Booooo. Credit: Pool / GETTY

Last month marked the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the unanimous 1954 Supreme Court opinion declaring racially segregated schools unconstitutional. Brown v. Boardโ€™s 70th anniversary is a somber one, as one of Americaโ€™s most celebrated legal decisions faces a legacy of failure. The Supreme Court justices who unanimously condemned school segregation and white supremacy in 1954โ€“and Thurgood Marshall, who argued the case before he joined the courtโ€“would be horrified to learn that American schools are now more racially segregated than at any point since the late 1960s.ย 

A small group of white Seattle parents played an outsized role in Brownโ€™s failure. In 2007, they allied with powerful conservative attorneys to make Brown unenforceable in Parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (PICS). US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a lifelong foe of legal efforts to combat racism, used Seattle parentsโ€™ lawsuit to attack the civil rights movement itselfโ€”part of a plan begun decades before Seattle parents brought their lawsuit.

The story of PICS illustrates how powerful interests have manipulated the court system to roll back hard-won civil rights victories without explicitly overruling treasured precedents like Brown. Today, Seattleites live with the results of that attack: our local schools are as segregated as they were under the Nixon Administration. As our long-segregated school system braces for a round of school closuresโ€”closures that I believe are all but guaranteed to harm the very students Brown sought to helpโ€”we must critically examine how Seattle parents became pawns in a much larger fight.

Decades of Reactionary Planning Laid the Groundwork to End School Integration

There are a few excellent articles, including a 2016 Stranger article, summarizing Seattleโ€™s flawed, decades-long attempts to desegregate schools, so Iโ€™ll skip to the late 1990s. Mandatory busing collapsed in the face of attacks from both reformers and conservatives, and by 1999 the district had adopted a new plan allowing students to attend any public school in Seattleโ€”provided the school had space. If too many students chose a particular school, then the district used several factors as tie-breakers. The second-most important tie-breaker was racial diversity, which specifically considered the studentโ€™s race and the racial demographics of their desired school.ย 

Powerful, reactionary interests saw Seattle Public Schoolsโ€™ milquetoast efforts to encourage school diversity as an opportunity to roll back the civil rights movement, including Brown v. Board of Education. Their campaign began in 1971, when they coalesced behind a plan outlined by Lewis Powell Jr.โ€”a plan that ultimately included Seattle parentsโ€™ PICS lawsuit.ย 

In 1971, Powell was a wealthy attorney who sat on 11 corporate boards, including Philip Morris. Heโ€™d already refused to join the US Supreme Court, preferring to add to his considerable fortune. He spent most of his career vociferously defending Philip Morrisโ€™s efforts to deny smoking was harmfulโ€“arguing the corporation had a First Amendment right to deceive the public. He wasnโ€™t a fan of everyoneโ€™s First Amendment rights, though; he harshly criticized Martin Luther King Jr.โ€™s nonviolent civil disobedience campaigns.ย 

Powellโ€™s pro-corporate, anti-civil rights bona fides attracted the US Chamber of Commerce, which commissioned him to write a memo outlining strategies for rolling back the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the consumer rights movement, the environmental movement, and other threats to oligarchyโ€“all of which seemed, briefly, to be winning.ย 

Powell delivered, writing 6,400 words identifying โ€œ[l]labor unions, civil rights groups and now public interest law firmsโ€ as major threats to corporate power. Although unions had only haltingly embraced the call for racial equality, by the 1950s some powerful labor leaders understood that ending racism and ending corporate oligarchy were the same fightโ€”a fight to redistribute national wealth more equitably. Recognizing their common interests, the United Auto Workers partially financed the NAACPโ€™s fight to get Brown v. Board of Education to the Supreme Court.ย 

Powell correctly viewed labor unions and civil rights groups as existential threats to an economic system that had made him extremely wealthy. He advised corporations to fight back, in part, by creating a network of foundations and nonprofit law firms to defeat the civil rights movement in the courts. He also finally, grudgingly, accepted Nixonโ€™s second invitation to become a Supreme Court Justiceโ€”allowing him to rule on legal arguments advanced by these new corporate legal nonprofits. One of those nonprofits, the Pacific Legal Foundation, became the driving force behind the PICS lawsuit.

