LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
Transcript of LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
1/78
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No. 10-3824
_____________________________________________________________
_
STUDENT DOE 1, ET AL.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Defendant-Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________
_
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Civ. No. 09-2095
BRIEF OF APPELLEE
Judith E. Harris (PA I.D. No. 02358)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-963-5028
Attorneys for Lower Merion School
District Defendant-Appellee
Dated: January 5, 2011
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
2/78
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-i-
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................ 2
A. Introduction ............................................................................... 2
B. Appellants.................................................................................. 4
C. Lower Merion School District .................................................. 5
D. Superintendent Dr. McGinley ................................................... 6
E. The Community Advisory Committee Recommended
Construction of Two Equal-Size High Schools, Which
Made Redistricting Necessary .................................................. 8F. The Redistricting Process........................................................ 11
1. NonNegotiables .......................................................... 11
2. Community Values ....................................................... 12
3. Redistricting Planning Stages ....................................... 13
4. Proposed Plan 1 ............................................................ 15
5. Proposed Plan 2 ............................................................ 18
6. Proposed Plan 3 ............................................................ 217. Proposed Plan 3R.......................................................... 23
8. Adoption and Implementation of Proposed Plan 3R.... 24
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................................... 27
ARGUMENT............................................................................................... 31
A. Race Was Not An Impermissible Motivating Factor In
The Redistricting Process........................................................ 31
B. Assuming Strict Scrutiny Applies, The Districts
Redistricting Plan Withstands Such Review........................... 45
1. Appellants Contention That The District Never
Identified A Compelling State Interest Related To
Its Purportedly Race-Based Decisionmaking Is
Incorrect ........................................................................ 47
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
3/78
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
ii
2. Appellants Contention That The Districts
Actions Were Not Narrowly Tailored And/OrLimited In Duration Is Without Merit .......................... 52
C. The District Did Not Waive And, In Fact, Proved, That
Plan 3R Would Have Been Adopted Regardless Of The
Racial Composition Of The Affected Area ............................ 55
D. Appellants Argument That 1981 And Title VI Prohibit
The Districts Redistricting Actions, Even Though The
Fourteenth Amendment May Not Do So, Have Been
Soundly Rejected By The Supreme Court And Should
Again Be Rejected Here.......................................................... 62
E. The District Court Did Not Commit An Abuse Of
Discretion In Allowing Dr. Robert Jarvis And Dr.
Claudia Lyles to Testify.......................................................... 63
CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 68
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
4/78
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
iii
CASES
Adarand Constructors v. Pena,515 U.S. 200 (1995)................................................................................. 45
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody,
422 U.S. 405 (1975)................................................................................. 39
Ansell v. Green Acres Contracting Co., Inc.,
347 F.3d 515 (3d Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 65
Biessel v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R.R. Co.,
801 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986) .................................................................... 63
Bush v. Vera,
517 U.S. 952 (1996)................................................................................. 43
Cary Oil Co. v. MG Refining & Marketing, Inc.,
No. 99 Civ. 1725, 2003 WL 1878246 (S.D.N.Y. April 11, 2003).......... 67
Charpentier v. Godsil,
937 F.2d 859 (3d Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 57
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.,
488 U.S. 469 (1998)................................................................................. 45
Concerned Citizens for Neighborhood Schools v. Pastel,
No. 5:05-1070, 2007 WL 1220542 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2007)............... 42
Cunningham v. Town of Ellicott,
No. 04CV301, 2007 WL 1040013 (W.D.N.Y. April 3, 2007)................ 67
Davis v. Bandemer,
478 U.S. 109 (1986)................................................................................. 58
DeMarines v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
580 F.2d 1193 (3d Cir. 1978) .................................................................. 66
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
5/78
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(continued)
Page
iv
G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance Co.,
586 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 50, 51
General Building Contractors Association, Inc. v. Pa.,
458 U.S. 375 (1982)................................................................................. 63
Gratz v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 244 (2003)........................................................................... 45, 62
Grutter v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 306 (2003)............................................................... 45, 49, 54, 62
Johnson v. California,543 U.S. 499 (2005)................................................................................. 45
Mazus v. Department of Transport,
629 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1980) .................................................................... 37
Meyers v. Pennypack Woods,
559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1977) .................................................................... 66
Parents Involved in Community Schools v.Seattle Sch. District No. 1,
551 U.S. 701 (2007).......................................................................... passim
Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
288 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002) .............................................................. 45, 51
Sandoval v. Alexander,
532 U.S. 275 (2001)................................................................................. 62
Terrell v. Richter-Rosin, Inc.,81 F.3d 161, 1996 WL 122639 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 1996)........................ 65
The Globe Savings Bank, F.S.B. v. U.S.,
61 Fed. Cl. 91 (2004)............................................................................... 67
Upshur v. Shepherd,
538 F. Supp. 1176 (E.D. Pa. 1982).......................................................... 66
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
6/78
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(continued)
Page
v
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing
Development Corp.,429 U.S. 252 (1977)........................................................................... 46, 51
Woodson v. Scott Paper Co.,
109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 57
Yelverton v. Lehman,
No. CIV.A. 94-6114, 1996 WL 296551 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1996) ........... 63
STATUTES
20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq ................................................................................ 69
20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II).................................................................. 41
42 U.S.C. 1981................................................................................. 1, 29, 62
42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq ................................................................................ 1
RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)................................................................................. 64
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
7/78
1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
A. Did the District Court commit reversible legal error in
concluding that the District did not discriminate against Appellants on the
basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
Suggested Answer: No.
B. Are the Districts actions violative of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and/or
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., even though they
are permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
Suggested Answer: No.
C. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in admitting the
testimony of Dr. Claudia Lyles and Dr. Robert Jarvis?
Suggested Answer: No.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
8/78
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Introduction
The essential, material facts of this case can be distilled to the
following: (1) the Board of School Directors (Board) adopted the Lower
Merion School Districts (the District) redistricting plan, Plan 3R, on
January 12, 2009, and did not consider race in doing so; (2) the purpose of
Plan 3R was to achieve equal enrollment in the Districts two high schools,
as set forth in the Non-Negotiables adopted by the Board; (3) the District did
not select individual students for assignments to either Lower Merion High
School (Lower Merion or LMHS) or Harriton High School (Harriton)
under Plan 3R; (4) student assignment under Plan 3R was based on existing
feeder patterns from the elementary schools to the middle schools and on to
a high school; (5) these feeder patterns assigned all students, irrespective of
race or ethnicity, outside the official LMHS walk zone1
who attended any of
1The official, historic LMHS walk zone did not originate with redistricting
and had been in place, in its current form, for many years prior to
redistricting. A walk zone is simply the area within which the Districtdoes not provide bus transportation to students. That is how the District
defines walking. Appendix A2133. Every school within the District, with
the exception of Harriton (which had a walk zone until PennDOT certified
Ithan Avenue as hazardous for student walking) has a walk zone. Appendix
A1313.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
9/78
3
the three elementary schools feeding into Welsh Valley Middle School to
Harriton; and (6) Appellants, along with all other students in the Affected
Area (as hereinafter defined), regardless of race, have lost the option of
attending Lower Merion because all attend Penn Valley Elementary School
and Welsh Valley Middle School and reside outside of the official LMHS
walk zone. Appellants mischaracterize, oversimplify, or simply omit these
key findings from their brief.
