Parents' group sues over BPS exam school admissions, alleging discrimination against white students
:
Advertisement
'The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause guarantees every qualified Boston student an equal opportunity to compete for a place in an Exam School, regardless of race,' the lawsuit says. 'The Tier System was implemented to limit that opportunity for members of a particular racial group. It must be struck down.'
A spokesperson for Boston Public Schools declined to comment.
This isn't the first time the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence or the law firm that represents it, Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit against Boston Public Schools over exam school admission practices. In 2020, the School Committee voted to temporarily award seats based on grades and zip code, and the same group and law firm sued over that system as well. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the case last year, with one justice noting the system was no longer in use.
Related
:
Advertisement
Prior to the pandemic, admission to the three exam schools, Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and the John D. O'Bryant School of Math and Science, was determined in a citywide process based solely on grades and an entrance exam score. Under the current admissions system, which has been repeatedly
Students apply to enter the schools in grades 7 and 9, and must have at least a B average to be eligible. Applicants receive a composite score out of 100 based on their grades and entrance exam scores. Students can get 15 bonus points if they live in public housing, are homeless, or are in foster care, or a varying number of points if they attend schools where at least 40 percent of students are low-income. The school-based bonus points vary by tier from three points to 10.
The wealthiest tier, Tier 4 (or Tier 8 in an earlier version of the system), has tended to have more applicants than the other tiers, but all tiers get the same number of seats. That means admission is particularly competitive in Tier 4, which included many tracts in neighborhoods such as West Roxbury and Beacon Hill.
Because the city's white students are concentrated in Tier 4, they have lower odds of admission to their schools of choice.
'This was done ... to limit the proportion of white students who could get into the exam schools,' said Pacific Legal senior attorney Chris Kieser in an interview. 'And it's been remarkably effective.'
Advertisement
Under the new system, the proportion of Grade 7 exam school invites going to white students declined from 40 percent for School Year 2020-21 to
a low of 24 percent for 2023-24. According to the lawsuit, in three out of four years of the new system, white students have made up a smaller share of admitted students than of applicants. The percentage of admitted students who were white has been lower than the share of applicants.
Related
:
Parties to the suit include parents of white and Asian children in Tier 4 who either already applied and were denied admission to one or all exam schools, or parents of white and Asian children
who plan to apply in future years.
The Pacific Legal Foundation has represented parents in a number of related cases alleging discrimination in efforts to diversify elite public schools around the country.
Last year, the Supreme Court also declined to hear a case it brought against Virginia's Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, another elite, application-based public high school that recently overhauled admissions. But some
conservative
members of the court have written that these policies violate their 2023 decision
Christopher Huffaker can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump has momentum heading into Aug. 1 ‘reciprocal tariff' deadline after Asian trade deals, experts say
WASHINGTON — President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with three Asian nations this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs,' experts predict. Trump secured Japan's agreement to pay a 15% tariff on exports to the US while making $550 billion in new investments in America in what he called a 'signing bonus' — while Indonesia and the Philippines said they would accept 19% tariffs on their goods while applying 0% tariffs on US products. 'I was a little bit surprised by the extent to which the US, at least at this stage of the game, has succeeded in striking what seems to me to be quite a hard bargain,' said Pravin Krishna, an economist at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 3 Experts say President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs.' AFP via Getty Images Robert Lawrence, an international trade professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, agreed, saying he was also left stunned that Trump roped in a large Japanese investment in addition to the tariff terms — likening it to his successful demand for a 'golden' US stake in this year's Nippon-US Steel merger deal. 'He's a wheeler-dealer, our president, needless to say, and he's kind of cutting these deals — but he has scared these people, and he's leveraged American bargaining power,' Lawrence said. 'The next one on the block is [South] Korea… for the Koreans, the auto issue is just about as important as for the Japanese.' Wilbur Ross, who served as Trump's commerce secretary during his first term and at one point expressed concern about administration emissaries potentially over-playing their hand, hailed Trump's trio of Asian deals. 'It's very important that people realize why he yoked the three together and announced them at the same time, and I think that's largely to send a message to China that their hope that his tough trade policy would somehow drive the Asian countries to China is simply incorrect,' Ross explained. 'I think the second importance of it is it puts tremendous pressure on the EU to make a deal because they have a great danger of being relatively isolated and relatively stuck with a worse deal.' Trump traveled to Scotland Friday and will meet with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over the weekend to discuss averting a threatened 50% tariff. 