The Federal Lord Judge has finally signed off on the negotiated end to the Consent Decree.
The Champaign school district’s consent decree case is officially over.
Federal District Court Judge Joe Billy McDade entered an order Wednesday afternoon approving the proposed settlement agreement reached by the school district and the plaintiffs this summer.
"The Consent Decree is hereby terminated in its entirety." Yea!
I thought this might be interesting, given Champaign Unit 4's current machinations to get out from under a Consent Decree:
A federal judge has ended the desegregation consent decree for Chicago's Public Schools, 29 years to the day after the federal government sued the district for discriminating against black and Hispanic students.
Under the decree, white students were allowed a maximum of 35 percent of seats at the city's top schools. The elimination of the decree also frees the district from requirements regarding bilingual students.
CPS had argued the district should no longer be bound by the order. The district says it no longer operates a system that favors white students, who now make up only 8 percent of the system.
I'll keep looking for a full copy of the ruling.
UPDATE: And the NG has this today:
Many people are concerned the new committee – to be called the "Education Equity Excellence" committee – will not adequately represent the interests of black students, or allow the black community the same voice it has had through PIC.
The school board had its first look at administrative regulations for the new committee earlier this month. They call for 10 committee members, including Superintendent Arthur Culver and another central office administrator, a school board member, a principal, a representative of the teachers' union, and five community members representing a "diverse cross-section of the community" reflecting the district's student enrollment.
"That's code for, we're now going to have people on the committee who don't necessarily have a relationship with the plaintiff class," – the black students in the district, Bazzell said.
Discuss.
No, that's not a typo:
District officials have said they will not pay for any work related to trying to extend the consent decree. They have also objected to specific fee requests based on the presence of more than two plaintiffs' attorneys at certain meetings, the time spent on certain work, and hourly rates, among other things.
Ashley says, in the court filings, that the amount owed to her Chicago law firm is $1,091,381.50.
Although she called the district's distinction between work related to extending the consent decree and work which was not a "false" distinction, she divided the fees according to the related work.
She says the firm is owed $336,667 for work that is not related to extending the consent decree, and $670,461 for extension-related work, as well as $84,253.50 for work related to seeking payment of fees – "work largely created by District's counsel."
The court document also states that $169,232.85 is owed to Rockford attorney Venita Hervey, who also did work for the plaintiffs.
Ugh.
A federal judge has denied a request for a comprehensive good faith hearing before the Champaign school district’s consent decree case ends.
District Judge Joe Billy McDade issued his order Monday afternoon. It states the consent decree does not require a good faith hearing at its termination. McDade also said such a hearing isn’t necessary to decide the pending motions to extend the consent decree.
Discuss.
The district filed its objection last week to both proposed hearings, saying they are not necessary and would be a waste of judicial and district resources.
In the document filed Wednesday, Ashley said the court has the authority at any time to look at the district's good faith and compliance with the consent decree, and it did so in public hearingsa in 2002 and 2006.
The district's objection to a public hearing even on the court monitor's final report "suggests a troubling insensitivity on the part of the district to its minority constituents and to the community as a whole," Ashley wrote. She said the failure to provide a public forum for milestone events in public interest consent decree cases "shuts out the community and threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the decree."
Ashley also claimed the district suggested, in 2005, that a good faith inquiry would take place prior to the end of the consent decree. She said that admission is binding now.
Discuss.
The plaintiffs in the Champaign school district's consent-decree case have filed a second motion seeking to extend the consent decree, in the areas of special education and alternative education.
The motion was filed Monday afternoon, the day before the two sides in the case appear in federal district court in Peoria to argue on a previous motion to extend the decree.
The motion, filed by plaintiffs' attorney Carol Ashley, says the district has not made progress in the area of special education.
"No other area of the district's operations boasts such a comprehensive absence of progress over the course of the last seven years," it states. "The racial disparity in referral rates for special education has not budged over the life of the Decree."
The goal of the consent decree is to eliminate unwarranted disparities between black and white students in assignment to special education, along with achievement, discipline, attendance and enrollment in gifted and honors classes, among other things.
Well, at least the plaintiffs are conceding significant progress in many areas.
And here's another story about today's hearings, regarding school assignments using socio-economic status instead of race.