Although the District Court also found that the Administration desired
racial diversity in both high schools, and that the Affected Area was
targeted for redistricting in part because of its racial demographics, it
concluded that the District did not invidiously discriminate against any
individual student on the basis of his or her race, and that the Board
The LMHS walk zone is one mile in some places and less than one mile in
other places. As with all walk zones in the District, it is measured as the car
drives or as the student walks, not as the crow flies. Appendix A1295-
A1296. The shape of the walk zone takes into consideration the location of
streets and cross streets (e.g., walk zones are not intended to split a block in
the middle of a block), obstacles, and hazardous walking areas. Appendix
A687-A688. Consequently, the LMHS walk zone does not extend in a
perfect one-mile radius from the high school. While a few of the Appellants
may live within a mile of Lower Merion High School, none of them liveswithin the official LMHS walk zone. As Mr. Andre, the Districts
Transportation Supervisor, testified at trial, the LMHS walk zone extends
less than a full mile in areas other than the Affected Area as well. Appendix
A1296.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
10/78
4
Members, in voting to approve Plan 3R, did not consider race. Appendix
A53, A55.
B. Appellants
Appellants include nine African-American students (Students Doe)
and ten parents (Parents/Guardians Doe) who reside in the District in an
area known as South Ardmore, which is bounded by Athens Avenue,
Wynnewood Road, County Line, and Cricket Avenue. This area has been
referred to throughout this case as the Affected Area. The Affected Area
is one of the areas closest to Harriton that was not districted to Harriton prior
to the Boards adoption of Plan 3R. Appendix A87.
The Affected Area is adjacent to another area referred to at trial as
North Ardmore, which, like the Affected Area, has a significant
concentration of African-American residents. Appendix A9-A10. With the
exception of Student Doe 4, who elected to attend Harriton for the 2009
2010 academic year, Students Doe attend Penn Valley Elementary School or
Welsh Valley Middle School. Students Doe are bused to their current
schools, along with students of all races from the Affected Area, and have
always received bus transportation provided by the District because they live
outside any official walk zone, which is the designated area within which the
District does not provide bus transportation to students. Appendix A11,
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
11/78
5
A14, A81-A82. See also footnote 1, infra. In terms of travel time, students
in the Affected Area travel eighteen to nineteen minutes on District buses to
Harriton High School, which is half the distance and half the time of the
longest bus ride in the District. Appendix A40.
Under Plan 3R, Appellants and all other students in the Affected Area
are districted to attend Penn Valley Elementary School and Welsh Valley
Middle School, as they were prior to redistricting, but now they are
districted to Harriton for high school. Prior to redistricting, they had the
option of attending either Lower Merion or Harriton. All students in North
Ardmore are districted to attend Penn Wynne Elementary School, Bala
Cynwyd Middle School, and Lower Merion, as they were prior to
redistricting. Appendix A10-A11.
C. Lower Merion School District
The District operates six elementary schools (Belmont Hills, Cynwyd,
Gladwyne, Merion, Penn Valley, and Penn Wynne), two middle schools
(Bala Cynwyd and Welsh Valley), and two high schools (Harriton High
School and Lower Merion High School).2
Both of the high schools are
ranked as being among the best in the state, if not the nation. The Board is
2The Districts elementary schools include kindergarten through grade five,
its middle schools include grades six through eight, and its high schools
include grades nine through twelve.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
12/78
6
composed of nine elected School Directors (Board Members) who are
vested, by state law, with the authority to assign students to schools within
the District. Appendix A6.
D. Superintendent Dr. McGinley
Dr. Christopher McGinley has been the Districts Superintendent
since June 2008. The Board Members voted to hire Dr. McGinley in part
because he was a true educator who was studentfocused and
personable, and because he had a wealth of experience and success in
combating the minority student achievement gap.3
Appendix A7.
Prior to working for the District, Dr. McGinley was Assistant
Superintendent and then Superintendent at Cheltenham School District in
Montgomery, Pennsylvania, where he was known as a pioneer and
leader in combating the achievement gap, a national educational issue. In
particular, Dr. McGinley helped implement initiatives to eliminate class
3According to Dr. McGinley, Dr. Claudia Lyles, who worked with Dr.
McGinley in the Cheltenham School District, and Dr. Robert Jarvis, who
heads the Delaware Valley Minority Student Achievement Consortium, the
achievement gap refers to the observed and pervasive disparity in
measurable educational achievement among groups of students. Researchon the achievement gap across the nation, as well as specifically in the
District, shows that AfricanAmerican and Latino students as a whole
perform significantly poorer than their White and AsianAmerican peers.
Combating the achievement gap, therefore, refers to valid and appropriate
educational policies aimed at minimizing and eradicating the achievement
gap. Appendix A7.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
13/78
7
tracking after second grade, and to use demonstrated performance, such as
test scores and report cards, to place students, thereby taking away teacher
subjectivity. Both initiatives resulted in a significant decrease in the
achievement gap in Cheltenham School District. In addition to this work,
Dr. McGinley helped form a partnership with the University of Pennsylvania
to create the Delaware Valley Minority Student Achievement Consortium
(Consortium), which is an organization dedicated to eliminating the
achievement gap by educating educators on the subject, and studying
techniques to combat, and the causes of, this phenomenon. Appendix A7-
A8.
As part of combating the achievement gap, Dr. McGinley and the
Consortium have done work to minimize racial isolation, which is the
isolation a student may feel when, for example, he or she is one of only a
few students of his or her particular background in the class. Racial
isolation is not triggered by a particular threshold number of students, or
lack thereof, from a particular background in a given classroom, and is not
necessarily affected by the number of minorities in a given school. Since
becoming the Districts Superintendent, Dr. McGinley has overseen a
clustering program in which the District places students of a given
minority background, who have agreed to participate in the program,
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
14/78
8
together in language and language honors classes. This clustering
program has been successful at increasing the number of minorities, and in
particular, the number of AfricanAmerican students, in language programs
in the District. Appendix A8.
E. The Community Advisory Committee Recommended
Construction of Two Equal-Size High Schools, Which Made
Redistricting Necessary
In 1997, the District began a capital improvement program to
modernize each of its ten schools. As of 2004, Lower Merion and Harriton
remained to be modernized to fulfill the Districts educational requirements.
The community as a whole recognized that both high schools were outdated
and required significant physical plant investments. In order to review and
study all options available for addressing the Districts high school situation,
in 2004, the Board established a forty-five member Community Advisory
Committee (CAC) comprised of a broad cross-section of school,
community, and other interested individuals with a wide range of
perspectives. The CAC considered the following alternatives for
modernizing the Districts two high schools: (1) creating one separate
school for ninth grade students only and one school for students in grades
10-12; (2) building a new, single high school of 2,500 students; (3) building
two new high schools while keeping their present student populations (1,600
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
15/78
9
Lower Merion/900 Harriton students) intact; and (4) building two new high
schools but balancing their student enrollment levels (1,250 students each).
Appendix A12.
