U-46 racial bias trial on hold until June
The Elgin Area School District U-46 desegregation trial was put on pause Tuesday and may not resume, if at all, until June.
On Tuesday, attorneys suing the district finished calling witnesses in phase one of the case, which alleges U-46 discriminated against black and Hispanic students.
Before beginning to mount their defense, attorneys for U-46 indicated their intent to argue that a defense is not necessary because the plaintiffs have not proved their case.
While the move is largely procedural, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said it may help clarify the issues in the case — particularly the plaintiffs’ argument.
Plaintiffs have to show that minorities have been treated differently and that U-46 did not consider alternatives that would have resulted in a better outcome for minorities. U-46’s attorneys are arguing that after six days of testimony, the plaintiffs have not done that.
The parties have until late April to submit briefs on the matter, with oral arguments set for May 5. If Gettleman denies U-46’s motion, the trial is currently set to resume on June 1.
The class-action lawsuit claims U-46 sent minorities to inferior buildings, provided inadequate bilingual services and denied them access to gifted programs.
Phase one of the trial, which started last week, addresses claims U-46 physically segregated its black and Hispanic students.
On Tuesday, testimony focused on the impact of U-46’s 2004 school boundary changes, which prompted the lawsuit in the first place.
Boston-area student assignment expert Michael Alves testified that the 2004 boundary plan had a disparate effect on minorities.
Plaintiffs must establish U-46’s policies had a disparate impact on minorities — although that in itself is not necessarily proof that the district did anything wrong, legal experts say.
Alves testified that in 2003-04, before the new boundaries were implemented, about 57 percent of schools more crowded than the district average were majority Hispanic. About 30 percent were predominantly white, he said.
In the 2007-08 school year, those numbers were 73 percent for Hispanic students and 14 percent for white students.
“These statistics indicate that the schools that were utilized beyond the district percentage ... were predominantly Hispanic and other minorities,” Alves said. “As a result of redistricting, the disparate impact on Hispanic students ... it increased.”
Judge Gettleman asked, “Do the numbers you find indicate intentional discrimination?”
“I think the intent here was to consolidate children (in schools) where they live,” Alves said. “In my opinion, it was intended that children would go to school close to home — without regard to capacities.”
U-46 has acknowledged one goal of the 2004 boundary plan was to educate more students in their neighborhood schools, but plaintiffs say that philosophy relegated blacks and Hispanics to older, more-crowded buildings.
Gettleman asked Alves if that philosophy is valid.
“I think having students attend schools near home is not really valid anymore,” Alves said. “It’s more of a convenience situation.”
Alves did acknowledge that parental involvement, which U-46 officials have said is a benefit of neighborhood schools, is a valid concern. But he added that parental involvement is “not necessarily connected to how far the school is from home. There is no evidence of that.”