Plan Protecting Black Teachers Struck Down

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, in a blow to affirmative action in the workplace, today struck down a plan aimed at protecting the jobs of black schoolteachers in Jackson, Mich., at the expense of whites with more seniority.

The 5-4 ruling said the affirmative action plan violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all under the laws.

But the ruling was based on narrow grounds. The court still has two other major affirmative action cases under consideration, with decisions expected by July.

In today’s case, the justices agreed that the Jackson, Mich., plan for laying off teachers was not based on convincing evidence of prior discrimination by the school board.

Justice Lewis F. Powell wrote: “This court never has held that societal discrimination alone is sufficient to justify a racial classification. Rather, the court has insisted upon some showing of prior discrimination by the governmental unit involved before allowing limited use of racial classifications in order to remedy such discrimination.”

Far From Reagan View

The court stopped well short of accepting the Reagan Administration’s argument that only actual victims of bias should receive preferential on-the-job treatment.

President Reagan opposes all quotas as a form of “reverse discrimination” that injures the innocent, usually white males.

The Jackson school board has had contracts since 1972 with the teachers union aimed at protecting the jobs of blacks.

The agreement required laying off white teachers with more seniority if necessary to preserve the existing percentage of minority teachers in the public school system.

The plan was aimed at eliminating a disparity between the percentage of black teachers and black students in the schools.

Ruling Reinstates Suit

White teachers who were laid off in 1981 filed suit, charging that the plan violated their rights. Today’s ruling reinstates their suit against the school board.

Powell hinted that the court might look with more favor on racial preferences in hiring and promotions than in layoffs.

“While hiring goals impose a diffuse burden, often for closing only one of several opportunities, layoffs impose the entire burden of achieving racial equality on particular individuals, often resulting in serious disruption of their lives,” Powell said. “That burden is too intrusive.”