The CAC rejected the first three proposals. It decided against
establishing a separate ninth grade school because it heard no strong
educational arguments in favor of such a school, the proposal would add
another transition for students, from ninth to tenth grade, and co-curricular
activities would be adversely affected. The CAC also decided against a
single high school of 2,500 students due to the advantages of smaller
schools, including a greater sense of community, better relations between
students and faculty, more opportunities for co-curricular activities, and
better educational outcomes, and also because a school of 2,500 students
would not fit on either existing high school site, would create major traffic
problems, would require students to be bused to off-site athletic fields at
additional cost, and would violate impervious coverage allowances. The
CAC decided against two high schools of unequal size because this option
would not address differences in the educational offerings at the two high
schools, the evidence indicated that smaller schools produce better
educational outcomes, and if the larger Lower Merion High School
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 15 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
16/78
10
continued to be the larger school, traffic and parking problems at that site
would be perpetuated. Appendix A12-13.
Ultimately, the CAC voted in favor of a plan for two new high schools
of equal enrollment capacity, designed for 1,250 students each, and the
Board subsequently adopted the CACs recommendation. Specifically, the
CAC concluded that this was the best option because it allowed all students
to benefit from the smallest possible schools, which provide a stronger sense
of community, promote better student/faculty interactions, and provide a
better educational outcome for all students than larger schools. In addition,
this option provided students across the District with the most equitable
access to programs and facilities, because each school would be able to offer
the same range of courses and would have its own co-curricular activities.
Finally, the CAC determined that equal-size schools would make the best
use of the existing school sites by alleviating the overcrowding, traffic, and
parking problems at Lower Merion. Appendix A13.
The Board accepted this recommendation; however, because the
District had to keep the high schools at their existing locations, equalizing
enrollment at the two high schools required redistricting to eliminate the
700student disparity between the two high schools. Appendix A13. It was
clear that merely having voluntary magnet programs to attract students to
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 16 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
17/78
11
Harriton would be insufficient to draw the requisite number of students to
Harriton. Indeed, even prior to redistricting Harriton had in place an
International Baccalaureate (IB) program that aimed to attract more
students to Harriton, yet Lower Merion always had had a substantially
higher student enrollment than Harriton. Appendix A14. Consequently, to
implement the CACs recommendation that the District build two new high
schools of equal student enrollment, it was inevitable that a number of
students who would have attended Lower Merion prior to any redistricting
plan would now have to attend Harriton.
In addition to being constrained by geography, the process was also
constrained by the residential location of students in the District. Because
the overwhelming majority of the Districts students live much closer to
Lower Merion than to Harriton, in order to achieve an equal student
population at Harriton, significant redistricting would be required.
Appendix A14; A51, n.22.
F. The Redistricting Process
1. NonNegotiables
On April 21, 2008, the Board adopted the following set of guiding
principles, known as Non-Negotiables, to govern the redistricting process:
(1) The enrollment of the two high schools and two middle schools will be
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 17 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
18/78
12
equalized; (2) Elementary students will be assigned so that the schools are at
or under the school capacity; (3) The plan may not increase the number of
buses required; (4) The class of 2010 will have the choice to either follow
the redistricting plan or stay at the high school of their previous year (i.e. the
principle of grandfathering); and (5) Redistricting decisions will be based
upon current and expected future needs and not based on past practices.
Appendix A15-16. These NonNegotiables did not reference race or
minority student assignments, and each stated a valid, educational purpose
that was legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Appendix A16.
2. Community Values
Beginning in May 2008, the District hired two outside consultants, Dr.
Harris Sokoloff and Ms. Ellen Petersen, who held a series of public forums
and collected online surveys to solicit input from the community and
identify their values in the context of redistricting. This process involved
asking citizens a hypothetical question unrelated to redistricting: you have a
friend contemplating moving to the District what would you tell her about
what you like or do not like about Lower Merion to help her make a
decision? Appendix A16; Appendix A1837-A1838. Notably, this question
was posed to citizens before any proposed redistricting plan had been
presented or even formulated.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 18 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
19/78
13
On July 11, 2008, Dr. Sokoloff and Ms. Petersen presented to the
Board their report, which identified five Community Values: (1) Social
networks are at the heart of where people live, and those networks expand as
people grow older; (2) Lower Merion public schools are known for their
excellence: academic as well as extracurricular; (3) Those who walk
should continue to walk while the travel time for nonwalkers should be
minimized; (4) Children learn best in environments when they are
comfortablesocially as well as physically; and (5) explore and cultivate
whatever diversityethnic, social, economic, religious and racialthere is in
Lower Merion. The Board voted to accept Dr. Sokoloff and Ms. Petersens
report. Appendix A17.4
3. Redistricting Planning Stages
In June 2008, the School Board engaged a redistricting consultant, Dr.
Ross Haber, of Ross Haber Associates, Inc., to review and analyze District
enrollment data, and to propose alternative redistricting plans. Appendix
4Dr. McGinley and several Board Members testified that the Community
Values, unlike the NonNegotiables, were never mandates that had to be met
by proposed redistricting plans, but merely informed the redistrictingprocess, and many of them, including the value respecting diversity, were
applicable only at the implementation phase, after a redistricting plan had
been selected by the Board. Appendix A17. As the District Court noted, the
District cannot be faulted for soliciting the communitys input and could not
preclude discussions of race. There is nothing inappropriate about having a
Community Value respecting diversity. Appendix A18.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 19 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
20/78
14
A19. Dr. Haber was selected to be the Districts redistricting consultant
primarily because he had proprietary Geographic Information Software
(GIS) that allowed him to move school attendance lines and then report
how many students would be within those lines. Appendix A944. In prior
redistrictings, the District used push-pins on a map to represent students, an
extremely onerous process. Appendix A1671. In connection with his work,
Dr. Haber requested and received standard student file data maintained by
the district namely the students identification numbers, names, addresses,
race, ethnicity, special needs status, and socioeconomic status, as measured
by participation in free and reduced lunch programs. Appendix A19.
During July and August 2008, Dr. Haber worked with the Administration to
create various redistricting plans, called Scenarios. Appendix A19.5
Over the course of the redistricting process, eight sets of Scenarios, of
which some had additional variations, were prepared by Dr. Haber, and
considered by the Administration.6
Of the Scenarios, the Administration
chose four Proposed Plans (1, 2, 3, and 3R) to present to the Board at public
5 As the District Court noted, Dr. Haber testified that he was never directedto create or change a redistricting scenario based on its diversity outcome.
Appendix A22.
6Toward the end of the redistricting process, Dr. Habers involvement had
decreased substantially. Appendix A52, n.23.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 20 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
21/78
15
Board meetings, where they were presented to both the Board and members
of the community, and after which public comments on each proposed plan
were solicited. Only Plan 3R was voted upon by the Board. Appendix
A19.7
4. Proposed Plan 1
On September 8, 2008, Proposed Plan 1 (Plan 1) was presented at a
public Board meeting. As part of this presentation (and also as part of the
subsequent presentations of Plans 2 and 3), the District presented a
PowerPoint slide concerning the projected diversity make-up (of which racial
diversity was a part, along with socioeconomic status, as measured by
participation in free and reduced price lunch programs, and special needs status)
of each high school in the event that the proposed plan was adopted by the
Board.8 Appendix A28; A2118, A2141, A2158.
7The Scenarios were not presented to, considered, or voted upon by, the
Board, nor did the Board Members at the meeting recall the initial Scenarios
that Dr. Haber presented to them. Accordingly, the District Court rightly
determined that the Scenarios were of minor importance to the determination
of whether race was a motivating factor in the redistricting process.
Appendix A20.
