Task: songer_r_bus

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
The School District of Philadelphia appeals from the orders of the district court permanently enjoining it from complying with its policy under which some teachers are transferred to other schools to maintain racial integration of faculty in each school. Teachers subject to transfer contend, and the district court agreed, that this policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Kromnick v. School District, 555 F.Supp.249 (E.D.Pa.1983). We • reverse the judgment of the district court.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A.
Challenged Policy
Under the policy challenged in this action, the Philadelphia Board of Education seeks to maintain a faculty ratio at each school of between 75% and 125% of the system-wide proportions of white and black teachers. As a result, the racial composition of each school’s faculty reflects that of the overall teaching staff.
To reach this objective, the School District annually reassigns some classroom teachers to other schools. The reassignment plan operates in two phases. First, there is a determination of the need for staff at each school. Because of declining student enrollment, each year many schools have fewer positions. Open positions are staffed in order of accumulated seniority at the school, and the least senior teachers are transferred from the school. However, if that would cause the school to fall outside the 75%/125% range, teachers of the overrepresented race are transferred even though they have more seniority. Also, if retirements cause a racial imbalance in the school’s faculty outside the 75%/125% range, again the least senior teachers of the overrepresented race are transferred even though they may have more seniority than teachers of the other race. Only a small percentage of teachers transferred are transferred in derogation of seniority. In the last year,.approximately 50 or 60 of the 1,100 teachers transferred were transferred to maintain the 75%/125% racial balance.
In the second phase of the reassignment plan, all the transferred teachers are entitled to choose new schools in descending seniority order, unless their choice would bring the selected schools outside the 75%/125% range. If so, those teachers are required to forego their preferred choice of transfer.
In considering the School District’s policy, it is also necessary to keep in mind several factors. First, layoffs, as opposed to transfers, are determined by strict seniority. App. Ill at 185a; Brief for Appellees at 6. Second, teachers required to be transferred retain accumulated “building seniority,” whereas those who seek transfers generally lose that seniority. App. II at 137a. This affects transfer rights for the following school year. Third, transferred teachers retain a “right of return," or priority to any vacancies that recur at their former schools, if return will not upset the racial balance. App. Ill at 192a-93a.
B.
Development of the Policy
The Philadelphia School System has long suffered from de facto segregation by race of students and faculty. Under Pennsylvania law, school districts may take steps to rectify a racial imbalance that is the product of de facto segregation as well as of de jure origin. Balsbaugh v. Rowland, 447 Pa. 423, 438, 290 A.2d at 85, 93 (1972). Also, the state, through the agency of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC), may require a plan to eliminate de facto racial imbalances in schools. 447 Pa. at 432-33, 290 A.2d at 90; Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Chester School District, 427 Pa. 157, 233 A.2d 290 (1967).
In 1968, the PHRC began proceedings under state law to compel the elimination of racially identifiable schools in Philadelphia. See School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 6 Pa. Cmmw. 281, 294 A.2d 410 (1972), affd as to other parties, 455 Pa. 52, 313 A.2d 156 (1973), (School District I); Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District, 23 Pa.Cmmw. 312, 352 A.2d 200 (1976) (School District II); Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District, 30 Pa.Cmmw. 644, 374 A.2d 1014 (1977), affd, 480 Pa. 398, 390 A.2d 1238. (1978) (School District III); Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District, 66 Pa.Cmmw. 154, 443 A.2d 1343 (1982) (School District IV). The state courts have generally preferred to allow the School District to establish “voluntary” plans in response to prodding by the PHRC because, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted, the School District has “primary responsibility for the choice and implementation of an effective desegregation program.” School District III, 480 Pa. at 428, 390 A.2d at 1253 (quoting Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Chester School District, 427 Pa. 157, 181, 233 A.2d 290, 302 (1967)). The most recent state court action resulted in a consent agreement for a desegregation plan involving use of “magnet” schools. Despite these lengthy proceedings, the students of the School District still attend racially identifiable schools. See School District IV, 66 Pa.Cmmw. at 174, 443 A.2d at 1352.
