WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT V (OPTIONAL)
INTEGRATION MAINTENANCE: LAW AND POLICY
Due: Wednesday April 16 (11:00 a.m.)
For this assignment, you will be writing responses to three separate legal questions related to integration maintenance. General instructions for all assignments are found in Information Memo #1. Directions specific to this assignment are provided below.
Although for grading purposes, I will weigh each of your three responses equally, I do not necessarily expect them to be equal in length. However, each response should be at least one double-spaced page long and the total submission should be no more than 7 double-spaced pages long. Clearly mark the response to each question by starting with the identifying letter, A, B or C. Do not repeat the questions themselves. You need not start the response to each question on a new page so long as each answer is clearly delineated.
Your response to each question should incorporate what you think are the strongest arguments for and against treating the program at issue as a statutory violation. Some possible sources for your arguments are found beneath each question. Although you are not required to do so, you also may make arguments based on cases or statutory interpretation materials from other parts of the course. You should conclude each response by indicating which set of arguments you think is strongest and why.
In presenting your arguments, so long as you make your points clearly, you can employ the kind of informal style I would allow you to use on an exam including using bullet points, sentence fragments, headings replacing topic sentences, abbreviations, and shortened citation forms (e.g., Starrett or So.Sub.). You can assume I know the nature of the programs from Starrett City and South Suburban need not describe them except to the extent that your analysis requires you to make references to specific aspects of the programs.
When grading, I will reward adhering to the directions, clear and concise presentation; evidence of careful thought; use of specific references to the course materials to support your points; the quality and quantity of the arguments you muster for each side, and the support you provide for your ultimate conclusion to each question.
Here are the three questions:
(A) Assuming Starrett City is binding precedent, does the program at issue in South Suburban violate §3604(a)?
Your discussion might consider some or all of the following:
- The analysis of “benign discrimination” used in Starrett City?
- Whether South Suburban is distinguishable from Starrett City as a matter of statutory interpretation or as a matter of policy.
- Whether the 7th Circuit’s analysis is convincing.
(B) Assuming you have no binding precedent, does the program at issue in South Suburban violate §3604(c)?
Your discussion might consider some or all of the following:
- The policies we’ve discussed that underlie §3604(c).
- 24 CFR §100.75.
- Whether the 7th Circuit’s analysis is convincing.
(C) A city public housing program normally selects tenants from the top of a city-wide waiting list. However, when a vacancy opens up in a building whose tenants are at least 85% of one race, the program gives preferences to people who are not of that race. Assuming you have no binding precedent, does this program violate §3604(a)?
Your discussion might consider some or all of the following:
- The analysis used in Starrett City and/or South Suburban.
- Whether this program is distinguishable from Starrett City and/or South Suburban as a matter of statutory interpretation or as a matter of policy.
- The analysis used in Braunstein.