Powerful Interests Manufactured a Grassroots Lawsuit

The standard story of PICS typically begins with Kathleen Brose, a parent outraged after her daughter was assigned to Franklin High Schoolโ€”then only 6% whiteโ€”instead of overwhelmingly white Ballard High School. Brose, so the story goes, then founded a nonprofit, Parents Involved in Community Schools, to fight for her daughter all the way to the US Supreme Court.ย 

But lawsuits donโ€™t get to the Supreme Court without someone spending millions of dollars. Fortunately, attorney Cara Sandberg dug deep into the powerful, wealthy interests who manufactured the PICS suit. While a group of frustrated parents did try organically to challenge the districtโ€™s racial tie-breaker, most of them had no interest in suing the district. The few who did, including former Republican Congressman John Miller, formed PICS.ย 

Miller convinced the Seattle office of powerful corporate law firm Davis Wright Tremaine to represent PICS pro bono. Harry Korrell, who wasโ€”and remainsโ€”a Davis Wright Tremaine partner, represented PICS for free. Korrell is a longtime member of the Federalist Society, one of the corporate-backed groups created to execute Lewis Powellโ€™s oligarchic, anti-civil rights strategy. He was assisted by lawyers from another such group: the Pacific Legal Foundation. The Foundation provided both legal arguments for Korrell and media coaching for Brose. Brose, a more relatable figure than the elite Miller, was made the public face of the lawsuit.ย 

Backed by corporate lawyers and corporate nonprofits, PICS lost in lower courts but found a sympathetic ear at the US Supreme Court in 2007. Chief Justice John Roberts, like Korrell a veteran of Lewis Powellโ€™s corporate legal movement, wrote the leading opinion. Roberts didnโ€™t explicitly overrule Brown and bring back Jim-Crow-style mandatory school segregation. Instead, he banned government policies intended to proactively integrate schools. Under Brown, school districts canโ€™t force all the white kids into one school and all the Black kids into another. But, under Robertsโ€™s PICS ruling, Seattle couldnโ€™t do anything intended to make schools more racially balanced.ย 

Robertsโ€™s ruling rested on two false premises. First, he argued that the Constitution didnโ€™t allow Seattle to consider race in school admissions because Seattle school segregation resulted from residential segregation caused by individual choicesโ€”not government policies. This laughably inaccurate claim needs no debunking, though law professor Richard Rothstein thoroughly shredded it in his book the Color of Law.ย 

Second, and more perniciously, Roberts willfully misinterpreted Brown, turning a color-conscious decision into a colorblind one. Roberts argued that Brown condemned ever racially classifying students. But Brown was not about classifying all children by race, Brown was about classifying Black children by race. Roberts failed to understandโ€”or deliberately ignoredโ€”that Brown prohibited classifying and segregating Black students because whites were using school segregation to perpetuate the myth of Black inferiority. Roberts used PICS to transform Brown from a unanimous condemnation of white supremacy into a gag order preventing schools from even acknowledging obvious racial disparities.ย 

Robertsโ€™s false claims yielded real results. A few optimists tried to argue that Justice Anthony Kennedyโ€™s tie-breaking opinionโ€”which attempted to salvage Brownโ€™s legacy by allowing some limited school integration policiesโ€”was the actual law of the land. But Justice Kennedy is gone, and his successors do not believe that the Constitution allows schools to undo generations of racial discrimination.ย 

Seattle bowed to the court and abandoned its halting school integration efforts. Davis Wright Tremaine added insult to injury, spending years trying to force the Seattle Public Schools to pay $2 million in Borseโ€™s legal fees.ย 

Lewis Powellโ€™s corporate legal attack machine continues to target Washington schools with manufactured legal battles, from the Bremerton praying coach case to moral panics about โ€œcritical race theory.โ€ Their goal isnโ€™t just to end school integration, itโ€™s to create permanent oligarchy by destroying public education entirely, subsidizing private school tuition for wealthy families, and depriving everyone else of a quality education.

