SAINT PAUL, Minnesota (CN) — The Minnesota Supreme Court found Wednesday that massive racial imbalances in Twin Cities schools do not violate the state constitution’s guarantee of a “general and uniform system of public schools,” but that parents who object to what they called de facto segregation may still show a violation if they can demonstrate that segregation harmed their children’s education.
In an opinion written by Justice Margaret Chutich, the court ruled segregation in school districts in Minnesota’s two largest cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, did not necessarily represent a failure by the Legislature to follow a constitutional mandate to establish a “general and uniform,” and “thorough and efficient” system of public schools throughout the state. Parents of students in those schools, however, could still show that major racial disparities led those schools to provide inadequate education.
A collection of parents with children in St. Paul and Minneapolis schools first sued the state in 2015, claiming their children’s rights to education under the education clause of the Minnesota Constitution were being violated by a growing trend toward segregation in school districts in and around the Twin Cities metro.
A Hennepin County judge denied the parents’ motion for summary judgment on their education clause claim, but certified a question for immediate appeal: “Is the education clause of the Minnesota Constitution violated by a racially imbalanced school system, regardless of the presence of de jure segregation or proof of a causal link between the racial imbalance and the actions of the state?”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals answered that question in the negative, finding that only intentional segregation could violate the education clause, even if the segregation was increased by state actions. The Supreme Court, on appeal of that decision, opted to reformulate the question, which now reads: “Are racial imbalances in Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools, as compared to other schools in the same school district, sufficient, standing alone, to establish a violation of the education clause of the Minnesota Constitution?”
Writing for the high court, Chutich noted that the new question allowed the court to provide a straightforward yes-or-no answer. “Framing the question in terms of racial imbalances in Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools is consistent with the class certified with the district court… as well as the parents’ specific allegations,” Chutich wrote.
Answering that question, the high court found that while the state is responsible for remedying any deficiencies in the education it provides to Minnesota students, whether or not it caused them, racial segregation by itself did not qualify as such a deficiency. “We agree with the parents that, for a claim like this, with potentially many different causes of the alleged inadequate education — factors that may include racial imbalances — a ‘substantial factor’ standard is appropriate,” Chutich wrote. “We therefore hold that to succeed on their education clause claim, the parents must prove that the racial imbalances are a substantial factor in causing an inadequate education.”
During oral arguments this past May, attorneys for the parents argued that “the purpose of the education clause is to help students discharge intelligently their duties as citizens of the republic,” and that “in a multiracial, multicultural society, a system cannot do that if it tolerates, and fails to remedy, racial isolation.”
Arguing for the state, Assistant Attorney General Kevin Finnerty maintained that this argument was “asking the court to have the education clause do the work of the equal protection clause. There’s no precedent supporting that.”
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, the court’s only member of color, penned a dissent warning that the ruling ignored the history of segregation in American schools and society more generally. “The record illustrates that de facto segregation in Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools has gone hand in hand with depressed academic outcomes for students of color,” Hudson wrote, pointing out that between 1995 and 2021, the cities saw a substantial increase in the number of “hyper-segregated” public schools and that during that time, students of color lagged well behind white students in demonstrating math and reading proficiency.
“Despite these stark figures, the court requires the parents to prove that there is a causal connection between the abysmal racialized disparities in academic outcomes in the Twin Cities and the present state of de facto school segregation” Hudson continued. “But this holding amounts to closing our eyes to what history and modern reality have demonstrated to be true: Where racially segregated neighborhoods exist, the historical result has been racialized disparities in academic outcomes.”
The Twin Cities have the largest concentration of Black, Latino and Asian Minnesotans, and a substantial portion of the state’s Native American residents. Per 2020 Census data, 77.6% of Minnesota residents identify as white and not Hispanic or Latino. In Minneapolis, that figure drops to 60%, and in St. Paul it sits at 51.3%. Despite this, 23 Minneapolis public schools had more than 80% students of color in the 2020-2021 school year, and 12 schools had under 40% students of color. In St. Paul, 36 schools topped 80% students of color, 26 had over 90% students of color, and five had over 53% white students.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed an amicus brief with the court in favor of the parents’ position. On Wednesday afternoon, ACLU attorney David McKinney said that while the decision was mixed, he was glad to see the court kept a route open to challenge school segregation.
“In one sense we’re glad the court reaffirmed… that there is a viable claim,” McKinney said. “The other thing that’s clear is that there’s a legislative responsibility to remedy [education disparities],” he added. “We think that’s a positive development.”
The court, McKinney said, had laid out a road forward for the plaintiffs. “They need to fill a link between, as the court said… that there is a substantial factor, that racial imbalance is a substantial factor in causing the children to receive an inadequate education.”
“That might be a challenge,” he continued, noting the court had opted out of defining what constituted an “inadequate education.”
As to Hudson’s dissent, McKinney said, “She continues to, in many occasions, be a lone voice on the court in terms of looking very starkly at racial injustices within the state, and I think she’s to be applauded for that.
“Her analysis and the history that she points to shouldn’t be ignored, and is spot on– it’s stark, and, in many ways, hard to hear for most Minnesotans, but it’s an ugly truth, and one that the Legislature should address head-on. And the courts should take it on in due course as well.”
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Appeals court backs San Juan dredging project May 3, 2024 -