8Appellants mischaracterize the Districts intentions in presenting such
information, arguing that it prominently displayed its diverse high school
populations (Appellants Brief at 20, 22, and 25, and thereby suggesting
that merely providing this information to the public, which the public itself
had sought, was improper and/or that the District had intended to produce a
certain diversity outcome, neither of which is accurate.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 21 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
22/78
16
Plan 1 required no redistricting at the elementary school level, and
allowed students to remain with their cohorts from kindergarten through to
grade 8. Plan 1 changed the Districts middle school feeder patterns so that
Penn Wynne Elementary School students (which included not only North
Ardmore but all other Penn Wynne students) would attend Welsh Valley
Middle School (and then Harriton), and Penn Valley Elementary School
students would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School (and then Lower
Merion). Appendix A2116, A2119. Students districted to attend Lower
Merion under Plan 1 retained the option of attending Harriton to enroll in its
IB program. In addition, Plan 1 had a grandfathering component, meaning
that all current high school students were given the option of remaining at
the high school they presently attended. Appendix A27. Plan 1 satisfied
each of the Non-Negotiables. It maintained all elementary school
boundaries and changed feeder patterns based on elementary schools moving
together to middle school as a community unit. Appendix A2119-A2120,
A2130.
During the public comment period following the presentation of Plan
1, the Board received criticisms of the plan, namely from the Penn Wynne
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 22 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
23/78
17
school community.9
Questions and concerns were raised about middle
school assignments and the possibility of grandfathering eighth graders to
their planned high schools. Appendix A2131. Ultimately, the
Administration was not satisfied with Plan 1 primarily because it resulted in
excessive travel times for students, particularly those Penn Wynne students
who lived along the City Avenue corridor, the eastern-most boundary of the
District.10
Appendix A2132. Accordingly, the Administration and Dr.
Haber investigated alternate plans with an eye toward creating new ways to
expand Harritons projected student enrollment by drawing from students
who lived closer to Harriton, and the communitys expressed desire to see
that all children remained together for grades six through twelve. Appendix
A32; A2133.
9Appellants focus solely on comments raised by a few community members
that the proposed plans were based on race is an apparent attempt to make it
seem as though race-based concerns were the primary concerns expressed
and that the proposed plans were rejected because of such concerns. As
demonstrated herein, however, the record reveals other, race-neutral
concerns expressed by the community.
10During the summer, the District tested bus travel times under Proposed
Plan 1 to assess student impact. After the 2008 to 2009 school year began,
the District again tested the bus travel times, this time finding that bus travel
times were significantly longer than they had been during the summer.
Appendix A32, n. 14; A2131.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 23 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
24/78
18
5. Proposed Plan 2
On October 28, 2008, Proposed Plan 2 (Plan 2) was presented at a
public Board Meeting. Like Plan 1, Plan 2 set forth which high school each
student must attend, based on where each student lived in the District.
Under Plan 2, students districted to attend Lower Merion had the option of
attending Harriton to enroll in its IB program, and students living in the
official LMHS walk zone that were zoned to attend Harriton had the option
of attending Lower Merion for any reason. Appendix A2140.
Plan 2 addressed concerns expressed during the public comment
period that followed the presentation of Plan 1. Appendix A2131-A2134.
The foundations of the plan included: (1) keeping all children together from
grades six through twelve; (2) avoiding drawing students from communities
adjacent to City Avenue; and (3) avoiding, to the extent possible, reducing
the official walking area for middle and high school. Appendix A2133.
Plan 2 again provided numerically balanced enrollments at the high school
and middle school levels in order to ensure program equity as a driving
principle. Appendix A2134. In many cases, Plan 2 shortened high school
students bus times from those indicated and/or anticipated under Plan 1, as
students from the furthest corridor of the District were no longer affected,
thereby eliminating their commute to Harriton. Appendix A2134.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 24 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
25/78
19
Under Plan 2, Gladwyne Elementary School students continued to
attend Welsh Valley Middle School and Harriton; all Belmont Hills
Elementary School students were districted to Welsh Valley and Harriton;
the Penn Valley and Haverford areas of the Penn Valley Elementary feeder
area were districted to Welsh Valley and Harriton; part of the Penn Wynne
Elementary feeder area (including North Ardmore) was districted to Welsh
Valley and Harriton; and part of the Merion Elementary feeder area was
districted to Welsh Valley and Harriton. The remaining areas of the Penn
Valley, Merion, and Cynwyd Elementary feeder areas were districted to
Bala Cynwyd Middle School and Lower Merion. Consequently, under Plan
2 students were split after elementary school and then remained together for
middle and high school. Appendix A2136-A2137.11
During the subsequent public comments period, the community raised
various concerns about Plan 2, including that any plan should maximize
continuity in general, both K-12 and 6-12, that the plan split up communities
that were part of the same elementary school, and that the plan posed
11 The District Court found that Plan 2 kept students with their elementaryschool peers for middle school and separated them at high school but, in
fact, the record demonstrates that Plan 2 split students after elementary
school and then kept them together with their peers for middle school and
high school, providing continuity only for grades six through twelve.
Appendix A2136-A2137.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 25 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
26/78
20
difficulties for the transition to middle school, particularly since each middle
school would be working with students from four or five different
elementary schools. Appendix A2153.12
After the public presentation of Plan 2, the Board brought Dr.
Sokoloff and Ms. Petersen back to provide clarification as to what factors
were important to the community in redistricting. The Board understood the
primary community concern expressed during the Plan 2 comment period to
be that of educational continuity from kindergarten through high school,
meaning that students who attend the same kindergarten, continue through to
grade twelve, rather than having the group of students who attend one
elementary school split up between the Districts two middle schools, or
having the group of students who attend one middle school split up between
Harriton and Lower Merion High Schools. In addition to educational
continuity, the Board noted the following three primary concerns: (1)
distance and access, (2) walkability, and (3) community. Appendix A34;
A2150-A-2151.
In light of these concerns, the District extended the timeline for
redistricting in order to allow for fuller consideration of the communitys
12One group of students also made accusations that Proposed Plan 2 had a
disparate impact on AsianAmerican students by increasing Harritons
AsianAmerican student population by redistricting students in Shortridge.
Appendix A33-A34.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 26 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
27/78
21
input, and to allow the community to express concerns about Proposed Plan
3 and any modifications to that plan. The District also scheduled additional
public meetings to allow for further discussion concerning the priorities
moving forward. Appendix A34.
6. Proposed Plan 3
On November 24, 2008, Proposed Plan 3 (Plan 3) was presented at
a public Board Meeting. Consistent with the aim of maintaining educational
continuity from kindergarten through to grade twelve to the maximum extent
possible, Plan 3 employed a 3-1-1 Feeder Pattern whereby the students
that were districted for three elementary schools were assigned to attend a
single middle school and a single high school. The 3-1-1 plan enabled
students to transition more easily from elementary school, to middle school
and high school, because it permitted teachers at the middle and high schools
to become knowledgeable about what their students previously had learned
and to build upon that foundation. Appendix A38. Plan 3 also protected the
walk zones for the elementary and middle schools and followed the then-
current feeder patterns to middle school. Appendix A2154.
Under Proposed Plan 3, students districted for Cynwyd, Merion, and
Penn Wynne Elementary Schools were assigned to Bala Cynwyd Middle
School and Lower Merion, while students districted for Belmont Hills,
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 27 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
28/78
22
Gladwyne, and Penn Valley Elementary Schools were assigned to Welsh
Valley Middle School and Harriton. The feeder patterns under Plan 3
assigned all students, irrespective of race or ethnicity. The only exception
Plan 3 made to the 3-1-1 Feeder Pattern was to create an abbreviated Lower
Merion High School walk zone that allowed students living within it the
choice of which high school to attend. The only other students who retained
a choice of high school under Plan 3 were students districted to attend Lower
Merion, but who wanted to attend Harriton to enroll in its IB program.