3 President Trump secured a trade agreement with Japan to pay a 15% tariff on exports, while Indonesia and the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs on their goods, with US products not being tariffed. The president previously announced deals with Vietnam, which agreed to a 20% tariff — or 40% on items sourced in China — while breaking down barriers to US imports, as well as a UK deal that features a 10% tariffs — with British steel and car exports also paying 10% rather than Trump's much higher sectoral tariffs, in exchange for promises to open UK markets to American ethanol, beef and chicken. China, meanwhile, brokered a cease-fire with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — with the US applying a 30% rate on Chinese goods and China applying a 10% rate on American imports. Meanwhile, the impact of Trump's tariffs — which also include 50% on foreign steel and aluminum and 25% on foreign cars — have been slighter than anticipated thus far on inflation, with the annual increase in consumer prices 2.7% in June. 'The same 'experts' that were loudly spewing doomsday predictions are now quietly looking at their portfolios and planning their early retirement or vacation home purchases,' said Arthur Schwartz, a Republican operative with close ties to the administration. Major challenges remain on the horizon for Trump, however, and academics remain divided on the merits of higher tariffs now padding federal coffers. Krishna, the Hopkins economist, said questions remain about whether the Asian nations that just agreed to steep terms are able to ratify them politically due to the fact that Trump seems to have secured such lopsided terms. He also said that India — initially expected to be one of the first nations to ink a trade deal — faces notable trade-talk road bumps due to the potentially devastating effects on poor farmers who comprise about 45% of the labor force. 'It's a very sensitive sector for India. The Modi government itself, a few years ago, tried some reasonably market-oriented reforms in the agricultural sector.. and they were unable to push that through,' he said. 'That is an extremely challenging thing for the Indian government to manage politically,' Krishna said. 'You're talking about survival-level incomes for a large number of farmers. And to mess with that would be, again, politically challenging and even morally questionable from an Indian standpoint. 3 The US is currently charging China a 30% tariff rate on Chinese goods, while they are charging a 10% rate on American imports. AP Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It really is a question of how much of a change the US wants in terms of reduction of protectionism and so on, and how much India's willing to give up,' he added. It's also unclear how talks with China will end — with the temporary deal set to expire in mid-August, though it may be extended. 'There's a real question whether we will make a deal with [China],' Ross said. 'It's hard for me to imagine that they're going to make very big concessions, and meanwhile, we're collecting very high tariffs. So it's not so clear to me that there's a big, compelling motive for President Trump to make a deal.' China also may be politically constrained by an upcoming Communist Party congress next month and a housing crash that has sapped the nation economically, Ross noted. Lawrence, of Harvard, said that the disruption of Trump's trade wars remains worrying for certain US industries — with carmakers General Motors and Stellantis reporting quarterly income slumps this week — and that he's skeptical of an ensuing boom in US manufacturing employment. 'I personally think it's damaging our economy … We have to be competitive to make sales abroad, not to bludgeon people through threats of tariffs. That's not the way you win friends, and it's also not the way you retain customers,' he said. But Lawrence noted that Trump's delays in implementing 'reciprocal' tariffs initially announced on April 2 likely make them more palatable for the American public and less stinging on their budgets. 'By dragging out the process, it's kind of like the famous boiling of the frog who doesn't quite notice it. [If the] net effect of these tariffs would be to raise the consumer price index by one percentage point or even two, that would be a huge increase, right? But if I told you it was take place over a couple of years, it is going to work out to half a point, or less a fraction each month. Are you going to notice it itself?' he said. 'From the standpoint of, 'How do you want to distribute the shocks?' I think… whether it's negotiating strategy or it's dithering or it's intuition, it actually serves to cushion the blow.'
Fox News
5 hours ago
- Fox News
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship blocked by another federal appeals judge in latest ruling
A federal appeals judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally or temporarily. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship that he issued earlier this year and that was granted to more than a dozen states can stand. Sorokin said the ruling was an exception to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limited lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. The issue is expected to return to the Supreme Court. Trump and the administration "are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," Sorokin wrote in his ruling. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." The Trump administration has argued that children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally and temporarily are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. Trump signed the birthright citizenship executive order, along with a slew of other orders, on his first day in office in January. On Wednesday, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court's nationwide injunction, and, earlier this month, a New Hampshire federal judge issued a ruling prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. Sorokin disagreed with the Trump administration's argument that the Supreme Court's ruling warranted a narrower ruling. The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit argued that Trump's executive order is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and it also threatens millions of dollars in state funding for "essential" health insurance services contingent on citizenship status.
7 hours ago
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON -- A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
