Opinion ID: 201292
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of race-neutral alternatives

Text: Because narrow tailoring dictates that the government use race only when necessary to achieve a compelling interest, it requires serious, good-faith consideration of workable raceneutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity [the government actor] seeks. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 339; see also Wygant, 476 U.S. at 280 n.6. Here, the defendants have met their burden. The record reflects that they seriously considered, and plausibly rejected, a number of race-neutral alternatives. These included (i) a no-transfer policy, see Comfort IV, 283 F. Supp. 2d at 387-88 (crediting evidence from a demographics expert that instituting such a policy would throw several elementary schools into racial imbalance); (ii) a policy of unrestricted transfers, see id. at 388 (crediting evidence that instituting such a policy would result in 500 to 800 segregative transfers per year); (iii) -42- a redrawing of district lines, see id. at 387-88 (noting that this would be impractical); (iv) forced busing, see id. at 387-88 (concluding that the problems that accompany forced busing justified Lynn's rejection of a controlled choice scheme); (v) a lottery system, see id. at 389 (finding that demographic and scheduling factors made this impracticable); and (vi) a plan conditioning transfers on socioeconomic status, rather than race, see id. at 389 n.100 (noting that because of residential patterns, this system would exacerbate existing racial imbalance). The plaintiffs argue that there are several other alternatives that the defendants failed to consider. They point specifically to a Department of Education study reviewing successful race-neutral programs based on socioeconomic status or a lottery, see U.S. Dep't of Educ., Achieving Diversity: RaceNeutral Alternatives in American Education (Feb. 2004), available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/raceneutral.html, and to the race-neutral student assignment plan adopted in Boston, see Anderson, 375 F.3d at 76-77. As noted, Lynn has already considered, and rejected, the possibility of basing student assignments on socioeconomic status or a lottery. While the record does not reflect whether Lynn has considered the Boston plan in depth, we note that the Boston plan is specific to the residential patterns in Boston, which differ from those in Lynn. Lynn must keep abreast of possible alternatives as they develop, see Grutter, -43- 539 U.S. at 342-43, but it need not prove the impracticability of every conceivable model for racial integration. It is sufficient that it demonstrate a good faith effort to consider feasible raceneutral alternatives, as it has done here. We therefore hold that the Lynn Plan is narrowly tailored to the defendants' compelling interest in obtaining the benefits of racial diversity.