PHRC guidelines espouse integration of faculty as well as of students as a means to eliminate the racial identifiability of schools and to achieve equal education for their students. See School District II, 23 Pa. Cmmw. at 317, 352 A.2d at 203. In 1969, the PHRC entered into a consent decree with the School District that required each elementary school to have at least 20% and each secondary school to have at least 10% of both black and white teachers. App. II at 115a. This decree supplemented a policy imposed in 1965, and still continuing,' of assigning newly hired teachers in a manner that furthers racial balance. Appellee teachers do not attack this race-conscious initial assignment, which they consider “reasonable”. Brief for Appellees at 4-5. Assignment on this basis aided faculty integration when there was an upsurge in hiring but voluntary transfers were also restricted in an effort to reach the 20% and 10% goals. Kromnick v. School District, 555 F.Supp. at 250.
In 1978, the School District’s teacher assignment policies were again rewritten, this time because of the requirements of the federal government. In order to receive financing to assist in desegregation, the School District applied for federal aid then available under the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) Title VI, § 601, 20 U.S.C. §§ 3191-3207 (Supp V. 1981) (repealed effective October 1, 1982). The Office of Civil Rights (OCR), of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare denied the.application because the School District’s desegregation plan was unsatisfactory. Among the deficiencies cited was insufficient integration of classroom teachers. The then-applicable ESAA regulations administered by OCR provided:
No educational agency shall be eligible for assistance under the Act if... it has... any practice, policy or procedure which results in discrimination on the basis of race... including the assignment of full-time classroom teachers to the schools of such agency in such manner as to identify any of such schools as intended for students of a particular race, color or national origin..
45 C.F.R. § 185.43(b)(2) (1978) (emphasis added), redesignated 280.22(e) (1980) (repealed effective October 1, 1982). OCR found that teacher assignments in Philadelphia were “racially identifiable” despite the District’s compliance with the numerical goals imposed under its consent decree with the PHRC. In 1978 the School District’s student population was 64.2% black, 6% Hispanic, and 31.6% white and its faculty was 63% white, 36% black and 1% other. OCR found that of 280 schools, 114 had 90% black students, whereas 60 schools had 80% white students. 61% of the black teachers were assigned to the schools with 90% black students, but only 8% were assigned to the schools with 80% white students. App. I at 58a-59a, 66a. OCR concluded that many schools that were racially identifiable by students had racially identifiable faculties and were “readily identifiable by the racial composition of their teaching staffs as intended for students of a particular race ____ in violation of 45 C.F.R. 185.43(b)(2).” App. I at 59a.
OCR found that the District’s teacher assignment policies had allowed too much choice of assignment for teachers in a system with de facto segregation. After intimating that this amounted to a conscious policy that might be unlawful or unconstitutional, the agency declined to revoke a determination of ineligibility, and concluded:
[C]ompliance with the [PHRC consent decree]... was not sufficient to overcome the persistent pattern of racial identification of schools by faculty assignment ____ In fact, the district has continued to allow teacher choice to determine teaching assignments even though, as the district representatives admitted, residential areas in the city are de facto segregated and teachers tend to choose schools nearest to their homes. Thus, it is our view that the natural, probable and foreseeable result of your district’s teacher assignment policies was to maintain the racial identifiability of schools by the composition of their teaching staffs.
Letter from Herman R. Goldberg to Dr. Michael P. Marcase (August 8, 1978), App. I at 71a.
ESAA regulations provided for a “waiver” of eligibility if the district undertook remedial action “so that the proportion of minority group full-time teachers at each school is between 75 percentum and 125 percentum of the proportion of such minority group teachers which exists on the faculty as a whole.” 45 C.F.R. § 185.44(d)(3) (1978), redesignated 34 C.F.R. § 280.30(c) (1980), (repealed effective October 1, 1982). The School Board voted to comply with this 75%/125% standard, and adopted the policy described above, which went into effect immediately for the 1978-79 school year and has been continued for each year since. As a result, the School District received federal funds annually for desegregation.
C.
Procedural History and Continued Use of the Policy
Four white teachers transferred under the 75%/125% policy, Lorraine Kromnick, Lorraine Brancato, Gladys Hirsh and Regina Katz, filed suit against the School District in December 1981, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as money damages under the Constitution. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs contended that the policy was an impermissible racial classification, but did not argue that its impact fell disproportionately on whites or blacks as a group.
