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
Axios
5 hours ago
- Axios
What to know about civil commitment, Trump's new policy for homelessness
President Trump 's new executive order to combat homelessness encourages local governments to revive civil commitment, a process to place people with mental health issues in treatment facilities without their consent. Why it matters: Involuntary civil commitment has historically been used as a preventative method to confine people before they harm themselves or others, and most frequently affects vulnerable groups such as LGBTQ+, people of color and people with disabilities, according to several studies. Context: The order Trump signed Thursday calls for shifting homeless individuals into "long-term" institutions for "humane treatment" which the administration says will "restore public order." The order directs officials to determine if federal resources can be used to ensure that those "with serious mental illness" are not released back into the public solely because government facilities lack enough beds to hold them. The order also requires the Justice Department to evaluate homeless people arrested for federal crimes to determine if they are "sexually dangerous persons." The other side: Critics say the order won't help people afford homes and that previous attempts at mass institutionalization frequently violated Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. "These executive orders ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice," Donald Whitehead, Jr., executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said in a statement. He added that the orders "represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals." Here's what you need to know about Trump's new executive order: What is civil commitment? Involuntary civil commitment is the process in which a judge, or someone else acting in judicial capacity, orders a person be admitted to a psychiatric hospital or a supervised outpatient treatment facility without their consent. The specific criteria that a person needs to exhibit to be confined varies in every state, but the guidelines usually mention those with mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse issues that pose a danger to themselves or others. Modern day commitment proceedings have to follow due process laws under state and federal law. How was civil commitment previously used? Before the late 1960's, people with mental health issues were often thrown into jails for vagrancy alongside criminals, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The standards that states had to follow to commit someone had little legal oversight. Since then, there's been a push to orient facilities towards mental health treatment rather than incarceration. More than 500,000 people were committed to mental health treatment facilities in the 1950s, according to a 2010 study. That number fell to 30,000 by the 1990s with a shift in focus on treatment. The Supreme Court has also stepped in to define the boundaries of civil commitment. In a case out of Florida in 1975, the court ruled that an individual must pose a danger to themselves or others to be held against their will. The court ruled in a separate case in 1979 that a "clear and convincing" standard of proof is necessary for involuntary civil commitment. Who was most likely to be affected by civil commitment? The American Psychiatric Association classified"homosexuality" as a mental disorder until 1973, making it easy for states to send LGBTQ+ people to institutions because of their sexuality. Having a "mental abnormality" is typically a requirement for admission to a facility, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, which researches the effects of mass incarceration. The group argues that having a definition that broad would imply that all people who are civilly committed are disabled, which made it hard to accurately determine the number of disabled people in the population studied. Patients of color are more likely than white patients to be committed to involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, according to a 2022 report from the American Psychiatric Association.
NBC News
10 hours ago
- NBC News
Hong Kong issues arrest warrants for 19 overseas activists, offering bounties for 15
HONG KONG — Hong Kong's national security police announced arrest warrants for 19 activists based overseas, accusing them of subversion under a stringent national security law, marking the largest such tally yet. They are accused of organizing or participating in the 'Hong Kong Parliament,' a group authorities in the Asian financial hub say aimed to subvert state power, under the law Beijing imposed in 2020 following months of pro-democracy protests in 2019. The activists are accused of having launched a referendum or run as candidates in the unofficial 'Hong Kong Parliament' group, which authorities say aims at achieving self-determination and drafting a 'Hong Kong constitution.' Police, who said the organization sought to overthrow the governments of China and Hong Kong by unlawful means, said they are still investigating and further arrests may follow. Among those named are businessman Elmer Yuen, commentator Victor Ho, and activists Johnny Fok and Tony Choi. Four of them are subject to previous arrest warrants, each carrying a bounty of HK$1 million ($127,000). Among the remaining 15, for each of whom police are offering a bounty of HK$200,000 ($25,480), are those said to have organized or run in the election and been sworn in as its councilors. None of the accused could be reached for comment. The former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 with the guarantee of a high degree of autonomy, including freedom of speech, under a 'one country, two systems' formula. Critics of the national security law say authorities are using it to stifle dissent. Chinese and Hong Kong officials have repeatedly said the law was vital to restore stability after the city was rocked for months by sometimes violent anti-government and anti-China protests in 2019. Police reiterated that national security offenses were serious crimes with extraterritorial reach and urged the wanted individuals to return to Hong Kong and surrender. 'If offenders voluntarily give up continuing to violate the crime, turn themselves in, truthfully confess their crimes, or provide key information that helps solve other cases, they may be eligible for reduced punishment,' they said in a statement.
