Judge says New Jersey failed to address 'persistent racial imbalance' in its public schools
WOODLAND PARK, N.J. — In a case that could have momentous consequences for the state’s 674 school districts, a superior court judge ruled that the state of New Jersey has systematically failed to address the problem of racial segregation that exists in its public schools.
Mercer County Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy agreed with plaintiff Latino Action Network that the state has a duty to correct 'de facto' segregation in schools — meaning segregation that is not the result of official policy — but his ruling issued Friday night stopped short of issuing orders or proposing a remedy.
The ruling does not declare a clear winner in the case, meaning that the next step is for the case to go to trial or into settlement decisions. The "pre-trial" decision was based on facts, data, and expert opinions presented by both parties.
At the core of the lawsuit is the argument that chronic segregation in New Jersey schools is caused by the state’s residency laws which, plaintiffs said, feed the staggering inequities between New Jersey’s wealthy and poor districts by assigning schools based on a student’s zip code.
The plaintiffs noted nearly 60% of Latino students in New Jersey attend schools with more than 80% non-white students, and that 66% of Black students attend schools where more than 75% of students are non-white.
How to teach about climate change? Education in many US schools is lacking, students claim
Path forward on a remedy
Latino Action Network welcomed the much-anticipated ruling in the case, which it had brought in 2018 against the state, along with some children and parents from Paterson, Newark, Elizabeth, Hoboken and other urban districts, as well as the NAACP, Latino Coalition, the United Methodist Church of Greater New Jersey, Urban League of Essex County and two Jersey Shore school districts.
"The court agreed with us on two essential points," said attorney Lawrence Lustberg, who represented the Latino Action Network. "One, New Jersey’s schools are deeply segregated by race, and two, the state has a constitutional obligation to address this urgent problem."
Lustberg said that the court "rejected most of the state’s defenses and provides a clear path forward for plaintiffs to obtain a remedy on their core legal claims that the state has violated the rights of students to equal protection, attend desegregated schools, and receive a thorough and efficient education under the state’s constitution.”
A spokesperson for the Office of the State Attorney General, which argued the case on behalf of the Department of Education, said it was still reviewing the case and did not provide further comment.
The court emphasized the “unprecedented scope” of the case. “In the almost seventy years since Brown v. Board of Education, (a 1954 court case that began the process of ending segregation in schools), no court at any level…has concluded that an entire state’s educational system is unconstitutionally segregated,” Judge Lougy wrote, noting that these claims were “logical” and “historic,” given New Jersey’s progressive track record on segregation.
The lawsuit asked for the following:
A ruling declaring that New Jersey’s segregation of Black and Latino students is unlawful and that assigning students to public schools based on their municipality is unlawful because it causes segregation.
A ruling that it is unlawful to require charter schools to prioritize enrolling students who live in-district.
“Enjoin” or stop the practice of assigning students to public schools based on where they reside. Order the state Legislature and Education Department to adopt a “replacement assignment methodology” with a plan in three months.
Pay attorneys' costs as permitted by law.
Yet another generation 'being deprived'
In his ruling, Lougy said that the plaintiffs "fail to prove that the State’s entire educational system is unconstitutionally segregated," and that the data filed by the plaintiffs "does not demonstrate statewide unconstitutionality, across all districts, across all regions."
But he did not throw the case out as requested by the state, saying that the plaintiffs "have demonstrated marked and persistent racial imbalance in numerous school districts across the state that defendants’ actions, policies, programs, and inaction have failed to remedy."
"Segregation is abhorrent to New Jersey public policy; de facto segregation is prevalent and persistent across the State," Lougy wrote in his decision. New Jersey is "obligated and empowered to minimize segregation," but it has "intentionally failed" in its responsibility "to grant public school students the protection of state laws."
Lustberg said that the plaintiffs were evaluating all options, including a motion to appeal. If the case goes to trial or appeal, it could take several more years before the matter could be finally decided, he said.
"This is, in fact, the tragedy of this case: while we litigate, yet another generation of New Jersey’s children are being deprived of their constitutional right to be educated in an integrated setting," Lustberg said. "It is alarming that the state defends this status quo instead of trying to address the problem head-on."
The ruling mostly granted that racial segregation exists, but it did not grant the plaintiffs’ charge that the state had failed in its responsibility to address socio-economic segregation, which refers to unequal treatment of students resulting from living in a high-poverty district compared to wealthier ones.
Lustberg said his clients will consider appealing this ruling. The courts, he pointed out, denied the motion not on grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to prove socio-economic segregation exists, but on grounds that it is not a constitutional violation.
The state had an "attitude of helplessness," and acted as if "de-facto" segregation was "inevitable," the ruling said. In its argument, the state tried to show that the number of white students enrolled in schools was decreasing and would continue to decrease.
However, this was not a good enough reason not to address the high concentration of Black and Latino students in some school districts, Lougy ruled.
The state argued that LAN and the other plaintiffs could not prove that any constitutional violation had occurred and "that any disproportionality in a small number of school districts cannot and does not establish a statewide constitutional violation."
Both parties relied on experts who conducted research and presented statistical evidence to support their claims. The plaintiffs argued that New Jersey had some of the most segregated schools in the nation and that the challenges of finding a remedy to the situation should not discourage the courts from finding the state liable for failing to fix the problem.
The court ruled in favor of an intervening party, representing the state's public charter school association. The lawsuit brought by LAN said that charter schools, which mostly operate in districts with high concentrations of Latino and Black students, were contributing to segregation. The ruling denied this charge, saying that while charters contributed to segregation, they did not make it worse.
"We are pleased that the court has affirmed that public charter schools do not contribute to segregation in New Jersey’s public school system," the New Jersey Public Charter School Association said in a statement, noting that it worked to break "barriers" like race, culture, zip-code and language.
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: New Jersey has failed to address persistent segregation in schools