The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction primarily because the policy was mandated by OCR. See Kromnick v. School District, 555 F.Supp. 249, 252 (E.D.Pa.1983). The court then granted plaintiffs’ motion for certification as representatives, for declaratory and injunctive relief, of a mixed-race class of teachers affected by the 75%/125% policy. The court also directed the School District to determine if OCR continued to require use of the 75%>/125% policy. Id. at 252.
On June 23, 1982, the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education, now responsible for the ESAA program, found the School District “substantially in compliance” with the regulations. The agency commended the system for integrating the faculty and stated that the district “is under no further obligation to continue to meet the 75%/125% standard.” The agency also stated that “the district must continue to use nondiscriminatory policies” in placing teachers, and was “free to continue to maintain [the 75%/125% policy] if it so chooses.” Letter from Frederick T. Cioffi, Director, Elementary and Secondary Education Division, Litigation, Enforcement and Policy Service, Department of Education to Superintendent Michael Mar-case (June 23, 1982), App. II at 74a-75a.
The School Board voted, on August 2, 1982, to continue using the 75%/125% policy for the upcoming school year. Although the Board made no specific findings as to the continued need for this particular policy and did not canvass alternative race-conscious policies, the Board heard a report by its personnel department, later confirmed in a written study, that if the 75%/125% policy were abandoned in favor of free choice in teacher assignments, the level of faculty integration would slip.
At the trial on plaintiffs’ motion for permanent injunction, the plaintiff teachers dropped their contention that the plan was unlawful for the years 1978-82, and limited their claims to the new period of voluntary adherence. Brief for Appellees at 3 n. 2. The district court now held for plaintiffs, concluding that continued voluntary adherence to the 75%/125% policy violated the Equal Protection Clause o.f the United States Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The court found that the policy’s current purpose “is not to remedy past discrimination in teacher assignments, but to guard against the possibility that the system will revert to its pre-1978 level of racial imbalance in faculty assignments,” and therefore termed the policy “an elective racial quota.” 555 F.Supp. at 252. The court held that the School District had failed to show that the policy was substantially related to achievement of the legitimate and important objective of enhancing educatiónal opportunities for school children, because it had not demonstrated “through empirical evidence” the likelihood of reversion to prior levels of segregation, but had only presented “sheer speculation.” Id. at 254. It held, moreover, that the School District had failed to demonstrate the unavailability of “nondiscriminatory alternatives for maintaining faculty integration.” Id.
The court then distinguished cases from other circuits upholding such reassignment plans because in those cases the plans were remedial devices, whereas it viewed continued use of the 75%/125% policy as not remedial, but aimed at maintaining racial balance for its own sake. Id. The court held that continued use of the policy violated Title VII for essentially the same reasons as it violated the Constitution. Id. at 255-56. The court stated, “The salient and ultimately fatal characteristic of the District’s quota system is that its only function is to preserve the existing racial percentages.” Id. at 255. The policy “continues to allow race to be the sole criterion affecting employment once the desired end is actually met.” Id.
The district court entered an order enjoining use of the 75%/125% policy as it applies to both phases of the transfer process. The court initially granted only prospective relief “because of the District’s good faith reliance upon the OCR determination... that the District could continue its use of the 75%/125% standard,” id. at 256; however, the court later granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment and ordered that defendants restore those teachers transferred after August 1982 under the challenged policy.
The School District filed a timely appeal from this final order, and this court granted its motion to stay the district court’s orders pending appeal. This court denied a motion to intervene by several parents of children enrolled in Philadelphia public schools, Barbara Jordan et al., but allowed them to participate by briefing and oral argument as amici curiae. The PHRC submitted a brief as amicus curiae as did the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, on behalf of itself and other ethnic organizations.
II.