Appendix A2155-A2156.
Under Plan 3, students in the Affected Area, all other areas districted
for Penn Valley Elementary School (with the exception of those residing
within the abbreviated walk zone), and the Narberth Borough of Belmont
Hills, would no longer have a choice of high schools. Appendix A2155-
A2156.
During the public comment period following Plan 3, the Board
understood the main concern expressed by the community to be that of
walkability, because Plan 3 only allowed a limited number of students to
choose to walk to Lower Merion. Appendix A40. Other concerns included
overall student enrollment balance and the expansion of social networks at
the high school level. Appendix A2168. The Administration thus decided
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 28 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
29/78
23
to maintain the official, historical LMHS walk zone to allow more students
who lived within walking distance of Lower Merion but who were
redistricted for Harriton under Plan 3 to have the choice of walking to Lower
Merion. The revised Plan 3 became Proposed Plan 3R. Appendix A40-A41.
7. Proposed Plan 3R
Proposed Plan 3R (Plan 3R) was presented at a public board
meeting on December 15, 2008. Like Plan 3, Plan 3R put in place a 3-1-1
feeder pattern under which students districted for Penn Valley Elementary
School, including the Affected Area, as well as students districted for
Gladwyne and Belmont Hills Elementary Schools, were districted to attend
Welsh Valley Middle School and Harriton. Appendix A41-A42.
Under Plan 3R, students could remain with their peers by following
assigned feeder patterns K-12, the official walk zones for elementary,
middle, and high school were maintained, current feeder patterns were
followed, and the plan allowed for a mixed13
high school population at each
school through the option area or choice programs. Appendix A2170.
Plan 3R restored the abbreviated walk zone in Plan 3 back to the
LMHS walk zones official, historical designations, which at times measures
13By mixed high school population, the District meant only that each
high school would have students from both Welsh Valley and Bala Cynwyd
Middle Schools, as opposed to students from only one of those middle
schools.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 29 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
30/78
24
one mile (not as the crow flies but as students walk to school) and which is
constrained by areas designated as hazardous. While the official LMHS
walk zone includes some areas districted for Penn Valley and Belmont Hills
Elementary Schools, it does not include and never has included the Affected
Area. Appendix A43; A514; A531; A536. To offset the restoration of the
official LMHS walk zone and better equalize overall student enrollment
numbers at Harriton and Lower Merion, Plan 3R also allowed all students
districted for Lower Merion, as well as students residing in the historic walk
zone, to have the choice of attending either Harriton or Lower Merion;
however, students in the Affected Area and other areas districted for
Harriton did not have a choice of high school. Appendix A2171-A2172.
8. Adoption and Implementation of Proposed Plan 3R
At a public board meeting on the evening of January 12, 2009, the
Board voted to adopt Plan 3R. This was the only formal action taken by the
Board respecting redistricting. Appendix A51. Six Board Members voted in
favor of the Plan, and only two Board Members voted against the plan. The
then-Board President could not vote because she was ill and in the hospital,
but prior to the vote, she sent over her thoughts to the Board, which were
read to the Board before the vote, indicating that she supported Plan 3R.
Appendix A46-A47.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 30 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
31/78
25
Of the seven Board Members who voted for, or in the case of the
then-Board President, who expressed support for, Plan 3R, many voted in
large part because they, like the community, believed that educational
continuity provided substantial pedagogical and psychological benefits.
None of the Board Members considered race in voting to adopt Plan 3R.
Appendix A55. One Board Member, who voted against the plan, did so for
valid pedagogical reasons unrelated to race, namely, that he did not believe
that educational continuity was in students best interest, but did believe that
mixing students via the feeder patterns added to students educational
experiences. Another Board Member, who also voted against the plan, did
not believe the Board was discriminating on the basis of race in considering
and adopting Plan 3R. She simply had other priorities. Appendix A48-50.
After Plan 3R went into effect, all students in Appellants
neighborhood a majority of whom are not African-American were
redistricted to Harriton. Appendix A53-A54. Moreover, under Plan 3R all
other neighborhoods that were not districted to Harriton before the adoption
of Plan 3R but which also, like the Affected Area, were zoned to one of the
three elementary schools that feed into Welsh Valley Middle School (i.e.,
Penn Valley, Belmont Hills, and Gladwyne) and did not fall within the
official LMHS walk zone, were districted to Harriton without choice of
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 31 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
32/78
26
attending Lower Merion. Appendix A2176. Appellants ignore these crucial
facts. Twenty-one rising ninth grade students from the Affected Area were
redistricted to Harriton for the 2009-2010 school year, of which twelve were
AfricanAmerican. Appendix A1204-A1205. In addition, twenty-three
students were redistricted from the Narberth and Penn Valley geographic
areas districted for Penn Valley Elementary School, none of whom was
AfricanAmerican. Appendix A50.14
14Because all current high school students were grandfathered under Plan
3R, only incoming ninth grade students were affected by the redistricting in
the 2009-2010 school year.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 32 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
33/78
27
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Appellants seek reversal of the District Courts ruling that the Lower
Merion School Districts redistricting plan did not discriminate against them
on the basis of their race. In doing so, they argue that they were redistricted
because of race, since it was known that the Affected Area has a significant
African-American population. They ignore the fact that they were not
singled out for redistricting and that students of all races in the Affected
Area, as well as students of all races who attend the same elementary and
middle schools as Appellants and who, like them, live outside the official
LMHS walk zone, were redistricted to Harriton. If this Court were to
provide Appellants with the result they desire, it would have to treat them
differently from similarly situated non-African-American students because
of their race. For the reasons set forth below, the District Courts ruling
should stand.
Appellants appeal from the District Courts ruling that the District did
not discriminate against them on the basis of race in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the District Courts
ruling should only be reversed if legally erroneous. Although there is no
case directly on point, the District Court was appropriately guided by the
Supreme Courts decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 33 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
34/78
28
Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) (Seattle). To the extent that
some of the District Courts factual findings were, as the District
respectfully submits, unsupported by the record evidence, that does not alter
the result here, as the kinds of race-conscious action that the District Court
found are the kinds of action that Justice Kennedy (along with the four
dissenting Justices in Seattle) expressly sanctioned. Consequently,
regardless of whether strict scrutiny is applied, and regardless of whether the
District Courts factual findings are based on sufficient record evidence, the
District Courts ultimate legal conclusion that the District did not
discriminate against Appellants in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
is correct.
The Districts Courts factual finding that the District considered
racial demographics in redistricting the Affected Area to Harriton does not
render Plan 3R unconstitutional. Any such race-conscious action on behalf
of the District is permissible and not subject to strict scrutiny. Seattle, 551
U.S. at 789 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Even assuming, as the District Court
did, that such conduct does require the application of strict scrutiny, the
District demonstrated sufficient, narrowly tailored compelling government
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 34 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
35/78
29
interests.15
As the District Court concluded, considering racial
demographics alongside numerous raceneutral, valid educational
interestssimilar to the goal of achieving general diversity in higher
education admissions programs, with reference to multiple factors such as
race, gender, economic background, religion, and other individual
characteristicshas never been held unconstitutional (Appendix A66), and
there is no basis for this Court to find so now. Moreover, the District
showed that it would have adopted Plan 3R regardless of any racial
considerations, as there was no other redistricting plan that could have met
all of the Districts educational objectives.
