts have complied or are working toward complying with court orders and federal law. This
review includes evaluating those facets of school district operations that the Supreme Court has
dubbed the six "Green factors" – student assignment, faculty, staff, facilities, transportation,
and extracurricular activities – as well as ensuring that minority students have fair access to
gifted and advanced education, are not singled out for discipline, and are not incorrectly referred
to special education. For instance, the Section worked with 28 school districts in Alabama to
determine whether they have attained unitary status and, if not, what must be done to achieve it.
The school districts submitted comprehensive data concerning all facets of their operations.
Courts have declared most districts partially unitary and have returned those facets to local
district control. With respect to the remaining facets, the school districts have entered into
settlements establishing steps they will take to continue to eliminate the vestiges of the prior
segregated system. Indeed, some districts have completed those steps, and courts have declared
several of the districts fully unitary and dismissed their cases. In addition, to address the
misplacement of minority students in mentally retarded (MR) and learning disabled (SLD) programs,
the Section negotiated with the State of Alabama a comprehensive agreement addressing those
issues and requiring state oversight of the local districts.
The Section also has been active in the area of higher education
desegregation. In February 2002, the court approved the settlement
of Ayers and United States v. Fordice, the longstanding
Mississippi higher education desegregation case. The United
States and private plaintiffs negotiated a settlement dismissing
the case and requiring Mississippi to provide $503 million
over a seventeen-year period to improve the State's historically
black colleges while increasing access for minority students
to the State's historically white colleges. The United States
reached a similar settlement in Geier and United States
v. Sundquist, which is expected to further desegregate
Tennessee's system of public higher education. The settlement
required the State to spend approximately $75 million over
a five-year period to fund various projects, including establishing
a College of Public Service and Urban Affairs, creating a
new doctoral program or acquiring a private law school, and
increasing efforts to recruit African-American undergraduate
students.
The Section is also active in ensuring that school districts do not discriminate on the
basis of religion. In Westfield High School L.I.F.E. Club v. Westfield Public Schools, the
Section filed an amicus brief arguing that a school district could not constitutionally
prohibit students from distributing religious pamphlets in schools when it permitted them to
distribute secular pamphlets. In Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, the Section
filed an amicus brief arguing that a school district, having made its facilities available to
community groups for meetings, could not exclude religious-based groups from having the same
access. In both cases, the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs who sought to engage in
protected religious speech.
As part of our efforts in the athletic context, the Section
participated in cases brought by female high school students
against the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA)
and the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA)
and helped obtain favorable resolutions. In MHSAA, following
an eight-day trial, the court held that MHSAA's disadvantageous
scheduling of female sports violated Title IX and the Equal
Protection Clause. The court ordered MHSAA to submit a compliance
plan to remedy the discrimination. In SDHSAA, the Section
intervened and obtained a favorable consent decree.
The Section's commitment to combat discriminatory harassment
has led it to participate in student-on-student and student-on-teacher
harassment cases. For example, in Madison and United States
v. Sullivan County Board of Education, the Section intervened
in a student-on-student racial harassment case, alleging that
the Board had been deliberately indifferent to the racial
harassment of two students. Shortly before trial, the Section negotiated a settlement with the
school district and private plaintiffs under which the school district would develop a plan for
preventing student harassment; train teachers, staff and students on the plan; and timely
investigate and report on harassment incidents.
Finally, the Section is always interested in receiving complaints
and information from students, parents, interested individuals
and organizations regarding possible unlawful discrimination
in public educational institutions, as well as information
about ongoing lawsuits involving alleged discrimination in
educational institutions, to determine whether Section participation
is warranted. For more information, click here.