An ongoing initiative aimed at assisting disadvantaged students of color in Los Angeles schools is facing legal scrutiny from a group that argues the nation’s second-largest school system is discriminating against white students.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court, challenges resource allocation to underserved schools, a practice that has been in place for decades and stems from disputes over both forced and voluntary integration.
Initiated in the Central District of California by the 1776 Project Foundation, the lawsuit claims that L.A. Unified discriminates against white students due to a program that directs more resources to schools where 70% or more of the student population is nonwhite — encompassing the majority of district campuses.
The lawsuit asserts that the district “channels opportunities, preferences, funding and outreach primarily to certain racial groups, while systematically excluding or failing to accommodate other students who could similarly benefit from the same academic support.”
The district is allegedly violating both the California and federal Constitution, according to the suit.
While refraining from addressing the lawsuit directly, district officials remarked: “Los Angeles Unified remains dedicated to ensuring that all students have meaningful access to services and enriching educational opportunities.”
L.A. school board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin expressed concerns that the lawsuit overlooks the actual requirements of students.
“My greatest fear is … that underprivileged children of color will continue to be overlooked, inadequately supported, and ultimately unable to reach their full potential due to lacking the time, funds, or access to advocate for their needs on an equal scale,” Franklin stated.
The lawsuit claims that around 600 campuses enjoy an illegal advantage, while roughly 100 do not. It contends that students in the targeted schools benefit from smaller class sizes and receive preferential admission into popular magnet programs.
“The District engages in — and publicly promotes — a program of overt discrimination against a new minority: White students,” the lawsuit claims. “Moreover, it is not solely students of European descent who are adversely affected; Middle Eastern students and others also find themselves on the wrong side of the District’s arbitrary racial and ethnic classifications.”
Critics speak out
Mark Rosenbaum, a veteran civil rights attorney involved in numerous lawsuits against the school system, stated that the targeted programs “were part of a court decree aimed at addressing decades of discrimination in underfunded schools.” He added that the resources were not allocated based on specific races or ethnicities but were intended for all students in separate and unequal environments. “The lawsuit is one that only a supporter of Jim Crow could endorse.”
Tyrone C. Howard, director of UCLA’s Center for the Transformation of Schools, also criticized the lawsuit.
“This lawsuit represents a misguided effort to rewrite the history of school desegregation in the U.S.,” Howard commented. “Research has consistently identified deep-rooted inequities affecting students of color, both historically and presently.”
Howard deemed the lawsuit reflective of efforts during the Trump administration “to suggest that white students have experienced suffering comparable to their peers of color, which is simply not accurate.”
The Trump administration has issued executive orders prohibiting diversity initiatives. Under the threat of losing federal funding, educational institutions have sought to terminate, rename, or restructure diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. California officials are among those challenging these federal mandates in court.
The U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited racial preferences in college admissions, encouraging opposition to diversity initiatives or programs aimed at aiding specific groups of students.
In response to an earlier lawsuit — alongside recent Supreme Court rulings — L.A. Unified in 2024 rebranded a program intended to assist Black students to support all students needing additional help at targeted schools.
Pedro Noguera, the dean of USC’s Rossier School of Education, stated that this new legal action is an “increasingly common” strategy from conservative factions “who wish to assert that aiding low-income students of color adversely affects affluent white students. However, there is no empirical evidence to validate this assertion.”
Lance Christensen, a critic of current state education leaders, argued that the issues raised in the lawsuit warrant attention.
“Categorizing schools based on racial or ethnic demographics … raises significant constitutional concerns,” said Christensen, vice president of the California Policy Center. “Prioritizing minority students over their white and Middle Eastern counterparts as remnants of a flawed legal ruling from the 1970s could be interpreted as discriminatory and potentially unconstitutional by 2026.”
“While well-meaning, policies that single out specific demographic groups for differential treatment risk exacerbating divisions and triggering legal challenges that distract from the primary mission of education,” Christensen remarked.
The lawsuit claims that the 1776 Project has standing because its members include an L.A. Unified parent who was unable to enroll their child in a magnet school of choice.
Suit targets magnet school policies
Magnet schools are specialized programs established years ago to encourage voluntary integration. Magnet enrollment used to be strictly linked to racial quotas, often benefiting white students due to fewer white students vying for such reserved slots.
Currently, magnet programs serve as a general recruitment strategy in a school system confronting declining enrollment. Many magnets predominantly consist of students of color, as there are few or no white applicants.
Funding for magnet schools primarily covers transportation costs for students attending these special programs outside their neighborhoods.
A different facet of L.A. Unified’s educational efforts includes offering additional support to schools where at least 70% of the student population is nonwhite. As detailed on the L.A. Unified website, these schools have smaller class sizes—reportedly a difference of up to 25 students per teacher compared to an average ratio of 34.5 to one teacher.
According to state data, LAUSD is approximately 74% Latino, 10% white, 7% Black, and 3.3% Asian, with total enrollment around 380,000.
In a broader context, the district currently allocates extra resources primarily based on academic performance, not race.
Federal funding also typically benefits these schools through Title I, which supports schools with high poverty levels. These additional federal resources are not race-based.
The 1776 Project outlines its mission as advocating “for the principle of equal rights for all by opposing race-based discrimination in public education.”
L.A. Unified’s integration initiatives have periodically withstood legal challenges since the inception of the magnet program. The federal court system has grown increasingly conservative due to appointees from Republican administrations, possibly paving the way for new litigation.