UPDATED and BUMPED: An email sent by Superintendent Arthur Culver to Board Members and Staff:
From: Arthur Culver
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:45 PM
To: u4staff
Cc: u4boe
Subject: Update on April 28th Consent Decree Hearing
This morning, I accompanied our attorneys, other district administrators, and Board members to federal court in Peoria to hear Judge McDade’s opinion on Plaintiffs’ request for a Limited Extension of the Consent Decree in the areas of student assignment and the addition of two strands of seats north of University Avenue. We were very pleased that Judge McDade agreed that the District could proceed with our new process of student assignment that replaces the use of race as an assignment criteria with the use of socioeconomic status. Our kindergarten lottery has been run using socioeconomic status, and we will be sending placement letters next week. We are extremely proud of the fact that the 2009 kindergarten lottery had the largest number of participants in district history.
Also at today’s hearing, Judge McDade discussed two additional motions filed by Plaintiffs yesterday. In addition to the earlier motion regarding student assignment and the addition of seats north of University, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a Limited Extension of the Consent Decree relating to Special Education and Alternative Education. The second motion filed by Plaintiffs yesterday asks for a Comprehensive Good Faith Hearing and a Request for Consolidation of Hearings.
By Friday, our attorneys will respond to the Plaintiffs’ request to combine the hearings for Limited Extensions to the Consent Decree and to the motion for a Good Faith Hearing. Plaintiffs will have 3 days to reply after receipt of our response.
We have 14 days to respond specifically to Plaintiffs’ motions for a Limited Extension of the Consent Decree in the areas of special education and alternative education. During this same time period, the District was directed to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding a limited discovery plan and hearing schedule. We have previously responded to the motion for a Limited Extension of the Consent Decree in the areas of student assignment and seats north of University Avenue.
I will provide additional updates regarding the expiration of the Consent Decree as they become available.
I am sharing this information with each of you for two reasons. First, I want to keep you apprised of the process leading to the expiration of the Consent Decree on June 30, 2009. Second, I want you to know how much I appreciate all that you have done for the past seven years and before to meet the goals of the Consent Decree. We have all worked diligently on the legal and reporting requirements of the Consent Decree. We can all take pride in what we have accomplished for students. Plaintiffs and the Monitoring Team have acknowledged our success in many areas. We have acknowledged areas where we continue to seek improvement. Today, and always, I want to acknowledge the unbelievable talent, commitment, and hard work of our teachers, administrators and support staff. You give your best every day, and I will make sure that your efforts are recognized. Thank you for all that you do.
Arthur
Arthur R. Culver, Superintendent
Champaign Unit #4
703 S. New Street
Champaign, IL 61820
In his last visit to the Champaign school district before a federal consent decree is scheduled to expire, court monitor Robert Peterkin said the district has made changes in the last couple of years that have made a difference for students and that have "enormous potential" for the future.
"I think they are in the best position they've been in to attack the problems brought up in the consent decree," Peterkin said, "but they can't claim total victory."
Peterkin, a Boston-based consultant who has been working with the district on equity issues for 12 years, spent the last three days meeting with administrators, teachers and students and visiting schools. He meets quarterly with district administrators and plaintiffs' representatives to monitor the district's progress on meeting the goals of the consent decree.
Discuss.
I'm late posting this, but I was out of town all weekend.
The plaintiffs in the Champaign school district's consent decree case are seeking to either extend the consent decree, or to vacate it and have a trial on what they say are discriminatory student assignment practices.
The motion was filed Thursday in federal district court in Peoria. The consent decree is scheduled to expire June 30.
"This was expected," said school board President Dave Tomlinson. "We were hoping we'd be able to work things out without the plaintiffs seeking an extension, but we continue to believe we're on the right track."
Plaintiffs' attorney Carol Ashley said she will continue to try to work with the district, but "We are counsel to the African-American students in Champaign, and we don't believe all the elements of the consent decree have been met, and we're going to pursue those interests on behalf of our clients."
This request was expected, but it's also disappointing. I'm at a loss for words as to how anyone can think the District hasn't made a good faith effort to address the space needs north of University. And am I now left to hope for passage of the countywide sales tax in April in order to reduce the liklihood that the Consent Decree is allowed to expire?
I also wonder how much the plaintiffs' attorneys pushed for an extension simply to keep the cash from the District flowing into their law firm. The millions of dollars paid over the years could have been put to much better use, not the least of which is funding new strands north of University.
There are School Board elections in six weeks. Every candidate for Unit 4's Board should be asked whether or not they support an extension of the Consent Decree.
