The Constitutional Question: Equality or Evasion?
The Coalition asserted that Boston’s policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Massachusetts law. They also claimed a disparate impact on White and Asian applicants, alleging the policy unfairly privileged other groups.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that the Coalition failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent or significant disparate impact. This decision was upheld even after the discovery of troubling racial comments attributed to some School Committee members.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas sounded the alarm in a blistering dissent. Alito’s remarks carried the weight of someone deeply concerned about the implications of ignoring this issue:
“We have now twice refused to correct a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action… I would reject root and branch this dangerously distorted view of disparate impact.”
Alito’s dissent underscores a pivotal question: Are courts enabling policies that erode constitutional protections for some groups under the guise of promoting diversity?