Kirsten Brinkman-Hansen, Eric Green and Caryn Lee
Education 432

April 6, 2000

In 1995 Richard Hunter and Gina Brandt attempted to enroll their younger daughter, Keeley Hunter into UCLA's Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the Corinne A. Seeds University Elementary School (UES). This is an elementary school program that operates as a research laboratory for UCLA. The research conducted in this school helps fulfill the State of California's changing educational issues within their public school population. The results from this educational research are shared throughout the State of California's public schools by way of seminars, workshops, teacher training programs and published articles.

Each year the UES accepts 460 students to fulfill its research and training mission. These students are selected by the UES's admissions committee under the direction of the Dean of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, Dr. Theodore Mitchell, appellee. In order to obtain UES's desired student population they must ensure that the student's qualifications meet the admissions requirements. In order to do so, each child's gender, race/ethnicity and family income are considered. Before the application process is completely finished, parents are made aware of the requirements taken into consideration for the applicants.

After rejection into the UES program, the appellant, Keeley Tatsuyo Hunter and mother Gina F. Brandt sued the appellees, The Regents of the Opinion, University of California and Theodore R. Mitchell under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The appellants claim that the admissions process conducted by the UES is unconstitutional for they feel it is contradictory to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects citizens from discrimination based on race or ethnicity.
The district court of California ruled in favor of UES and Theodore Mitchell. After a careful analysis of the school's purpose and admissions process, the district court found that the state of California significantly proved that

"(1) California had a compelling state interest in operating a
research-oriented elementary school dedicated to improving
the quality of education in urban public schools, and
(2) UES's consideration of race/ethnicity in its admissions
process was narrowly tailored to further that interest" (2).

In order to determine whether the Regents Board was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the strict scrutiny test was applied. In order to meet these guidelines the Regents must establish that the UES's admissions process is narrowly tailored to advancement towards the public education of California, hence a compelling state and governmental issue.

The Supreme Court has recognized, "the public schools as a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221 (1982). Therefore it is within the State of California's best interest to improve the quality of education throughout their urban public school system. The mission of UES is to conduct research, which will positively effect and enhance education for children in urban schools. This in turn provides information for policy groups, training programs for teachers, and the development of teaching strategies to be used throughout the state and potentially nationwide.

In order to complete the strict scrutiny test the Regents had to also prove that the racial and ethnic qualifications for admission is narrowly tailored to fulfil the purpose of a compelling state interest. It was testified by a number of experts that in order for UES to obtain an ethnically diverse representative sample, it was in fact necessary for the admissions process to implement this framework based on racial and ethnic backgrounds. According to Dr. Harry Handler, "… it is highly unlikely that such a small group, if selected without some explicit consideration of race/ethnicity, would be representative of Los Angeles' or the State's urban school population" (5). In conjunction with the evidence presented the district court ruled that, "it would not be possible, nor would it be reasonable, to require the defendants to attempt to obtain an ethnically diverse representative sample of students without the use of specific racial targets and classifications".

The dissenting opinion as stated by Circuit Judge Beezer expresses his disagreement with the ruling against Keeley Tatsuyo Hunter. The dissenting opinion denotes the increasing lenience towards the use of race in governmental issues. This opinion questions the accuracy of the strict scrutiny test, specifically dealing with the narrowly tailored qualifications of the case. It is believed that UES's admissions process is not as narrowly tailored as presented by the appellees in regards to mixed-race category. "The use of a mixed-race category in UES's admissions procedure is simply irreconcilable with the onerous 'narrowly tailored' requirement" (Wygant, 476 U.S. at 294).