A coalition of 16 state attorneys general is supporting a Fairfax County, Virginia school board that has been challenged in court for implementing a new high school admissions policy that aims to increase diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity.
The amicus brief—filed Friday in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board—rejects a claim that the school board violated the Equal Protection Clause by intentionally discriminating against Asian-American applicants in revising its admissions plan for its nationally top-ranked Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. The revised plan eliminated the high school’s use of standardized admissions tests in favor of a review process that uses students’ grades and other race-neutral criteria to promote geographic, socioeconomic, and racial diversity.
The parents’ group, Coalition for TJ, convinced a federal district court to suspend the admissions policy. In February, U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton ruled that the new policy that has raised Black and Hispanic representation is impermissible “racial balancing.” Under the new policy, Asian American representation decreased from 70% to to 54%. Black students increased from 1% to 7% and Hispanic representation increased from 3% to 11%.
In addition to suspending the current admissions policy, the district court said the school board must come up with a new admissions policy for this coming fall.
However, a federal appeals court, and then the U.S. Supreme Court, said the admissions policy could be used while the school board’s appeal of the district court ruling plays out in the courts.
“The District Court’s deeply-flawed decision to reject this race-neutral plan not only stifles educational institutions in achieving equity, but it deprives students of experiencing the benefits of greater diversity in their schools,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who is leading the coalition of 16 states arguing against the district court’s decision blocking the revised admissions plan
The attorneys general argue that race-neutral policies are not subject to strict scrutiny simply because policymakers aimed in part to increase diversity. Such scrutiny would be “perverse,” say the state attorneys generals’ brief, adding that “governments would be severely constrained in their ability to serve all of their communities—and therefore would fall short for many.”
Joining Healey in the brief are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Reserve Strengthening for Casualty Lines Not Over: Moody’s 
Berkshire’s ‘Most Important’ Biz Drives Q1 Results; GEICO Still Behind on Tech 
Nuclear Verdicts Surge to $14.5 Billion in 2023 – Report 
Worsening Weather Igniting $25 Billion Weather Derivatives Market 