PICS was part of this oligarchic campaign. Wealthy elitists used Seattle parents to gut Brown as part of a decades-long campaign designed to stamp out any whisper of a simple, obvious idea: the current distribution of wealth and power in America is unbelievably, violently unjust. The elitists seem to be ascendant, seizing control of school boards nationwide and dominating the Supreme Court. But Brown isnโ€™t just a court decision. Brown is, and always will be, a simple, powerful acknowledgement that white supremacy is evil. Brown reminds us of a period of vibrant, brilliant, joyful, successful resistanceโ€”a time when the powerful and their lackeys were justifiably, gloriously afraid of losing their ill-gotten gains. We can make them afraid again.

Austin Field is a public defender in Seattle. Before attending law school at the University of Washington, he was an Army infantry officer, a law firm operations manager, and a public defense investigator....

6 replies on “Remember the Seattle Lawsuit that Ended School Integration?”

  1. I always thought the case rested on I-200, the state initiative passed in 1998 that said race canโ€™t be used as a factor for government related programs like admission to schools or government employment. That was more about a statewide electoral mandate than a minority group of Seattle parents that overturned the system.

  2. @1 I-200 had no relevance to the Supreme Court decision. Racial considerations were still (narrowly) permissible under federal law until 2023.

  3. Missing from this account was the reality of de facto segregation, the invisible Jim Crow practiced outside of the South. The schools were segregated because Seattle was de facto segregated, via the very simple expedient of not ever showing Black buyers houses north of the Ship Canal. Desegregating the schools in the short term therefore involved long bus rides for students, which all parents tended to oppose. (This de facto racist housing policy was also one large reason the Central District, once a Jewish neighborhood, became a Black neighborhood.)

  4. The devil is, as always in the details. The solutions offered inevitably put the burden on a small group of families, and most importantly NOT the worst offenders. To wit:

    The Lakeside Acadamies are not touched. The actual rich will continue to enjoy all their privileges.

    This means you are really talking about making the middle class atone for the sins of the wealthy.

    While no ethnic group is inherently inferior, it’s also true that poor kids act out and have more issues due to poverty. And poverty in the US tracks with ethnicity. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t;t be in this discussion.

    So, a subset of middle-class kids by luck of the draw end up dropped in schools that have worse outcomes due to poverty.

    To repeat, the results of Brown were to force a subset of middle-class kids to bear the burden of the sins of the wealthy. So that in a generation or two everyone (except the aforementioned rich) will enter the promised land of overall (except for the aforementioned rich) of equity.

    Anyone who couldn’t see how this would explode is either willfully naive and clueless or just plain cynical.

    Until we have a program that targets the actual rich, you will always have a backlash. Almost no parent views their kid as a sociological experiment and sacrifice for equity, especially when others skate.

  5. Another reason for cheap housing in Seattle in the 70โ€™s was people selling so they could get away from the โ€œspecterโ€ of bussing. The parents of a coworker of mine moved to Renton from Beacon Hill because they didnโ€™t want their kids bussed.

    And did you ever wonder why Seattle has so many private schools? Because of bussing.

    As someone who was bussed from third to eighth grade, I never understood what all the fuss was about, but I had good parents.

  6. Gentrification is making schools like Franklin much more diverse. Here are the latest stats:

    33.0% Asian, 27.6% Black,17.4% Hispanic, 13.6% White, 7.1% Two or More Races, 0.6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.2% American Indian/Alaska Native

    Still a 2:1 Black to White ratio but Asians are at the top.

Comments are closed.