Parents' group sues over BPS exam school admissions, alleging discrimination against white students
:
Advertisement
'The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause guarantees every qualified Boston student an equal opportunity to compete for a place in an Exam School, regardless of race,' the lawsuit says. 'The Tier System was implemented to limit that opportunity for members of a particular racial group. It must be struck down.'
A spokesperson for Boston Public Schools declined to comment.
This isn't the first time the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence or the law firm that represents it, Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit against Boston Public Schools over exam school admission practices. In 2020, the School Committee voted to temporarily award seats based on grades and zip code, and the same group and law firm sued over that system as well. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the case last year, with one justice noting the system was no longer in use.
Related
:
Advertisement
Prior to the pandemic, admission to the three exam schools, Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and the John D. O'Bryant School of Math and Science, was determined in a citywide process based solely on grades and an entrance exam score. Under the current admissions system, which has been repeatedly
Students apply to enter the schools in grades 7 and 9, and must have at least a B average to be eligible. Applicants receive a composite score out of 100 based on their grades and entrance exam scores. Students can get 15 bonus points if they live in public housing, are homeless, or are in foster care, or a varying number of points if they attend schools where at least 40 percent of students are low-income. The school-based bonus points vary by tier from three points to 10.
The wealthiest tier, Tier 4 (or Tier 8 in an earlier version of the system), has tended to have more applicants than the other tiers, but all tiers get the same number of seats. That means admission is particularly competitive in Tier 4, which included many tracts in neighborhoods such as West Roxbury and Beacon Hill.
Because the city's white students are concentrated in Tier 4, they have lower odds of admission to their schools of choice.
'This was done ... to limit the proportion of white students who could get into the exam schools,' said Pacific Legal senior attorney Chris Kieser in an interview. 'And it's been remarkably effective.'
Advertisement
Under the new system, the proportion of Grade 7 exam school invites going to white students declined from 40 percent for School Year 2020-21 to
a low of 24 percent for 2023-24. According to the lawsuit, in three out of four years of the new system, white students have made up a smaller share of admitted students than of applicants. The percentage of admitted students who were white has been lower than the share of applicants.
Related
:
Parties to the suit include parents of white and Asian children in Tier 4 who either already applied and were denied admission to one or all exam schools, or parents of white and Asian children
who plan to apply in future years.
The Pacific Legal Foundation has represented parents in a number of related cases alleging discrimination in efforts to diversify elite public schools around the country.
Last year, the Supreme Court also declined to hear a case it brought against Virginia's Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, another elite, application-based public high school that recently overhauled admissions. But some
conservative
members of the court have written that these policies violate their 2023 decision
Christopher Huffaker can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
7 hours ago
- Black America Web
Florida Supreme Court Backs DeSantis In Diluting Black Voter Power
Source: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Getty Long before Texas officials scrambled for a special session to attack Black voter power in the Lone Star state, Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis was already stacking the deck in his party's favor. Now, four years after redistricting began, the Florida Supreme Court upheld maps backed by DeSantis diluting Black voter power. Embracing a reverse racism style argument, the Florida Supreme Court claimed that allowing a majority Black district to remain would violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Led by Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute and the League of Women Voters of Florida, voting rights groups maintain the maps violated the 2010 Fair Districts Amendment. They further argue that the maps diluted Black voter power and were an assault on Black representation. According to Democracy Docket, the maps commissioned by DeSantis split Black voters formerly in the state's 5th Congressional district 'across four separate districts, reducing their ability to choose a candidate that best represents them in North Florida.' DeSantis pointing to multiple courts upholding his allegedly 'constitutionally correct map' does not mean the maps are accurate or fair. It only means that the courts have swung far enough to the right that the interpretation of accuracy and fairness is willing to overlook the true meaning of equal protection and fair representation. The Democracy Docket specifically called attention to the 'non-diminishment' clause in Florida's Fair Districts Amendment, which prohibits the state from creating districts that prevent racial or language minorities from having 'equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.' It's all states' rights, and states can decide until a state law actually benefits Black people. As reported by the Tallahassee Democrat, there is still a challenge pending regarding Congressional District 26. This case is also separate from a challenge to Florida Senate District 16 involving Black voters in Tampa and St. Petersburg. But the 5th Congressional District case underscores the importance of federal oversight and protection to ensure that states do not disenfranchise or disempower Black voters. As outlined by the Legal Defense Fund, Florida has passed several anti-voter laws and targeted fairness and transparency in the democratic process. DeSantis and his cronies have no interest in upholding equal protection or ensuring free and fair elections. Retaining power by any and all means is the name of their game. Source: ninitta / Getty 'Conditions that can foster voting discrimination — such as unfairly drawn districts that weaken the voting power of Black voters and other voters of color, inaccessible polling locations, insufficient language assistance for voters who don't speak English comfortably, and outright voter intimidation — endure throughout Florida,' wrote the LDF. 