NAACP Sues to Preserve Racial Quotas in Lynn

Seeks to Intervene in Chester Darling’s Case

By Atty. Michael Williams
February 2002

The national office of the NAACP is seeking to intervene in Atty. Chester Darling’s ongoing suit over Lynn’s race-based, student assignment policy in the public schools.

Some of Darling’s plaintiffs, who are challenging Lynn’s discriminatory policy, are children of color who have been denied school assignments because of their race.

The NAACP is asking the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts for permission to intervene in the case so that they can defend Lynn’s assignment policy.

The children represented by Darling and his non-profit law firm, Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. They seek to end the racial barrier that keeps children from getting a school assignment if they don’t belong to the “correct” racial group for that particular school.

Lynn’s plan, adopted pursuant to the Racial Imbalance Act, denies transfers to children of the “wrong” racial group in order to maintain a particular “racial balance” within Lynn’s public schools. Each race risks denial of an assignment if the school they want to attend has “enough” children of their race. That is why Darling’s plaintiffs include children who are black, white, Hispanic, and bi-racial.

Apparently, the NAACP is willing to allow black children to be denied school assignments because of their race, as long as white children are also being discriminated against.

Over Two Years Late

The NAACP moved to intervene on January 4, although the case was originally filed in August of 1999. Why the more than two year delay?

Despite acknowledging that they have followed the case and have met with Chester Darling to discuss it, the NAACP tells the court they were not aware that the case would affect all of the school children of Lynn until recently. The case is currently scheduled for trial in June.

Darling has asked the court to reject the NAACP’s belated move to intervene and to ensure the case will go forward on that date. The NAACP has asked that their motion be heard during the January 29, 2002 hearing already scheduled to address Darling’s motion that the case be treated as a class action on behalf of all the children of Lynn.

“If the NAACP wanted to get involved in this case, they should have done so two years ago. It’s too late now,” commented Darling.

Does A.G. Represent People of Lynn?

In order to succeed in a motion to intervene, it is necessary to establish that the existing parties do not already represent the interests of the intervener. When the government is the defendant, the courts are required to presume that the government will adequately defend their own policies.

The NAACP argues that the AG’s office will not adequately represent the black children of Lynn. And in an astonishing admission the AG’s office agrees. This concession was obviously a tactical decision on the part of the Assistant Attorneys General assigned to this case; designed to bring the NAACP in to assist in the defense of Lynn’s assignment plan and the Racial Imbalance Act.

But one has to wonder what Attorney General Tom Reilly, who soon faces re-election, thinks of members of his office describing themselves in court papers as being unable to adequately represent the black children of Lynn.

Judge’s Old Organization

One added wrinkle caused by the NAACP’s attempted intervention is who they have chosen as local counsel. Its New York based Legal Defense and Education Fund cannot appear in a Massachusetts court without local counsel. They have chosen the “Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under the Law” of the Boston Bar Association.

The problem is that Judge Nancy Gertner (the federal judge who is presiding over the case) was once a member of the Lawyers’ Committee. CPCR has filed a motion asking her to remove herself from the case to avoid the appearance of partiality that could result from her having to rule on a motion filed by the advocacy organization to which she belonged prior to becoming a Judge.

Michael Williams is a staff attorney at Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, Inc., a Boston based non-profit law firm. Information about CPCR and its other cases can be found at www.JulyFourth.net.