Talk:Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Citations

Is there a good reason why we are citing to what Roberts cites and not citing to the case itself? Traditionally, you would cite to the page number in Parents Involved and anyone curious could then read Parents to find sub-citations. Pckilgore (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Parents v. Seattle → Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 — Although it is a major U.S. Supreme Court decision, it is too early to say that the name should be shortened, à la Brown v. Board of Education. The shortened name doesn't even seem to be the most common usage yet ([1] v. [2]). Plus, the current name implies that the respondent was the city of Seattle, not the school district. —TLK^'in 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as the nominator. TLK^'in 12:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article is much better written than the other one dealing with the same topic. Jon 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support however, I would move it to a page titled PICS v. Seattle. Professor Jeffrey Rossen of George Washington Law School already wrote an article about the case and used the name PICS v. Seattle.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Parents v. Seattle to Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 12:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Largely plagairised

Actually, this is word for word from another website, to be specific the sections on "Seattle School District" on this page is the same as "Facts of the Case" on Oyez. One or two words are deleted but otherwise, this is an exact copy. The first paragraph under "Jefferson County" is taken word for word from page 322, at the top of the right column, in Fulero and Wrightsman's Forensic Psychology. Definitely a violation of copyright. and Evilpassion (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)evilpassion

References

Biased

anyone else notice the bias and unsourced analysis in the dissent sections? not to mention the fact that they're both very short. when this decision was made, the dissent was very highly publicized, and not much of that seems to be here.

167.206.19.130 18:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the analyses seem biased in favor of the plurality opinion and the concurrences. The dissents seem to be systematically trivialized, while the concurrences are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.37.61 (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the dissent sections written here are good summary's of what the judges actually wrote in their dissent, but if you find something in the actual dissent that should be quoted here, be bold and add it. Note that majority and concuring opinions in general get more news coverage, so it's easier to find good quotes for them than the dissents. Jon (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The sections dealing with the dissents are a fair summary of them. What do you find objectionable? 140.247.248.15 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Add link to Comfort v. Lynn School Committee

I think that the Wikipedia entry concerning the Parents Involved case should include a link to Comfort v. Lynn School Committee, 418 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005). While Westlaw treats this case as overruled by the Supreme Court in Parents Involved, the Court actually declined to hear the case: 546 US 1061(2005). US District Court Judge Nancy Gertner is moving ahead w/ the original, race-conscious school desegregation plan: 541 F.Supp.2d. 429 (D.Mass. Mar 31, 2008).

This case is interesting because, unlike in the Seattle and Louisville school desegregation efforts, Lynn decided to equalize the resources of the predominantly white and predominantly minority schools. This meant that no one lost out by being sent to school in one area of town as opposed to another. Based on this funding equalization, First Circuit Chief Judge Michael Boudin cast the crucial tie breaking vote in support of the race-conscious desegregation plan.

The US Supreme Court chose not to review this decision, preferring instead to focus on the cases arising in Seattle and Louisville, where parents felt penalized by some of the school choices for their children. Under those circumstances, a majority of the Court felt comfortable knocking down the particular race-conscious student selection measures designed by these school systems. The Lynn case presents an alternative, presumably one in which no one must accept losses in order to ensure the effective integration of the schools. One further note: student test scores rose across the board following the implementation of the Lynn plan.

Here is my proposed link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/first-sequel-to-school-decision/

Jaystew1 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Plurality?

The current version of this article largely suggests that Chief Justice Roberts' opinion (parts III-B and IV) was a plurality opinion, but I'm not sure this is the case. Generally it's only considered a plurality decision if there was no majority. In this case, Roberts wrote the majority opinion and then essentially wrote a separate concurrence, I think, right? Otherwise, I don't see how you could count Roberts' opinion as a plurality when it had the same number of votes as Breyer's dissent. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The third paragraph in the introduction should either be taken out or changed significantly. The first sentence in that paragraph misleading; there is in fact disagreement among the justices about that point. Here is a quote from Justice Breyer's dissent: "The histories also make clear the futility of looking simply to whether earlier school segregation was de jure or de facto in order to draw firm lines separating the constitutionally permissible from the constitutionally forbidden use of “race-conscious” criteria. . . .No one here disputes that Louisville's segregation was de jure. But what about Seattle's? Was it de facto? De jure? A mixture? Opinions differed.") The full Kennedy quote is: "The cases here were argued upon the assumption, and come to us on the premise, that the discrimination in question did not result from de jure actions." The 3 sentences following that text are misleading as well; the quote about "impose a duty" from the dissent is actually a reference to the Milliken decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.104 (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of outright removal of the material, it would be best to suggest specific improvements, with cites from reliable sources. Above, you are giving us quotes, but not telling us where they come from. For now, I have put a request for a citation to the existing material. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)