Washington Post
10 hours ago
- Washington Post
U.S.-China trade war is a battle to build walls
The Trump administration wants to enlist Southeast Asian countries to build a giant wall around China. The idea is to reduce the countries' reliance on Chinese supply chains, ween them off Chinese exports, and get them to stop letting China transship goods through their ports to evade U.S. tariffs. This was a major point in President Donald Trump's recent trade deal with Vietnam, which imposes a 40 percent tariff on transshipped goods, almost all of which come from China. The Asian countries themselves, meanwhile, are talking about building a different kind of wall — a wall of self-reliance to insulate themselves from the unpredictable trade moves emanating from Washington. Asian leaders now talk incessantly about the need to increase intra-Asian trade as a counterweight to their overreliance on the American market. In April, President Xi Jinping spoke in favor of uniting the 'Asian family.' Chinese officials call this expanding the country's 'circle of friends.' And many Asians outside China seem to agree. 'We need to fortify our internal foundations,' Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim told a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations earlier this month. 'Trade more among ourselves, invest more in one another, and advance integration across sectors with resolve.' So whose wall is more likely to be built? China is clearly expanding its Asian trade. For more than a decade, it has been Southeast Asia's largest trading partner. China is right next door, after all, and has 1.4 billion consumers. And its long-standing trade ties appear to be deepening. In the first five months of this year, trade with Southeast Asia jumped more than 9 percent. In June, China's Southeast Asian exports surged by 16.8 percent year-over-year. Also, anecdotal evidence suggests that intra-Asian trade is growing. In Bangkok, anyone who calls for a GrabCar — the regional equivalent of Uber — is likely to get picked up in a new Chinese-made BYD or Aion electric car, rather than a Tesla. Japanese retail stores like Uniqlo, Isetan, Sogo and Muji dominate regional shopping malls. South Korean LG and Samsung, and Chinese Haier are the top-selling appliance brands. Sales of Chinese Xiaomi and Huawei smartphones now rival those of Apple iPhone. Of course, trade flows in both directions. Southeast Asian textiles, durian, frozen shrimp, rice, coconuts and other delicacies are finding their way onto a growing number of Chinese dinner tables, including in the hinterlands, thanks to China's new 21st century 'Maritime Silk Road.' Then there's Asia's undeniable cultural 'wall.' K-pop, Korean dramas and Korean beauty products are winning fans across the region. 'Squid Game' topped Netflix charts across Asia. But this is not to say that Asia might succeed in walling itself off from America. Steven Okun, an expert on international trade who is the CEO of APAC Advisors, a Singapore-based consultancy, explained the reality to me. 'First,' he said, 'the larger economies' — meaning South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia — 'are too exposed to the U.S. market and there is no replacing it.' 'Second, the countries are at least as afraid, if not more, of China coming in and dumping all their excess capacity into their markets — just as China has done to the U.S.,' Okun said. 'If any walls get built, it will be to keep the Chinese out.' In other words, the United States remains the global behemoth, a veritable vacuum for consumer products. American household spending hit an eye-popping $19 trillion in 2023 — double the figure for the European Union and nearly triple that of China. What's more, for many in Asia, the risk of becoming overly dependent on Beijing looms large. Indonesia has been actively strengthening its various antidumping laws, and recently even banned e-commerce giant Temu over fears it would destroy local businesses. Thailand is eyeing anti-circumvention duties on a host of imported products, mostly from China. Asians want to benefit from China's growth but avoid being crushed by its economic might. Trump's wall relies on rallying allies who are deeply dependent on the global economy and wary of China. China's wall relies on promoting regional self-sufficiency as a counterweight to Washington's unpredictability. Look for regional economic integration to increase. Two-way trade numbers will go up. There will be more Chinese smartphones, appliances and electric vehicles in Asian cities. But America's market dominance looks set to persist for years to come. Asian countries won't be able to wall themselves off anytime soon.