Appellants contention that 42 U.S.C. 1981 and/or Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act provide them recourse, when the District Court concluded
that the District did not discriminate against them in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, has been soundly rejected
on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court. Appellants do not provide,
nor can they provide, any sufficient reason why this Court should depart
from these well-established precedents.
15The District Court acknowledged that if Plan 3R survived strict scrutiny,
it certainly would meet lower standards of review, i.e., rational basis review
and intermediate scrutiny. Since the District court concluded that Plan 3R
survived strict scrutiny, inherent in that conclusion is that it would have
survived rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 35 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
36/78
30
Finally, Appellants argue that the District Courts decision to allow
certain witnesses to testify is reversible error. The District Courts decision
to allow the testimony is subject to review by this Court under the abuse of
discretion standard, and Appellants have failed to identify any such abuse,
nor have they explained how they were prejudiced by this decision,
including how the admission of such testimony affected the outcome of the
case.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 36 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
37/78
31
ARGUMENT
A. Race Was Not An Impermissible Motivating Factor In
The Redistricting Process
The District Court concluded that the Affected Area was targeted
for redistricting in part because of its racial demographics, and that the
District sought some kind of racial parity between the two high schools.
However, the District respectfully submits that the District Court did not
provide a factual predicate for such findings, and that there is insufficient
record support for such findings.
The District Court seemed to base its factual finding that racial
considerations factored into the redistricting process on the following: (1) e-
mails and conversations discussing the inclusion of the Affected Area and
North Ardmore; (2) the candid elimination of two scenarios due to their
racial implications before they reached the Board, and the rejection by the
Administration of the sole redistricting scenario that did not include either
the Affected Area or North Ardmore; (3) testimony by Dr. Haber, the
Districts redistricting consultant, that race was considered throughout the
redistricting process; (4) the inclusion of African-American-specific data;
(5) decisions not to present certain information concerning diversity to the
public; and (6) the increase in African-American students at Harriton under
each of the proposed redistricting plans.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 37 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
38/78
32
These facts do not add up to race being a motivating factor and,
therefore, the District respectfully submits that this Courts decision should
not be made in reliance upon them. As a preliminary matter, the District
Court noted that the Board and Administration remained cognizant of the
effects that a given redistricting proposal would have on the African-
American students living in North Ardmore and the Affected Area.
Appendix A54 (emphasis added). There is nothing inherently suspect about
such awareness. Indeed, record testimony from Dr. McGinley indicated that
race data was reviewed by him during the redistricting process for the
purpose of understanding the racial consequences or impact of any
redistricting plan. He believed that it was important for him as an educator
to know what the student population at any school was going to look like,
not only in terms of race, but also in terms of socioeconomic status and
special needs status, because there are educational and programmatic
consequences as a result. Appendix A609-A610, A635, A1184, 1188.
First, none of the e-mails relied upon by Appellants or referenced by
the District Court demonstrate that the Affected Area was redistricted to
Harriton because of racial considerations. The e-mails between Dr.
McGinley and Dr. Haber indicating that Dr. McGinley was mindful that
splitting Ardmore effectively redistricted a significant number of African-
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 38 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
39/78
33
American students to Harriton, are simply that e-mails demonstrating Dr.
McGinleys sensitivity to the effects of redistricting on Ardmore. The fact
that Dr. McGinley and/or Dr. Haber also questioned whether the Seattle
decision might have implications on the Districts redistricting process, is
immaterial, as the District Court recognized. Appellants ignore the fact that
the District Court found that Dr. McGinley wanted to be informed as to how
to ensure that the redistricting process did not violate the law, and reflected a
good faith effort to examine an issue that had been brought to his attention.
Appendix A26.
Appellants also focus on Dr. Habers e-mail response to Dr. McGinley
in which he stated that he could create color-blind scenarios. While the
District Court assumed that this e-mail indicated that Dr. Haber considered
redistricting plans that split Ardmore to not be color-blind (Appendix
A26), in fact, Dr. Haber testified that by color-blind, he simply meant that
racial diversity information or data would not have appeared in the scenario
documents. Appendix A999.
In addition, the November 20, 2008 e-mail correspondence between
Dr. McGinley and Board Member Pliskin in which Dr. McGinley expressed
that he wish[ed] there was a way to extend the option area into the
[Affected Area] but doing so would not only mean another hundred at
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 39 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
40/78
34
[Lower Merion] but many fewer A[frican-American] kids at Harriton, and
Ms. Pliskins reply, in which she stated, what happened to no racial
isolation? (Appendix A2187), does not indicate that the District targeted
the Affected Area for redistricting. The tenor of these comments shows that
Dr. McGinley and Ms. Pliskin were considering whether there was a way to
avoid sending the Affected Area students to Harriton given that they did not
want to go there, but the answer to that question was no. The mere fact
that the Administration and/or Board Members attempted to find a way to
provide the Affected Area with the option to attend Lower Merion but
recognized that doing so would result in many more students overall at
Lower Merion, which violated the overarching goal of equalizing student
enrollment between the two high schools, and fewer African-American
students at Harriton, does not mean the Affected Area was chosen for
districting because it contained African-American students. Rather, Dr.
McGinley was simply acknowledging what the outcome would be if the
District extended choice to the Affected Area. It was common knowledge
throughout the District that Ardmore had a significant concentration of
African-American students, and the Districts Administration and Board
were sensitive to that fact. There is nothing nefarious or impermissible
about that.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 40 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
41/78
35
Second, Dr. Haber clarified on cross-examination that he considered
the community value of diversity in what he was doing because he had data
that allowed him to report on diversity outcomes and in that way only, race,
for him, was a factor. Appendix A1021. Consequently, in testifying that
race was considered throughout the redistricting process, Dr. Haber meant
only that race data was reviewed and considered during the process not
that the redistricting was based on race or was a motivating factor in the
process or the outcome.
Third, with the one exception of the small concentrated group of
Asian-American students residing within the Shortridge neighborhood,
African-American students were more concentrated geographically than
students of other races and, therefore, in terms of addressing the well-
documented achievement gap between African-American students and
students of other races, such a focus is both logical and necessary.
Fourth, while scenarios 1 and 4A, which were never submitted to the
Board for its consideration, were eliminated from consideration in part
because of their effects upon the racial make-up of the high schools (e.g.,
Scenario 1 essentially would have removed all African-American students
from Lower Merion High School, and Scenario 4A did not support the
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 41 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
42/78
36
community value of diversity as much as other scenarios), Appellants fail to
make the important distinction between deciding to forego a particular
scenario because it would result in a certain racial outcome, and the Boards
affirmatively choosing to adopt a particular redistricting plan because it
would result in a particular racial outcome, which did not occur here.
