Image 01 Image 03

Leaked School Committee Texts Showing Anti-White Bias May Reopen Boston “Zip Code Quota Plan” Case

Leaked School Committee Texts Showing Anti-White Bias May Reopen Boston “Zip Code Quota Plan” Case

Judge William Young denies School Committee request for more time to respond: “The Plaintiffs’ Rule 60b motion raises profound and most serious allegations – potentially fraud on the Court. It must be addressed via a detailed written explanation (preferably accompanied by affidavits) and an oral hearing – and soon.”

We have written extensively about a lawsuit in Boston claiming that admissions changes at elite public high schools, which downplayed standardized testing and introduced a zip code component for geographic diversity, were a subterfuge for anti-asian and anti-white bias. The goal, it was alleged, was to reduce particularly asian enrollment.

As we recently covered, it worked, As Predicted, Boston “Zip Code Quota Plan” For Elite Public Schools Reduced Asian and White Admissions, Raised Black and Latino. (Just like a similar plan that included a lottery system worked in Virginia at reducing asian enrollment.)

The lawsuit was dismissed by District Court Judge William Young, who found, among other things, that the use of zip codes did not have a discriminatory intent (emphasis added):

Apparently well counseled, the School Committee considered diversity and developed its Plan within the permissible framework of the Supreme Court precedent. Despite its goal of greater “racial, socioeconomic and geographic diversity [better to reflect the diversity of] all students (K-12),” the Plan principally anchors itself to geographic diversity by equally apportioning seats to the City’s zip codes according to the criterion of the zip code’s percentage of the City’s school-age children. See supra Section II.D. The Plan similarly anchors itself to socioeconomic diversity by ordering the zip codes within each round by their median family income. See supra Section II.D. The Plan is devoid, however, of any anchor to race. See supra Section II.D…

The School Committee’s goal of a more racially representative student body, although more often discussed and analyzed, did not commandeer the Plan, and it in fact necessarily took a back seat to the Plan’s other goals, which the Plan more aptly achieved. Consequently, any effect on the racial diversity of the Exam Schools is merely derivative of the Plan’s effect on geographic and socioeconomic diversity — not the reverse.

This Court finds and rules that the Plan is race-neutral, and that neither the factors used nor the goal of greater diversity qualify as a racial classification.

The case has been appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

But then there was a revelation that might reopen the case in the District Court. Text messages leaked to the Boston Globe, and later confirmed by The Boston Herald, showed School Committee members expressing anti-asian and anti-white hostility  — DURING a hearing on the plan:

The leaked text messages that led to the recent resignations of former Boston School Committee Chair Alexandra Oliver-Davila and member Lorna Rivera have been confirmed by the Herald via public records request, which also revealed new messages.

Both members resigned earlier this month following the release of text messages sent during a meeting last fall. Oliver-Davila texted Rivera “I hate WR” — West Roxbury — to which Rivera replied that she is “sick of westie whites” — to which Oliver-Davila said “Me too I really feel Like saying that!!!!”

In another text thread, Oliver-Davila wrote, “best sc mtg ever I am trying not to cry.”

Rivera replied, “Me too!! Wait til the white racists start yelling st (sic) us!” to which Oliver-Davila wrote back, “Whatever…they are delusional.”

The records request also revealed more messages sent during the infamous meeting that has now led to three total school committee resignations, including former chair Michael Loconto, who was caught on a hot mic mocking Asian names.

The parents filed a Motion for Relief From Judgment, and argued in their Memorandum in Support (emphasis added):

New evidence, in the form of highly relevant text messages between two members of the Boston School Committee, has recently come to light. These text messages have long been in the possession of the City of Boston, and should be been provided to the Boston Parents in response to its public records request and should have been made a part of the agreed-upon record in this case when the Court originally considered it. But the City, instead, concealed the messages, thereby depriving the Boston Parents and the Court of the opportunity to consider them. The reason for the City’s actions can and must be inferred from the content of the concealed evidence: the text messages show clear racial motivation and anti-White racism on the part of two School Committee members who were leading proponents of the Zip Code Quota Plan. In fact, the content of this previously suppressed evidence is so damning that both members have now been forced to resign.

