| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1Dubious Prospects for Diversity as a Compelling Governmental InterestAppalachian State University, bradburymd{at}appstate.edu The Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to diversification plans for public high school enrollment in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007). Unlike the diversity plan upheld in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), where law school applicants were potentially denied a benefit, all students in the Seattle plan were awarded a high school seat but perhaps not in their preferred school. Nevertheless, this plan was struck down by the Court as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, on the grounds that it was not sufficiently narrowly tailored. The question of whether diversity can withstand the other aspect of strict scrutiny, serving a compelling government interest, was not as definitively answered, although the prospects appear dim. A reasonable inference from Parents Involved for public human resource management is that race-conscious diversity plans are not likely to receive constitutional cover from the current Court.
Key Words: diversity • Supreme Court • Grutter • strict scrutiny • education
This version was published on December
1, 2008 Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 28, No. 4,
385-391 (2008) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