Moreover, while Appellants contend that Scenarios 1 and 4A were the only
scenarios that kept the Affected Area and North Ardmore together for high
school, that is not surprising since the redistricting plans were based on
existing elementary and middle school feeder patterns, and keeping these
two areas together for high school would disturb the continuity of these
feeder patterns, since the Affected Area and North Ardmore attend different
elementary schools and different middle schools.16
Fifth, while the District Court concluded that Dr. McGinleys
decisions not to present or publish to the public certain information
references to racial diversity data provided to the Administration suggested
16Interestingly, Appellants offer no educational or pedagogical reasons for
attending high school with North Ardmore, their desired outcome. They
simply want to be with their non-school, neighborhood peers, with whomthey have never attended school. They have made no showing that this is a
valid educational purpose. Moreover, in such circumstances, if the Affected
Area and North Ardmore were districted to attend either Harriton together or
Lower Merion together, they would have been separated from their
elementary and middle school peers, which would have interfered with the
goal of educational continuity. Appendix A89-A90.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 42 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
43/78
37
that the Administration either did not want the public to be fully informed
about the diversity information the District had at its disposal or did not want
to mention the role that racial diversity data played in the redistricting
process, the District respectfully submits that such a conclusion was
unwarranted, given the lack of testimony or other evidence supporting such
a conclusion, particularly in light of the fact that the District repeatedly
presented diversity information to the public in connection with its proposed
redistricting plans, which belies any suggestion that it sought to hide
information from the public.
Finally, the District Court seemed to place importance on statistical
evidence that the African-American student population at Harriton increased
significantly under each proposed plan, but such evidence is not statistically
probative and cannot be relied on as evidence of discrimination. See, e.g.,
Mazus v. Dept of Transp., 629 F.2d 870, 875 (3d Cir. 1980) (Statistical
comparisons, if they are to have any value, must be between comparable
groups and free from variables which would undermine the reasonableness
of discrimination inferences to be drawn.). The District, to achieve equal
student enrollments between Lower Merion and Harriton in accordance with
the CACs recommendation and the Non-Negotiables adopted by the Board,
had to reduce the 700-student disparity between the two high schools by
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 43 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
44/78
38
approximately 50 percent. It is, therefore, not surprising that the number of
African-American students at Harriton would also increase, particularly
when one takes into account the geographic location of various student
populations, the concentration of African-Americans in Ardmore, and the
Affected Areas geographic proximity to Harriton compared to other
communities. As the District Court itself recognized, it is not uncommon
in major urban, as well as suburban, areas throughout the United States, that
some racial, ethnic, or religious groups are concentrated in particular
geographic areas. Appendix A53.17
Consequently, because Plan 3R
assigned geographic areas of students to the high schools rather than
selecting among individual students it logically follows that the number of
African-American students at Harriton would increase significantly if a
particular geographic area zoned to attend Harriton had a significant
population of African-American students, even apart from any consideration
of race. In fact, Appellants own statistical expert, Dr. Greenfield,
acknowledged that geographic locations of students of a particular race
could account for any observed statistics. A1063-A1064, A1067-A1068.
17If the District truly were using race figures or data to increase the African-
American student population at Harriton, it would have redistricted North
Ardmore to Harriton, given that North Ardmore had a greater number of
African-American students. Appendix A10, n.2.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 44 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
45/78
39
The purpose of statistical evidence in a case such as this is to determine
whether the observed outcome is due to chance or is more likely based on
something else, and the question then becomes whether that something
else is an impermissible factor, i.e., redistricting on the basis of race. In
order to be able to rely on statistics as probative of the issue of
discrimination, Appellants would have to show that those statistics were
significant. See, e.g., Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975).
They have this burden, and only after they satisfy this burden would the
District be obligated to explain why the statistics appear as they do. Id. at
425. Appellants, however, never met this burden, as their statistics, which
are the basis for the District Courts finding, do not raise an inference of
discrimination.
In focusing solely upon the above-enumerated factual findings,
Appellants ignore the fact that under Plan 3R, Appellants are treated the
same as every other student who attends Penn Valley Elementary School or
any of the other two elementary schools that feed into Welsh Valley Middle
School, regardless of race. Essentially, Appellants position is that they
should be exempted from the 3-1-1 feeder pattern established under Plan 3R
and should have been given the option of attending Lower Merion, even
though all students, of all races in their neighborhood are similarly districted
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 45 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
46/78
40
to Harriton without choice, and even though all other areas outside the
official LMHS walk zone that are zoned to attend an elementary school that
feeds into Welsh Valley Middle School are similarly districted to Harriton.
For this Court to provide Appellants the redistricting outcome they desire, it
would have to treat Appellants as they wish because of their race.
In addition, the District has always maintained that it was the official
action of the Board in voting to adopt Plan 3R that is dispositive of this
matter. Significantly, after an exhaustive review of all of the evidence, the
District Court concluded that the Board Members did not adopt Plan 3R on
the basis of race. Appendix A55. The above-enumerated facts ultimately
are therefore immaterial, as each of them occurred prior to the Boards
adoption of Plan 3R.
Despite these factual findings, the District Court recognized that no
statute or Supreme Court case has found that mere consideration of a
neighborhoods racial demographics in assigning students to schools equates
to decisionmaking in which race has been a motivating factor. Appendix
A80, n.18. Nevertheless, assuming, arguendo, that there is sufficient record
support for the District Courts finding that race was a factor in the
redistricting process, the District considered race in an entirely permissible
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 46 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
47/78
41
and constitutional manner, as the District Court found. The District never
argued that it did not review race data or that it never had any discussion of
the racial consequences of redistricting. Therefore, Appellants contention
that the District denied that race was a factor is grossly oversimplified, and
their assertion that the District is therefore precluded from arguing that it had
compelling reasons for considering race should be rejected. Rather, the
District has always maintained that to the extent that race was considered
during the redistricting process, it was done permissibly. The distinction
between race as a factor or consideration in the informal sense, and race as a
motivating factor in the legal sense cannot be overstated. Appellants
appear to argue that any and all consideration of race, including review of
race data or discussions of the racial implications of any redistricting plan,
constitute race being an impermissible motivating factor. The law,
however, does not support such a conclusion. In fact, the law supports such
a review, and the Districts performance is measured on its ability to
effectively address the achievement gap, which requires a review of racial
data. See No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)
(requiring disaggregation of data regarding students from major racial and
ethnic groups, among other groups).
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 47 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
48/78
42
Indeed, any consideration of race during the process was the very kind
of race-conscious action that Justice Kennedy addressed in Seattle and, as
Justice Kennedy observed, does not have to satisfy strict scrutiny to be found
permissible. Seattle, 551 U.S. at 789. See also Concerned Citizens for
Neighborhood Schools v. Pastel, No. 5:05-1070, 2007 WL 1220542, at *1
(N.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2007) (granting defendants motion for judgment on the
pleadings and denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint, in case where
plaintiff asserted that elementary school students were selected by
defendants because of their race to be districted out of their academically
successful neighborhood school and placed into a more distant school that
was failing academically, noting that plaintiffs evidence that school board
reviewed information about redistricting plans effect on racial composition
of elementary schools during consideration of various alternative plans was
insufficient to establish impermissible use of race as motivating factor in
boards conduct).
In Seattle, Justice Kennedy parted with the plurality because he felt
that it implied an all-too-unyielding insistence that race cannot be a
factor in instances when, in [his] view, race may be taken into account .
551 U.S. at 787. (emphasis added) He recognized the following:
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 48 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
49/78
43
In the administration of public schools by the state
and local authorities, it is permissible to consider
the racial makeup of schools and to adopt general
policies to encourage a diverse student body, one
aspect of which is its racial composition. If school
authorities are concerned that the student-body
compositions of certain schools interfere with the
objective of offering an equal educational
opportunity to all of their students, they are free
to devise race-conscious measures to address
the problem in a general way and without
treating each student in different fashion solely
on the basis of a systematic, individual typingby race.
