Boston Public Schools’ use of geographical residency and family income status for entrance to its elite “exam schools” survived a constitutional challenge by a group of white and Asian parents. In Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. Boston Schools Committee (1st Cir. 2021) a change in the admissions policy, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, was found to be racially neutral.
For over twenty years, Boston Public Schools (the “District”) used specific factors for admissions to its selective 7-12th grade schools, including grade point averages (GPA) and entrance exams. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, stopped the administration of entrance exams. A special committee was therefore tasked with developing a new admissions plan (“the Plan”). The Plan’s admissions factors included GPA and residency by zip code. The Plan allocated the first 20% of seats to the students with the highest GPAs. The remainder of the spots were awarded among zip codes based on the proportion of Boston school children residing in each zip code, with lower income zip codes receiving priority.
Before the acceptance letters for the 2021-2022 school year were mailed, a group of white and Asian parents (Plaintiffs) filed suit against the District, claiming that the Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court ruled in favor of the District. Plaintiffs then appealed the district court’s judgment and moved the appellate court for an injunction preventing the implementation of the revised admissions criteria. The appellate court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, thereby permitting the acceptance letter based on the Plan to be issued.
In rejecting Plaintiffs’ claim that the Plan was intended to discriminate against white and Asian students, the court agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that the new admissions criteria were “completely neutral on their face.” Admittedly, one of the District’s goals in implementing the new admissions criteria was to increase geographic, socioeconomic and racial diversity. The court found the Plan employed, in addition to GPA, only geography and family income—not race—as selection factors. According to the court, “there is no likely controlling reason why one cannot prefer to use facially neutral and otherwise valid admission criteria that cause underrepresented races to be less underrepresented.”
Furthermore, the First Circuit perceived “no likely error in the district court’s conclusion that a discriminatory purpose did not motivate the plan’s adoption.” According to Plaintiffs, the School Committee Chairperson made fun of the names of several Asian-Americans who spoke at the public hearing. The court agreed with the lower court that “those sophomoric and hurtful comments by the Chairperson did not establish racial animus as a factor motivating the School Committee as a whole to adopt the Plan.”
To read the court’s opinion, please download: