Who is harmed by race-conscious assignment?

[Patrick Wiseman]

And an individual black student might be denied access to the school of
her choice although she would be granted her wish if she were not black.
That's my point - every student, _regardless_ of race, is subject to
assignment _because_ of race, so that falling on one side or the other of
the "race line" is, for EP purposes, inconsequential.  (And why is the
constitutional baseline that a student has the right to attend "the school
of his choice"?)

Patrick

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 at 1:24pm, earl maltz wrote:

:The problem with the question is that it focuses on racial groups rather
:than individuals.  While white students as a group may not suffer from any
:disadvantage, an individual white student might still be denied access to
:the school of his choice although he would be granted his wish if he was
:not white.  Thus, he has suffered a disadvantage because of his race.
:
:The question of whether such discrimination is unconstitutional is, of
:course, entirely different.
:
:At 12:58 PM 3/5/2007 -0500, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
:>Colleagues:
:>
:>I was talking in class the other day about the student assignment cases
:>from Seattle and Jefferson County, KY, and a student asked a good
:>question:  who is denied equal protection if _all_ students are subject to
:>being assigned to a school based on their race?  (It may be that the
:>details of the programs are such that there are students who can claim to
:>be disadvantaged by their race, but I want to put that aside for the
:>moment.)
:>
:>As I thought more about the question, it occurred to me that explicit
:>racial classifications now get strict scrutiny regardless of whether
:>anyone is put at a disadvantage by the classification.  (I'm _not_
:>speaking here of the difference between invidious and benign
:>classifications.)  Since _Loving v.  VA_, in which the state argued
:>"symmetry" between the races, the Court has subjected all explicit
:>legislative mentions of race to strict scrutiny.  But VA's argument was
:>bogus, the "symmetry" was false - the classification put uni-racial
:>couples on one side of a line (they could marry) and bi-racial couples on
:>the other (they could not).
:>
:>But there's a _true_ symmetry in the student assignment cases.  _All_
:>students, regardless of race, are subject to being assigned to school on
:>the basis of race.  No-one is more or less disadvantaged.
:>
:>(I'm also puzzled by the notion that Jefferson County is one day
:>constitutionally _required_ to take race into account, and the next, after
:>the school system is declared "unitary," constitutionally _proscribed_
:>from taking race into account, but that's another matter.)
:>
:>I'd be interested in reactions.
:>
:>Patrick
:>--
:>Patrick Wiseman
:>Professor of Law
:>GSU College of Law
:>_______________________________________________
:>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
:>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
:>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
:>
:>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
:>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
:>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
:>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
:

-- 
Patrick Wiseman
Professor of Law
GSU College of Law