'And many of Florida's counties and cities use at-large election structures or district maps that impair the ability of voters of color to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of elections.' Despite claims that the DeSantis maps are racially neutral and did not intentionally discriminate against Black voters, modern era segregationists know they need to make it look accidental to pass judicial scrutiny. Trying to prove racist intent is no longer as simple as it was 60 years ago. The battle over maps in Florida is one of many ongoing challenges to Black voter power. But limiting Black political power and, in turn, full political participation is not new. Even before the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, the powers that be fought hard to minimize Black voting rights. And now, their descendants are colonizing the same laws passed to protect Black voters against us. Despite the extensive legislative history and record around the Reconstruction Era Amendments and numerous civil rights laws, including the Voting Rights Act, these people follow the far-right SCOTUS majority's intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing fair in what DeSantis and his cronies are doing. And yet, Black voters and the candidates who seek to represent their interests are left scrambling to out organize an increasingly hostile state and federal government. These contemporary voting rights challenges also show the enduring importance and need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder eroded key sections of the Voting Rights Act, voting rights advocates have pushed for legislation to restore and strengthen voting rights protections. Choosing our representatives and free access to the ballot are two of the most significant pathways to improving conditions for our families and communities. Protecting and expanding voting rights requires sustained organizing and lobbying leading to new safeguards at the state level like state voting acts and other pro-democracy legislation. SEE ALSO: Federal Judges Rule Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' 'Race-Neutral' Congressional Map Is Constitutional Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana SEE ALSO Florida Supreme Court Backs DeSantis In Diluting Black Voter Power was originally published on
CNBC
8 hours ago
- CNBC
Japan trade deal info on Trump's desk was altered by hand with a marker
President Donald Trump's art of the deal seemed to play out in real time on Tuesday. Trump announced what he called a "massive" trade agreement with Japan over his Truth Social platform Tuesday night, which the president said includes a 15% tariff rate and $550 billion in investments. But the details of that deal on a card on Trump's desk shows discrepancies and last-minute edits, according to a photo posted by by Dan Scavino, the White House deputy chief of staff. The card on Trump's desk displays a 10% tariff, in addition to a 15% levy rate on the automotive, pharma and semiconductor industries. However, Trump said on Truth Social only that Japan would face a rate of 15%, without elaborating. "Japan will pay Reciprocal Tariffs to the United States of 15%," Trump wrote. Below the tariff rate, the phrase "$400B" appears on the board in large lettering. The number four is crossed out, with "500" written above it. That seemingly references Japan's plan to investment in the U.S., as was explained by Trump in his social media post. But Trump used a different figure than even the altered amount, saying in the post that the Asian country would invest $550 billion into the U.S. It is not clear where the additional $50 billion came from. "Japan will invest, at my direction, $550 Billion Dollars into the United States, which will receive 90% of the Profits," Trump wrote in the post. "This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it." The White House did not comment on CNBC's request for clarification on the tariff rate or total investment amount. It's not clear whether the card difference is the result of last-minute negotiations by Trump, typos, or something else. Nor was it clear who altered the $400 billion figure. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared to take credit for the board in a Wednesday morning interview with Bloomberg, but did not directly address the edits or discrepancies. "I created the big board and put it there," Lutnick said. "But the answer is: the negotiator in chief of the United States of America is sitting behind the desk. Donald Trump is sitting there negotiating the deal." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Wednesday morning interview with Bloomberg that Japan got the 15% rate on autos — despite some other countries' automakers facing higher rates — because they offered both guarantees of equity credit and funding for large U.S. projects. This statement came in response to a question about if trading partners could now expect to see a floor of 15% tariffs during negotiations. "That is a different kind of deal," Bessent said. "They got the 15% rate because they were willing to provide this innovative financing mechanism." Wall Street was left a bit confused by the terms of the deal. Andy Laperriere, head of U.S. policy research at Piper Sandler, said Japanese officials are "describing it differently" when it comes to the investment plan. Japan's leaders, he said, see the $550 billion figure as a cap and inclusive of government loan guarantees. "Especially given that the Japanese believe they are being bullied into this commitment, they will almost certainly slow walk whatever investments they don't think are in their own economic self-interest," Laperriere wrote to clients in a Wednesday note.