This is interesting:
The hearing for oral arguments in the BGA’s Freedom of Information lawsuit against the Governor to obtain copies of federal grand jury subpoenas was just scheduled by the 4th District Appellate Court. The hearing will take place on September 16th at 10:00 a.m. at the U of I law school in Urbana.
Apparently the 4th District hears a handful of cases at the law school each year and the BGA’s case is one of this year’s selections.
Discuss.
Not that we have any hope of seeing such reasonable legislation in Illinois any time soon:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
I think, given the number of things for which ID is now required by law, the state shouldn't be charging for them anyway. And obtaining them (and other services) should be a lot more convenient and efficient, but those are concepts with which the Illinois Secretary of State's office is unfamiliar.
UPDATE: Thoughts from our County Clerk:
This is a difficult issue. I have a lot of sympathy for the views of those who find these laws to be burdensome. And I’d hate to have people lose their right to vote because they happened to leave home without an ID.
However, on balance, with the overwhelming concern from the public about election fraud, I see voter ID laws as being a good idea. We need to do more to give the public confidence that every vote is being counted and that only those people who are eligible to vote are able to vote. Of course, any voter ID law should be accompanied by appropriate provisional voting provisions that ensure that people who inadvertently forget their identification are still allowed to vote and given a chance after the election to give their ID.
Seems reasonable to me.
This article http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/post-11.html#more discusses how Alberto Gonzales has undermined federal prosecutions and undermined the effectiveness of the Justice Department.
In a ruling that could have huge implications for Champaign Unit 4 Schools and the Consent Decree, the Supreme Court has limited the use of race when assigning students to public schools:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students' race.
The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.
The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's other three liberals.
Right now, it's just a placeholder story. I'll add more links and details as the stories hit the wires, but I wanted to create a thread for discussion.
UPDATE 9:45 AM: This tidbit was in Tom Kacich's column yesterday (sorry, no link) and I thought it was interesting and pertinent here.
A Money magazine list of the best places to live shows that most highly rated communities have a large percentage of their young population attending public schools, the notion that a good public school system is essential to a community's health. In Fort Collins, Colo., for example, 94.1 percent of students attend public schools. In Naperville - the highest-rated community in Illinois - 94.5 percent of young people attend public schools. But in Champaign, 81.8 percent attend public schools. The percentage is even lower in Peoria (78.8 percent), Bloomington (76.2 percent) and Springfield (75.5 percent).
UPDATE 11:01 AM: I've attached a copy of today's Supreme Court ruling, which was so kindly emailed to me by a friend. I've not yet had time to read it.
UPDATE 11:23 AM: From an emailer:
It is interesting it makes a distinction which might be relevnt here in Champaign between using race to integrate in a district that is remediating a past harm under an order (read: consent decree) and one that is just doing it. I think the bottom line may be that when the consent decree expires Champaign would have to quit using race as a determining factor in schools of choice placement. It isn’t clear if they would have to anyway. I guess I don’t know enough about how Champaign makes its placement determinations. Although I am not sure anyone really does.
And, from the same emailer, this "money quote" from the opinion:
The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics. Racial balancing is not transformed from “patently unconstitutional” to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it “racial diversity."
UPDATE: 2:45 PM: The Wall Street Journal has this Q&A.
What did the Court decide?
In a highly charged atmosphere in the court, the justices ruled 5-4 that the plans were unconstitutional. Four justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that race can never be a factor in these kinds of decisions, with the only exception being a remedy to official segregation. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the fifth vote. Importantly, his concurring opinion didn’t reach as far as the plurality. He ruled that race can be a factor in some circumstances, although not to the extent as employed by the two school districts. Because his was the fifth and deciding vote, his more nuanced view could be the one that school districts look to in crafting new programs. It will also likely muddy how the decision is interpreted.Who will it affect?
It will nix any school district with a similar plan — one in which race is used as a tiebreaker. Seattle, for example, used several factors if schools were oversubscribed, including whether the student had a sibling at the same school and whether they were white or “non-white.” The ruling could affect similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and could prompt districts instead to use other proxies, such as economic status, or to build schools in mixed neighborhoods.Does it overturn Brown v. Board of Education?
No. But it does reflect a deep division over Brown, the 1954 decision that abolished official school segregation and the court’s most celebrated case. The plurality today says Brown means schools can’t look at race in any circumstances. It’s a formalistic view that says racial categories are inherently invidious, regardless of their purpose. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” said Chief Justice Roberts.For the dissenters, Brown was designed to destroy an effective caste system that made blacks inferior, and communities today should be able to try different ways to promote integration. “To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in dissent.