These facts are unique. They warrant the relief sought, and they elevate the Boston Parents’ request beyond that of other Rule 60 motions. As this memorandum explains, the Boston Parents timely exercised their rights under state law to obtain copies of these and other text messages exchanged between members of the School Committee during the meeting where the Zip Code Quota Plan was adopted. But when the School Committee responded to that request, it deliberately concealed clearly racist statements, first, by deleting racist portions of text messages from what it claimed was a “transcript” of text messages, and, second, by misrepresenting that it had produced complete records when it knew that it had not. This prejudice was further compounded when neither the City of Boston nor the individual Defendants came clean when it came time to provide this Court with an agreed-upon record. It was only after the Boston Globe published leaked copies of the offensive texts that the City of Boston finally produced them to the Boston Parents, long after this Court issued its decision in this case. That is what prompts this Motion.

These previously concealed text messages clearly reflect racial animus. And while such animus is not necessary for the Court to invoke strict scrutiny when evaluating the Zip Code Quota Plan, evidence showing such animus makes the case for strict scrutiny all the more compelling. Because the City concealed that evidence and deprived the Boston Parents and the Court from considering it, relief from the Court’s only partially-informed judgment is warranted. Unfortunately, the City’s conduct was uncovered too late for the Court to issue relief related to the requested preliminary injunction. But it is not too late for the other forms of relief the Boston Parents requested, including the permanent injunction barring any further use of the Zip Code Quota Plan, as well as relief specific to the families represented by the Boston Parents.

But this Motion does not seek any such ultimate relief, nor do the Boston Parents ask the Court to reverse its prior ruling. The issue presented by this Motion is solely whether the new evidence and its withholding by the City warrant relief from the current judgment and the reopening of the case at the District Court level. As this Memorandum explains, the answer to both questions is a resounding yes, and the Motion should, therefore, be granted.

The attorneys for the School Committee filed what they probably expected would be a routinely-granted motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion:

Given Plaintiff’s filing of its Rule 60(b) motion on June 22, 2021, Defendants’ (and Defendant-Intervenors’) opposition is currently due to be filed by July 6, 2021. Yesterday, June 30, 2021, the Court scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for July 9, 2021….

Defendants’ undersigned counsel have significant, pressing issues that make compliance with the current opposition and hearing dates unworkable. Foremost, the undersigned are lead trial counsel in a case in this Court scheduled for a jury trial beginning on July 13, 2021.

Plaintiffs partially consented, willing to grant more time, just not as much as the School Committee lawyers wanted.

But Judge Young was having none of it. On July 2, Judge Young denied the motion for extension of time, issuing a stark warning that there potentially was a fraud on the court that could not wait to be addressed (bold in original)

Judge William G. Young: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 115 Motion for Extension of Time to August 17, 2021 to File Opposition to Rule 60 Motion and Continue Hearing (Partially Assented-To) by Brenda Cassellius, Hardin Coleman, Ernani DeAraujo, Michael O’Neil, Alexandra Oliver-Davila, Lorna Rivera, Jeri Robinson, The School Committee of the City of Boston, Quoc Tran. Motion denied. The Plaintiffs’ Rule 60b motion raises profound and most serious allegations – potentially fraud on the Court. It must be addressed via a detailed written explanation (preferably accompanied by affidavits) and an oral hearing – and soon. (Gaudet, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/02/2021)

Yikes. Someone’s weekend just got ruined.