Newsweek
9 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Japan Trade Deal Explained: What To Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump announced that the United States and Japan reached a major trade deal that is "perhaps the largest deal ever made. Japan agreed to invest $550 billion in the U.S., which will tax Japanese goods sold to America at 15 percent—lower than the 25 percent tariff Trump had threatened. Japan will also open its economy further to American cars, trucks, rice and agricultural products, Trump announced on Tuesday night. Why It Matters The agreement signaled a substantial shift in America's trade relationship with one of its most important Asian allies. The trade pact not only averted a significant escalation of tariffs that risked destabilizing markets but also promised to generate investment and reshape sectors such as manufacturing and automotive, which remain vital to the U.S. economy. The U.S. Census Bureau reported a $69.4 billion trade deficit with Japan in 2024, underlining the economic stakes for both countries. A staff member distributes an extra edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reporting that U.S. President Donald Trump announced a trade framework with Japan, on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in Tokyo. The headline reads "U.S.,... A staff member distributes an extra edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reporting that U.S. President Donald Trump announced a trade framework with Japan, on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in Tokyo. The headline reads "U.S., a 15 percent tax on goods imported from Japan." More AP What To Know Trump's new framework levies a 15 percent tax on all goods imported from Japan, including automobiles and key industrial products, in contrast to the 25 percent tariff that had been on the table. He wrote on Truth Social: "We just completed a massive Deal with Japan, perhaps the largest Deal ever made. Japan will invest, at my direction, $550 Billion Dollars into the United States, which will receive 90% of the Profits. "This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it. Perhaps most importantly, Japan will open their Country to Trade including Cars and Trucks, Rice and certain other Agricultural Products, and other things. Japan will pay Reciprocal Tariffs to the United States of 15 percent. "This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" The new, lower tariff rate comes after earlier U.S. proposals led to market turbulence in April. U.S. automakers and other industry groups voiced concerns about the impact of such tariffs. Japan also agreed to drop extra safety tests for imported U.S. cars and to expand the share of U.S. rice it imports. However, the agreement does not include reciprocal tariff reductions by Japan on American goods, and details remain unclear concerning the tariff status of some specific sectors, such as steel and aluminum exports from Japan. Who People Are Saying Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba: (15 percent is) "the lowest rate ever applied among countries that have a trade surplus with the U.S." Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council: "Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no U.S. content than the tariff imposed on North American-built vehicles with high U.S. content is a bad deal for U.S. industry and U.S. auto workers." Shigeto Nagai, head of Japan Economics at Oxford Economics: (The deal) "will be a huge boost to restore the U.S., fitting in with Trump's story of reviving U.S. manufacturing with more jobs." What Happens Next The new tariff rates are scheduled to take effect on August 1, per Trump's earlier letter to Japanese authorities. The administration is continuing negotiation efforts with other global trading partners, including the European Union, which faces a threatened 30 percent tariff if no agreement is reached. The U.S. also maintains ongoing deliberations with China, with tariffs and trade deficits expected to remain focal points in future talks.
