the class is not suspect and subj to strict scrutiny unless the ct finds there is intent to discrimiate
2.    intent:
a.    explict
b.    facially netural but administered discriminator
c.    discriminatory as applied (not disproportionate impact, but something like a poll tax)
3.    Plessy:  sep but equal is okay
4.    Swett v. Painter:  UT law school case before Brown found that it wasn’t really equal
5.    Brown:  sep but equal is inherently unequal
6.    Brown II:  desegregate with “all deliberate speed”
7.    dejure discrimination:  purpose to discriminate  <= EP will remedy this
8.    de facto discrimination:  discriminatory effect only (white flight) <= EP doesn’t care about this!
9.    Green:
a.    desegregate every facet of school operations (student attendance, faculty, staff, transportation, extracirrics, facilities)
b.    unitary status  once you have shown/proven you have desegregated, you will be released from court supervision & if segregation comes back per de facto discrimination, that’s okay & we won’t touch it
c.    test:  has school reached unitary status?  Dowell
i.    has bd. of education complied in GF w/ desegregation decrees?
ii.    have vestiges of past discrim been remedies to effect practicable?
iii.    look at Green facets of school operations
iv.    policy:  there is a judicial desire to return the school to the school boards as expeditiously as possible
10.    rules of school desegregation:
a.    cts. will only regulate if there is de jure segregation
b.    racial quotas are a starting point
c.    single race schools may be okay (if de facto)
d.    rezoning is okay
e.    busing is not permitted if the time/distance is so great that it impairs the educational process
11.    affirmative action
a.    Bakke:  Powell
i.    race cannot be determinative; no quotas
ii.    but race can be a plus factor
iii.    (Brennan dissent): as long as it is to remedy effect of past discrimination
b.    Hopwood  5th Circuit only!
i.    Bakke not controlling b/c no majority opinion
ii.    UT didn’t show any past discrim at UT law school (only in Texas)
iii.    can use other factors like economic b/g, etc, but not race
c.    note:  title 6 applies to Baylor, but not 14th am EP
d.    Adarand  (gov’t contracts to GC’s with disadvantages subs); held C’al b/c remedying effects of past discrim & is narrowly tailored.