Justice Dept. Takes Liberal Stand in 2 Rights Cases

Clinton Administration lawyers, taking a liberal stand in two civil rights controversies, urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to maintain preferences for minorities in the awarding of federal contracts and to continue a costly court-ordered school desegregation program in Kansas City.

In both cases, the Administration lawyers contended that the justices should reject a strong conservative challenge, which argues that these special, race-conscious social programs have outlived their time.

The two legal briefs were filed Tuesday in the most closely watched civil rights cases pending before the high court. They came just a month after an election in which a substantial majority of white males deserted the Democratic Party.

While the Clinton White House has shown signs of moving toward the new Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, the two civil rights briefs demonstrate that the Justice Department is holding firm to traditional liberal approaches on affirmative action and school desegregation.

In the contracting case, the Administration is defending a 1987 law that steers at least 10% of federal highway contracts to small businesses owned by minorities. The preference program is being challenged by a white road builder who submitted the lowest bid for guard rail work on a Colorado highway but lost out to a Latino-owned firm.

A conservative legal group is urging the Supreme Court to use the case (Adarand Constructors vs. Pena, 93-1841) to declare unconstitutional a series of federal funding laws that give explicit preferences to businesses owned by blacks, Latinos and other minorities.

Administration lawyers argued that these laws do not violate the Constitution because they do not set a “fixed requirement . . . or a quota.” Instead, they give preferences based on the “presumption that small businesses owned and controlled by members of racial minority groups are disadvantaged,” said U.S. Solicitor Drew S. Days III.

In the school case, the Administration said that, despite 10 years of effort and the spending of $1.3 billion in state money, Missouri has not yet done enough to raise test scores for black students in Kansas City.

“When segregation has caused impaired educational achievement, evidence that students in the system continue to perform poorly when compared to others can be an important indication that the effects of discrimination persist,” Days said in his friend-of-the-court brief (Missouri vs. Jenkins, 93-1823).

In 1984, a federal judge ruled that state officials in Missouri had failed to fully dismantle the segregated schools in Kansas City. Since then, the same judge, Russell G. Clark, has ordered a series of costly improvements in the district, as well as tax increases to pay for them.

For example, a special, $32-million high school was built with state-of-the-art computers, an Olympic-size pool and an indoor track.

In 1992-93, the Kansas City schools spent $13,500 per student, far more than the suburban districts, which ranged from $4,200 to $7,500 per child.

Nonetheless, Judge Clark ruled last year that Missouri had not fulfilled its duty under the desegregation decree because the Kansas City “district is still at or below national norms” in its tests scores, compared to the mostly white suburban schools.

Both civil rights cases will be argued before the high court in January, and written rulings are expected by June.