- The current design of most mandatory desegregation plans does not fit within the current Court’s view ( especially Justice Kennedy’s) of narrowly tailored plans.
- Several ways in which school boards and other policy makers can promote school desegregation include: considering race when drawing attendance zones, building new schools, closing schools, and locating magnet schools in strategic areas.
- Magnet schools might meet narrow tailoring requirements if race is only one of several factors considered during the application and administration process.
- The existence of a modest average desegregation benefit in race relations does not guarantee that all desegregated students will experience that benefit. Although the average of students in desegregated schools is 2 points higher than their average in segregated schools, there is considerably overlap when it comes to individual students. One can see that many segregated Black students are outperforming desegregated Black students.
- Average benefits are not the same as individual benefits. From the standpoint of narrow tailoring, showing that desegregated students have better educational and social outcomes than segregated students on average does not mean that all, or even a large fraction, will benefit from a desegregated school. This creates a narrow tailoring problem for policies that classify all students by race and then assign them to desegregated schools, because such a process assumes that all students thus classified and assigned will benefit from the desegregated school.
- The modest impact of desegregation on educational and social outcomes appears to erect serious barriers to school boards that wish to pursue system wide racial balance policies.