They will get even more ruined if Judge Young finds there was a fraud on the court. He is a no-nonsense judge, and I would not want to be the School Committee’s attorney if it turns out evidence was tampered with and concealed by the School Committee. Because if that’s the case, not only may the judgment be vacated and the case reopened, there likely will be separate proceedings to find out who did what and when to the evidence.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


henrybowman | July 3, 2021 at 8:56 pm

Whatever. Unless it “reopens” the case to a court OUTSIDE of Boston, and maybe even Massachusetts, nothing will happen.

    Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | July 4, 2021 at 2:57 am

    On the contrary, it should and presumably will reopen before this judge who was the victim of the fraud, and who takes no nonsense.

      “Antiracism” is a nihilistic death cult that preaches that people who are considered White are irredeemably evil (the definition of who is “White” is amazingly flexible and can include anyone of any skin color whom the antiracists are annoyed with). Antiracism is used to justify a growing number of outrages and injustices, and it’s power seems to be growing.

      Whether or not this case is reopened will depend upon how much Judge Young personally buys into it.

        Evidently he doesn’t buy into it at all. His previous decision was based on the premise that there was no racial discrimination here, that the new policy was genuinely based on wanting (for some reason that I can’t understand) to achieve “diversity (i.e. to discriminate) on the basis of geography and socioeconomic status, which is perfectly lawful, and the fact that it also happened to increase racial diversity was just a coincidence. But now he’s learned that he may have been lied to, and that would get any judge upset.

          buck61 in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2021 at 11:09 am

          there are plenty of judges out there who are all bark bark and no bite. let’s see if he is willing to sink his teeth into the school committee.

          Archie Smaltz in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2021 at 1:11 pm

          If the judge didn’t know he was being lied to then he is dumber then a box of rocks, which I doubt is the case. What he objects to is that this entire legal sham has been exposed. Now he will likely have to back up obvious racist intent with an obvious racist ruling or get banned from Big Liberal City Country Club and the Harvard Club. Pretense is everything. As they say hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

No nonsense guy, this Judge Young. He was my Trial Practice prof. way back when.

Democrats will never let go of racial discrimination. Ever.

Concealing evidence in a legal proceeding; deceiving the plaintiffs and their counsel, and, depriving them of evidence to which they were entitled; and, perpetrating a fraud upon the court. All in a day’s work, for the vile and mendacious Dhimmi-crats.

    caseoftheblues in reply to guyjones. | July 4, 2021 at 7:24 am

    Since they never face any consequences for actions like that I guess its fair to state those things are now ok in our legal system….or at the very least we have a two tiered system where the preferred political power group Democrats can do those things but not Republicans

      guyjones in reply to caseoftheblues. | July 4, 2021 at 9:43 am

      This is sadly true. Witness a federal judge’s giving a total slap on the wrist to the former FBI attorney who intentionally lied to the FISA Court. No sanctions, no referral to a state Bar for disciplinary proceedings and deserved disbarment. There are no legal or criminal consequences for Dhimmi-crat elites’ lawbreaking; this is plain as day.

      Milhouse in reply to caseoftheblues. | July 4, 2021 at 9:51 am

      Well, it looks like these people are going to face consequences. Or at least we can hope so.

      Valerie in reply to caseoftheblues. | July 4, 2021 at 10:11 am

      No, lying to the court is not ok in our legal system. That is the point of the ruling.

      In the US, every citizen has enforceable rights, and that includes parents of school children. The key word here is “enforceable.” There are times when you have to get up off your aching ass, stand up, say your piece, and maybe put some money down to vindicate your rights. If nobody is willing to do that, the fake big shots in the government will get their way.

      For those who missed it, Boston is where the local governments came up with a particularly ugly bussing plan that resulted in near-riots. School children were put on busses for up to 3 hours a day, after being ordered by a court to de-segregate. Parents got up in arms, and of course were accused of being prejudiced for objecting to mistreatment of their children.

      It’s been long enough that the names and faces have all changed, but apparently the fundamental policy flaw, that the Boston schools are being run for the benefit of adults controlling the budget, remains intact.

