The article discusses Justice Kennedy’s unique views in the Seattle school desegregation decision and tries to clarify the relationship between social science evidence on desegregation benefits and the requirements of narrowly tailored remedies.

In this commentary I argue that there are no demonstrable educational methods that can produce full proficiency for all students by 2014, and until there are the Department of Education should adopt a growth model that does not have a date-certain requirement to attain full proficiency for all groups.

Many commentators explain the Supreme Court decision in the Seattle and Louisville desegregation cases as simply a "rightward" shift of the Roberts Court. In fact, it reflects a far more complex disagreement over the meaning of Brown that has been going on for nearly 40 years. Justice Kennedy is now at the center of that dispute, and he disagreed in major ways with both the dissenters and his other four colleagues in the majority. Indeed, one can argue that the Seattle decision shifts the Court "leftward" because, for the first time, five Justices see a compelling government interest in reducing de facto racial isolation.

New civil rights cases being considered by the Supreme Court bring to mind the recent Seattle and Jefferson County cases, in which Justice Kennedy cast the fifth and deciding vote in striking down racial diversity plans in these two school districts. His opinion managed to side with both the liberal and the conservative wings on different but critical aspects of the decision. This commentary offers an interpretation of social science evidence in these cases that supports Justice Kennedy's novel opinion.

Most studies of economic integration, including some published by TCR, emphasize the potential educational benefits of economic integration while ignoring potential educational harms. This commentary illustrates these potential harms using a recent TCR article that looked only at benefits.