Id. at 788-89 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly for purposes of this case,
Justice Kennedy explained:
School boards may pursue the goal of bringing
together students of diverse backgrounds and races
through other means, including strategic siteselection of new schools; drawing attendance
zones with general recognition of the
demographics of neighborhoods; allocating
resources for special programs; recruiting students
and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking
enrollments, performance, and other statistics
by race. These mechanisms are race conscious
but do not lead to different treatment based on
a classification that tells each student he or she
is to be defined by race, so it is unlikely any of
them would demand strict scrutiny to be foundpermissible.
Id. at 789 (emphasis added) (citing Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 958 (1996)).
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 49 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
50/78
44
Justice Kennedy further stated that executive and legislative branches,
which for generations now have considered these types of policies and
procedures, should be permitted to employ them with candor and with
confidence that a constitutional violation does not occur whenever a
decisionmaker considers the impact a given approach might have on
students of different races. Id. at 789 (emphasis added).
What the government is not permitted to do, Justice Kennedy wrote,
absent a showing of necessity not made [in Seattle], is to classify every
student on the basis of race and to assign each of them to schools based on
that classification, as crude measures of this sort threaten to reduce children
to racial chits valued and traded according to one schools supply and
anothers demand. Id at 798. Justice Kennedy cautioned, however, that the
Courts decision should not prevent school districts from continuing the
important work of bringing together students of different racial, ethnic, and
economic backgrounds. Id. What the District did in this case is consistent
with Justice Kennedys admonition against racial classifications and is also
consistent with his recognition of the important work of school districts in
bringing together students of different backgrounds.
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 50 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
51/78
45
B. Assuming Strict Scrutiny Applies, The Districts
Redistricting Plan Withstands Such Review
The District Court assumed, on the record, that strict scrutiny applied
and therefore analyzed the redistricting process under that framework. The
District Court did not, however, as the Appellants would have this Court
believe, hold that strict scrutiny was mandated in this case. Rather,
interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to Appellants and giving
them every benefit of the doubt, it concluded that racial considerations were
a factor in the redistricting process and therefore applied strict scrutiny in
light of the broad holding in Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn, 288
F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002) that strict scrutiny applies to any policy motivated in
part by race.
Notably, however, the District Court expressed serious reservations
about applying strict scrutiny, noting that Seattle and other Supreme Court
precedents relied upon by the Appellants (Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244
(2003), Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003), Adarand Constructors v.
Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S.
469 (1998), and Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) did not require
strict scrutiny in this case; that Seattles focus on applying strict scrutiny to
student assignment and placement programs, only involving individual racial
classifications, called into question whether Pryors pronouncement on the
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 51 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
52/78
46
broad applicability of strict scrutiny to policies motivated in part on race
applies to student assignment plans that do not involve individual
classifications; and that language in Adarand (noting that that case
concern[ed] only classifications based explicitly on race, and presents none
of the additional difficulties posed by laws that, although facially race
neutral, result in racially disproportionate impact and are motivated by a
racially discriminatory purpose) indicated that the Supreme Court did not
intend for strict scrutiny to be applied to cases such as Village of Arlington
Heights v. Metro Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977), Pryor, or this
case, in which the challenged policies do not expressly employ individual
racial classifications. Appendix A77-A78.
In short, the District Court applied a more stringent standard than was
necessary, exercising caution and providing Appellants every benefit of the
doubt. Pryor was the District Courts only basis for applying strict scrutiny
in this case, and now the Third Circuit has the opportunity to determine
whether strict scrutiny does, in fact, apply to this case. Given that Pryor
predates Seattle, it stands to reason that the most recent application of the
equal protection principle by the Supreme Court in the school context would
control and, therefore, Pryor is not controlling here and cannot be relied
upon to decide this case. Indeed, Seattle does not prohibit and, in fact,
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 52 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
53/78
47
contains language that would permit, what the District Court concluded the
District did in this case.
Nevertheless, even after interpreting the facts in the light most
favorable to the Appellants and applying the most stringent form of review,
the District Court properly found that the Districts redistricting process was
constitutional.
1. Appellants Contention That The District Never
Identified A Compelling State Interest Related To Its
Purportedly Race-Based Decisionmaking Is Incorrect
The District Court recognized as compelling the Districts educational
interests of equalized high school populations, minimized student travel,
educational continuity, and walkability, but it similarly recognized as
compelling the Districts interests in addressing the achievement gap and
racial isolation. Even if the race-neutral educational interests identified by
the District and acknowledged by the District Court are not compelling
government reasons for purposes of the strict scrutiny analysis because they
are not tied to the Districts purported use of race, there was sufficient record
evidence for the District Court to conclude that the District took race into
account in connection with the compelling interests in addressing the
empirically measured achievement gap between AfricanAmerican students
and their peers of other racial and ethnic backgrounds in the District and in
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 53 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
54/78
48
addressing racial isolation. This conduct is consistent with the No Child
Left Behind Act, which requires the District to understand the differences in
achievement levels among students of different races in order to be able to
address and eliminate the gap. At trial Dr. McGinley testified at length as to
the reasons why he, as an educator, would look at race in connection with
providing educational opportunities to all students, and testified concerning
a number of programs and initiatives that he and the District had
implemented to specifically combat the achievement gap and ameliorate
racial isolation. Appendix A1177-A1185. Appellants themselves
introduced evidence demonstrating that, to the extent race was taken into
account during redistricting, it was done so in connection with these
educational issues. A756-A758.
Appellants contention that the interests identified by the District (a)
do not fall within the categories of compelling state interests recognized by
the Supreme Court in situations where student school assignments are based
upon race, and (b) cannot be considered compelling when measured
against other interests recognized by the Supreme Court, should be rejected.
As an initial matter, and as the District Court found, this case does not
involve individual student assignments based upon race. Moreover, the
Supreme Courts recognition of certain interests as compelling does not
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 54 Date Filed: 01/05/2011
-
8/8/2019 LMSD Appeal Response 01-05-11
55/78
49
preclude the existence of other compelling interests, and Appellants fail to
cite any authority that would indicate otherwise. Seattle did not rule out
diversity as a compelling government interest outside the higher education
context, and, indeed, according to Justice Kennedys concurring opinion in
Seattle, achieving a diverse student population and avoiding racial isolation
are compelling interests that a school district, in its discretion and expertise,
may pursue. 551 U.S. at 798. Indeed, a majority of justices Justice
Kennedy and the four dissenters, i.e., Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg,
and Souter concluded that such interests are compelling. See 551 U.S. at
788, 790, 864-66.
Indeed, while the Supreme Court placed limits on when and how
school districts can consider the race of individual students, it did not rule
out any and all consideration of race. At the time Seattle was decided,
diversity as a compelling government interest had been recognized by the
Court only in the higher education context. See Grutter, 539 U.S. 306.
While the Seattle Court very easily could have stated definitively that
diversity is not a compelling interest in the primary and/or secondary
education context, it did not do so. Instead, Justice Kennedys separate
concurrence strongly embracing Grutters holding that cultivating broad
diversity by using race as one of many factors is a compelling educational
Case: 10-3824 Document: 003110399782 Page: 55 Date Filed: 01/05/2011