        Massinsanity in reply to Valerie. | July 4, 2021 at 10:49 am

        As you point out bussing was court ordered (by a judge who lived in the uber wealthy suburb of Wellesley I believe) and court approved. It should also be pointed out that it wasn’t just white parents who were irate over bussing. No parent wanted their child to be forced to ride a bus to an unfamiliar part of the city. The net result was that white and black families who could afford it fled the city or sent their kids to Catholic school (private school for the really wealthy). Since, on average, white families were wealthier than minority families the end result was a school system as segregated as ever.

        Dave in reply to Valerie. | July 4, 2021 at 11:18 am

        No dual system of “justice” for Democrats in federal court? Shocking.

        Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | July 4, 2021 at 11:25 am

        Busing, not bussing! Bussing is something kids don’t have to be forced to do; on the contrary, they often have to be forcibly prevented from doing it.

          txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2021 at 10:34 pm

          They’ve moved well past the kissing stage. Now you have to make sure she’s on birth control by 13.

Diversity, inequity, and exclusion, a progressive condition. Baby Lives Matter

    caseoftheblues in reply to n.n. | July 4, 2021 at 7:32 am

    Whenever I see that a group or organization is dedicating themselves to a welcoming diverse environment I know that the policies they embrace will will exclude, demean, and ultimately erase me …a white biological female.

legalizehazing | July 4, 2021 at 11:01 am

Wow. People are stupid.

God Bless the person that came clean with those texts – THAT is going to get messy

They thought it was a filing for a FISA warrant

Archie Smaltz | July 4, 2021 at 1:24 pm

The real question is should intent even matter. Of course some of the school board members hate Asians and whites but so what? As long as the actions themselves are legal why should the court reverse them? The geographic and socio-economic diversity requirements are on their face perfectly legal. Why should the intent of the legislators invalidate them?

As for what the judge will do my guess is ruining the lawyers 4th of July weekend will be the extent of it. After all he still has to play golf with these guys or their bosses at the club.

    CommoChief in reply to Archie Smaltz. | July 4, 2021 at 2:00 pm

    Intent matters because it’s a component in determining whether a policy is actually neutral. A policy fails that test when the intent of a policy, even one that may appear neutral, is undertaken for the purpose of discrimination on the basis of ‘race’.

    If this were not the case then all sorts of otherwise unlawful, discriminatory shenanigans could be shoehorned into place under cover of a ‘neutral’ application of the set of parameters designed and specifically chosen to support the desired ‘racially’ discriminatory outcome.

    Milhouse in reply to Archie Smaltz. | July 4, 2021 at 11:36 pm

    Motive matters. Deliberate discrimination on the grounds of race is illegal even if it’s disguised as something legal. That’s how it works in all anti-discrimination laws, and that’s how the 14th amendment works.

Albigensian | July 5, 2021 at 2:10 pm

“This Court finds and rules that the Plan is race-neutral, and that neither the factors used nor the goal of greater diversity qualify as a racial classification.”

You’d think the judge would be concerned that if this ruling stands it just might sink boatloads of “disparate impact” precedent.

It’s not as if this disparate-impact precedent ever required a finding of intent, it’s always been sufficient that a finding of disparate impact (for any reason) put the burden of proof on the organization using the methods or instruments (such as tests) that these methods were necessary to select qualified candidates.

Not that I have any confidence that courts can apply any standard in a racially-neutral manner, as it’s become all too evident that all to many courts consider some races/ethnicities/claimed genders to me just a little more equal bogeyman white (male) devils, or “overachieving” Asians.

Retired in Chicago | July 6, 2021 at 10:30 am

racism is racism and discrimination is discrimination, whether it was intended or not, it’s the end result that matters, and the end result here in my opinion, (and the intent in my opinion), is to discriminate against certain groups in favor of others.

The left has become very comfortable getting its way through fraudulent means.