EQUAL PROTECTION
The Supreme Court signalled the beginning of the end of institutionalized racism in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). As the Court later stated, “School boards... were... clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch.” Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 437-38, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1693-94, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968) (citations omitted). Congress joined in the Court’s view of the invidiousness of racial discrimination and passed a series of laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination in many areas. Racism, however, has not been eliminated, but the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution have been restored to their intended race-conscious and remedial function. “[N]o decision of [the Supreme] Court has ever adopted the proposition that the Constitution must be color blind.” Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 336, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 2771, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (opinion of Brennan, J., joined by White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.). Rather, experience has taught us that “[i]n order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.” Id. at 407, 98 S.Ct. at 2807 (separate opinion of Blackmun, J.). See also Williams v. City of New Orleans, 729 F.2d 1554, 1573 (5th Cir.1984) (in banc) (Wisdom, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In only two cases has the Supreme Court reached the merits of a party’s contention that a governmental remedial program considering race as a factor violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the first, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, supra, decided in 1978, the Court’s judgment was grounded on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which a majority of the Court viewed as coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause. The Court concluded that the University of California’s preferential admissions program for student applicants from certain minority groups violated Title VI. The Court, however, also held that the state medical school should not be enjoined from according any consideration to race in its admissions process. 438 U.S. at 272, 98 S.Ct. at 2738. In the second, Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980), the Court held that a provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, requiring a set-aside of at least 10% of federal funds granted for local public works projects for purchases from
minority-owned businesses, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
In Bakke, five Justices (the Chief Justice and Justices Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist, and Stevens) concluded that the preferential admission plan violated Title VI. Justice Powell was the only Justice who expressed the opinion that the plan was unconstitutional as well. Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun would have upheld the plan under both Title VI and the Constitution. In Fullilove, seven Justices concluded that a Congressionally enacted preference for minority'contractors was constitutional, but did so under three separate opinions applying differing legal tests. Notwithstanding the differing views of the Justices, it is clear that a majority of the Supreme Court members have opined that not every race-conscious measure is constitutionally impermissible. Nothing in either of these cases impairs this court’s earlier holding in Porcelli v. Titus, 431 F.2d 1254,' 1257 (3d Cir.1970) (per curiam), cert, denied, 402 U.S. 944, 91 S.Ct. 1612, 29 L.Ed.2d 1Í2 (1971), that “state action based partly on considerations of color, when col- or is not used per se, and in furtherance of a proper governmental objective, is not necessarily a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The absence of an Opinion of the Court in either Bakke or Fullilove and the concomitant failure of the Court to articulate an analytic framework supporting the judgments makes the position of the lower federal courts considering the constitutionality of affirmative action programs somewhat vulnerable. Nevertheless, it is necessary, as a preliminary matter, to determine the level of scrutiny to be employed in reviewing a claim that state action violated the Equal Protection Clause.
In Bakke, Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun articulated a standard, similar to that developed in gender-discrimination cases, that “racial classifications designed to further remedial purposes must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” 438 U.S. at 359, 98 S.Ct. at 2783. Justice Powell, after distinguishing cases involving “remedies for clearly determined constitutional violations,” id. at 300, 98 S.Ct. at 2753, viewed remedial classifications as “suspect,” and justifiable only if the State “show[s] that its purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is ‘necessary... to the accomplishment’ of its purpose or the safeguarding of its interest.” Id. at 305, 98 S.Ct. at. 2756. The remaining Justices did not reach the constitutional issue in Bakke, and therefore did not comment on the level of scrutiny.
In Fullilove, Chief Justice Burger (joined by Justice White and by Justice Powell, who also drafted his own concurrence) declined to adopt a specific test in his opinion but held that the minority, contracting program passed constitutional muster under either of the above tests. 448 U.S. at 492, 100 S.Ct. at 2781. Justice Marshall (joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun) adhered to the intermediate test articulated by Justice Brennan in Bakke. Id. 448 U.S. at 519, 100 S.Ct. at 2795. Justice Stevens dissented in Fullilove, finding the program not “narrowly tailored,” but without advocating a general theory applicable to remedial classifications. Id. 448 U.S. at 552, 100 S.Ct. at 2812. Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Rehnquist, dissented and advocated a color-blind position that barred preferences unless ordered by a court for the “sole purpose... [of] eradicating] the actual effects of illegal discrimination.” Id. at 528, 100 S.Ct. at 2799.