Archpundit says the WSJ has a error above (quoted from CapFaxBlog - I couldn't find it at ArchPundit):
The writer claims that Kennedy allows for race as a factor–he specifically says it cannot be a factor, but that other strategies may be pursued that produce diversity. That’s a huge difference and has very bad impacts on settled cases. I don’t think many of the writers have ever looked at a settlement agreement for a deseg case, but they almost always include race as a factor for several of the programs. This ruling seems to invalidate all of those programs. It’s incredibly sweeping if Kennedy sticks by his decision.
UPDATE 4:55 PM: Here's today's NG story, done on a short deadline this morning:
A U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-based school assignment plans may not have an immediate effect on the Champaign school district, says a lawyer for black families in the district.
Carol Ashley, a Chicago attorney who represents the plaintiffs in the Champaign school district's consent decree case, said she is still reviewing the decision, but believes the district's schools of choice plan is permissible, because the district is still governed by the consent decree.
Advertisement"Our case is completely different from the two before the court," she said.
Champaign school officials issued a statement that said they are still reviewing the court decision and how it may affect the district's practices. It said the school board will discuss the matter at a public meeting, after they've had the chance to meet with the district's lawyer.
In the cases before the court, the school assignment plans were voluntary. The Jefferson County, Ky., school district, in Louisville, had been subject to a desegregation decree, but it expired in 2000, a year before the district adopted its school assignment plan. The Seattle school district had never been subject to such a decree.
Ashley also noted the Champaign school district went through an adjudication process where the court found there were racial disparities and remedies, such as the schools of choice plan, were justified.
The Supreme Court today struck down a portion of the steaming pile of feces that is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" act:
The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.
The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.
Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.
The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.
The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.
Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision.
I'll have more later, but I'm awfully pleased that the First Amendment has regained a tiny shred of its intended importance. I wonder what McCain's dying Presidential campaign will say? He's going to have a hard time criticizing this ruling while still pretending that he'd appoint constructionist judges.
A recent tally by McClatchy Newspapers underscored this point: Thomas has spoken 281 words since court transcripts began identifying justices by name in October 2004. By contrast, Thomas' neighbor on the bench, Justice Stephen Breyer, has uttered nearly 35,000 words since January.
An article by VDH listing important tactical changes needed in Iraq if a troop surge is going to do any good. Included in the list are such suggestions as going on offense, like the Ethiopians, and closing down the borders with Syria and Iran as much as possible. I really like this guy.
And this from Walter Weber about potentially overturning the Flast decision which allows uninjured citizens to contest government expenditures that allegedly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. "The normal rule in federal court is that a citizen can only file suit against the government if he’s been injured." This would be a huge victory for religious conservatives should the Roberts Court actually do this. It would also really fire up the left.
No test will be given, but good students will get their reading done :-)
Have a good weekend - Go Illini!
This from the National Review today. Our new Chief Justice Roberts sided with the 'liberals' on the court in favor of a plaintiff who's house was sold in a property tax auction. The man had moved out, but his wife (they were separated, not divorced) and daughter continued to live there and ignored the notices. Read the article for more details, but here is the key summation: And might Roberts end up again one day with Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg”â€Âif that foursome manages to get something right? I suppose. But something in that Unsuitable Quintet sets off tremors That quintet does set off tremors with me. Conservatives have been counting on the legacy of Bush's appointments to help our cause for years to come - now?
Someone requested topical open threads. Use this one to discuss the Alito Supreme Court nomination hearings.
There's another contender for the vacant U.S. Attorney's spot in Central Illinois: Congressman Ray LaHood's son.
Some people think they're so smart that one can't help but smile when they do something stupid.
I'm pleased, not the least because he seems to very pro-First Amendment:
In the 2001 case, the 3rd Circuit struck down on First Amendment grounds the anti-harassment policy adopted by the State College Area School District in Pennsylvania. The policy, which prohibited harassment on the basis of "one's actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other personal characteristics," had been challenged by two children who said they feared it would get them into trouble if they gave voice to their religious belief that "homosexuality is a sin."
The 3rd Circuit overturned the policy because, in Judge Alito's words, "there is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause." Alito's opinion also cited a 1969 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of public-school students in Iowa to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. In that ruling, Alito noted, the justices had said that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Hopefully, he feels similarly about the inappropriateness of the government regulating political speech via campaign finance "reform."
Please consider a donation to support this site:
Thank you to our generous supporters!
