I analyzed the Sheff vs. O’Neill 1996 Connecticut Supreme Court case legal document for the majority opinion led by Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters. The ruling was split 4-3 with the court ruling that the state had an affirmative obligation to provide school children in Connecticut with equal educational opportunity and that this right also meant that access to such an education cannot be substantially impaired by racial and ethnic isolation. Lastly, the majority opinion concluded that school districting is unconstitutional because it bounds schools by town lines, which is one of the leading causes of the high concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities in Hartford.
This legal document makes it clear that even though the legislature may not have intended to create the conditions that have led to the racial and ethnic isolation in the Hartford public school system, the defendants still have an obligation to provide a solution for this constitutional injustice.
Furthermore, the majority opinion makes clear their belief that schools are important not simply just as an educational institution but also as a socializing institution. The argument is that if children of different races and socioeconomic groups never have an opportunity to know each other and go to school together then there is no expectation that these children will gain understanding and mutual respect for one another, which is key for a unified society.
The majority opinion gives evidence that students in the Hartford schools are racially isolated and that it is very likely that they will become more isolated in the future and that this segregation can have a devastating impact on a minority student’s education. Segregation of white and minority children in public schools is usually interpreted as signifying the inferiority of minorities, which affects the motivation of a child to learn. In a racially integrated school system, minority children would not be deprived of such educational and mental developments, but in fact such a school system would benefit both white and minority children.
In Susan Eaton’s book Children in Room E4, she summarizes the court ruling on the Sheff vs. O’neill 1996 case. In addition to this Eaton explains how in one sense Ellen Peter’s majority had gone very far by saying that the school districting scheme was unconstitutional, but on the other hand the court had not directed the state very clearly in what to do about the problem. It seems that Eaton is trying to say that although Peters did a great job in convincing the legislature of her case she did not leave a clear path to what should be done next (Eaton 179).
Discussion Questions:
1) Do you agree with Eaton that after the Sheff 1996 settlement was made the court did a poor job of directing the state what to do?
2) What is the most convincing argument made in the majority opinion? Why do you think so?
3) Although this seems to be a clear victory for racial and ethnic minorities in Hartford does it appear that this ruling would lead to immediate progress toward equal educational opportunities? Why or why not?