The nature of the state action in this case is unique. In both Bakke and Fullilove, the governmental action imposed a preference based on race, which resulted in an undeniable detriment to members of the nonpreferred race. Thus in Bakke, the reservation of slots for. minorities under the admissions plan created, as stated in Justice Powell’s determinative opinion, “a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status” which meant that “white applicants could compete only for 84 seats in the entering class, rather than the 100 open to minority applicants.” 438 U.S. at 289, 98 S.Ct. at 2747. Similarly, in Fullilove, the 10% set aside for minorities concededly could “have the effect of awarding some contracts to MBE’s which otherwise might be awarded to other businesses, who may themselves be innocent of any prior discriminatory actions.” 448 U.S. at 484, 100 S.Ct. at 2777 (opinion of Burger, C.J.). Even in the context of these clear preferences, the members of the Court disagreed on the appropriate level of scrutiny, with some members opting for a strict scrutiny standard, while others stated that an intermediate standard was appropriate when the goal was remedial.
The 75%/125% program challenged in this action creates no preference of the type usually associated with claims of “reverse discrimination.” There is no contention that teachers are either hired or laid off on the basis of race. There is no contention that teachers are promoted on the basis of race. There is no contention that any classification with any monetary significance is made on the basis of race. The challenge is to a policy that only affects assignment of teachers to schools. Ordinarily, this is a function within the exclusive prerogative of the school district, unless a collective bargaining agreement imposes restrictions. In this instance, however, the collective bargaining agreement incorporates the 75%/125% policy, and has done so year after year. Since the program is racially neutral, requiring the transfer of both black and white teachers, and there has been no showing of disparate impact upon one race, it is questionable whether the policy is one effecting a discrimination of constitutional dimension.
Indeed, there is an innate inconsistency in plaintiffs’ position on this issue. Plaintiffs do not challenge the constitutionality of the school district’s policy to assign teachers initially to schools in such manner as will integrate the school’s faculty. Furthermore, they do not suggest that the policy limiting voluntary transfer on race considerations is constitutionally offensive. They suggest no basis, grounded in constitutional principles,.why involuntary transfer of teachers, unlike these other unchallenged race-conscious strategies, involves a constitutional discrimination in the absence of a contractual right that is being overridden.
No case has suggested that the mere utilization of race as a factor, together with seniority, school need, and subject qualification, is prohibited. Since the classification is not preferential, it might most appropriately be reviewed for its rational relationship to a legitimate government objective, under which standard it would be patently valid. At most, since there is some element of racial classification, albeit not of preference, the appropriate level of scrutiny would be the intermediate level suggested by four members of the Court in Bakke, in which the classification was indeed preferential.
The appropriate question under that standard is whether the classification “serve[s] important governmental objectives” and is “substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” Bakke, 438 U.S. at 359, 98 S.Ct. at 2783 (opinion of Brennan, J.). The School District articulates its goal as the integration of the faculties of the public schools of the City of Philadelphia so that public school pupils will have the opportunity to be taught by an integrated faculty. The district court agreed that “the governmental objective of maintaining desegregated school faculties in order to enhance the educational opportunities of the school children is indeed a legitimate and important objective.” 555 F.Supp. at 254. It held, however, that the 75%/125% plan had not been shown to be “substantially related to achievement” of the objective. Id. It was in this regard that the district court erred. The evidence is unmistakable and unchallenged that during the period of the operation of the 75%/125% program, the goal of integrating faculties of the public schools was substantially furthered. See, e.g., App. I at 75a.
Although the district court stated that it was applying an intermediate standard of review, it did not do so in fact since it imposed on the School District the burden to show by empirical evidence that the district would “revert back to prior levels of segregation” if the 75%/125% policy were not used, and that “other nondiscriminatory alternatives” could not be used for “maintaining faculty integration.” 555 F.Supp. at 254. By imposing on the School District these requirements, the district court in fact was using a strict, indeed a most exacting, standard of scrutiny, one we conclude was inappropriate under these facts. In neither Bakke nor Fullilove did a majority of the Court hold that such a strict scrutiny standard was appropriate even when the racial classification imposed a preference. Thus, its use by the district court in this case cannot be sustained.
