Opinion ID: 3010182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Shared principles

Text: Before I articulate the reasons for my dissent, I want to underscore the shared premises under which the majority and I operate. There is, first of all, no disagreement that to extend federal court supervision indefinitely is neither practicable, desirable, nor proper, Majority at 16, and this is not what I advocate today. At the same time, the Supreme Court has held that supervision by the courts should continue until the vestiges of past discrimination ha[ve] been eliminated to the extent practicable. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 492 (1992). Because the Appellees have not met this requirement, I believe that withdrawal of supervision is premature at this point. Nor is there any disagreement between the Majority and the Dissent that [t]he proper test under the Constitution is equality of opportunity, not of results. Majority at 31. To the extent that the principal issue in this Dissent is the placement of African-American children in lower-level classes, and to the extent that the district court itself found that lower levels of instruction may not encourage achievement and may adversely affect the ability of a student to attend college, Coalition to Save our Children v. State Bd. of Educ., 901 F. Supp. 784, 801, 49 (D. Del. 1995), it is their opportunity to succeed academically that is at stake. Finally, I share the Majority's reluctan[ce] to impose any unstated obligation on the school boards. Majority at 61. At the same time, we should not impose or tolerate any limitations on the opportunity of young black students to participate equally in the educational process and derive all of the benefits therefrom.