Furthermore, even if the intermediate standard of review applied above were not deemed apt, the result would be the same if we apply the more rigorous standard used to evaluate affirmative action programs under which members of minority groups are given a preference. In reviewing such a preference, Chief Justice Burger in Fullilove declined to select a particular standard of scrutiny and instead reviewed the racial classification against the underlying concerns common to the opinions previously expressed in Bakke. As an alternative holding, therefore, we adopt that course which was also utilized recently by Judge Kravitch in her opinion reviewing a chailenge to a race-conscious affirmative action plan for county contracts in South Florida Chapter v. Metropolitan Dade County, 723 F.2d 846, 851-52 (11th Cir.1984).
The relevant factors that emerge from the Supreme Court opinions are (1) the importance and validity of the remedial aim, (2) the competence of the agency to choose such a remedy, and (3) the tailoring of the remedy so as to limit the burden suffered by others. We do not suggest that this list is complete, but rather believe that it provides a framework in which tó determine whether this plan is permissible or entails Unconstitutional racial discrimination.
A.
Remedial Purpose
One of the linchpins of appellees’ argument is its contention that the 75%/125% policy serves no remedial purposé and that, as a result, the legal precedent supporting a more flexible scrutiny for remedial plans is inapplicable. It bases its argument on the district court’s determination that the “purpose [of the policy] is to preserve the status quo and not to remedy past discreimination.” 555 F.Supp. at 256. We believe the district court’s narrow view of the parameters of a remedial purpose was erróneous as a matter of law, and that its finding that the 75%/125% policy in this case was not remedial was clear error.
The district court apparently believed that once the School District was relieved by the OCR in 1982 of the obligation to maintain the 75%/125% policy, its action in continuing that policy ceased to be remedial. The district court ignored the 15 year history of state proceedings against the School District, which are still pending in state court, directed to effecting integration of the Philadelphia public school system. The long history of Philadelphia public schools as “racially identifiable” as either “white schools” or “black schools” cannot be gainsaid. As early as 1969 the School District was operating under a consent decree entered into with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission requiring it to remove the racial imbalance among teachers in its schools.
The opinions of the Pennsylvania courts provide graphic evidence of the continuing efforts by the PHRC to require the School District to submit a plan that would be effective in eliminating racial imbalance in its schools, the submission of plans repeatedly held inadequate by the PHRC and the Commonwealth Court, and the failure, as yet, to reach the goal of racial balance. In the context of repeated court and administrative orders to eliminate the racial identifiability of schools, the School District’s plan to further this end by integrating faculty must be considered remedial as a vital part of the ongoing effort to achieve a unitary school system. Thus, the fact that the four year federal phase of this long history concluded in 1982 cannot signify an end to the remedial nature of efforts made toward this goal. In fact, at the time of the hearing before the district court, the School District was still obligated by court order to implement a desegregation plan that would “accomplish[ ] the desegregation of schools which contain all or nearly all black students.” School District IV, 66 Pa.Cmmw. at 177, 443 A.2d at 1353.
Furthermore, because our society has not yet achieved full integration among its component races in important areas of public life, including housing, employment, and public education, a reasonable plan designed to foster racial balance of public schools’ teachers must be considered as directed toward remedying still existent racism, even without an applicable court order or pending administrative proceeding.
In Philadelphia, as around the nation, many minority students live and attend school in racially isolated regions of the city. National experience strongly suggests that, as a result, these students! educational opportunities have been unnecessarily limited. Schools are great instruments in teaching social policy, for students learn not only from books, but from the images and experiences that surround them. One such lesson is of a spirit of tolerance and mutual benefit, a lesson that is more difficult to absorb when schools attended by black students are taught by black teachers while schools attended by white students are taught by white teachers. As the Supreme Court recently noted in another context, "[Teachers] have direct, day-to-day contact with students, exercise unsupervised direction over them, act as role models and influence their students about the government and the political process.” Bernal v. Fainter, — U.S. -, -, 104 S.Ct. 2312, 2316-17, 81 L.Ed.2d 175 (1984).
The integration of faculty is a means to improve the quality of education of those who have suffered the effects of racial prejudice and segregation. See generally Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 237-45 (1968) (educational recommendations for the cities). “Proper integration of faculties is as important as proper integration of schools themselves.” Porcelli v. Titus, 431 F.2d at 1257. As we

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0