A private school in a state accrediting system admits only Caucasians. The state accredits, licenses teachers, and provides secular textbooks. A private plaintiff sues challenging the admissions policy. Which argument is strongest against the school's discriminatory admissions policy?

A private school in a state accrediting system admits only Caucasians. The state accredits, licenses teachers, and provides secular textbooks. A private plaintiff sues challenging the admissions policy. Which argument is strongest against the school's discriminatory admissions policy?

• A. Because education is a public function, the school may not discriminate on racial grounds.
• B. The state's involvement is not sufficient to trigger equal protection.
• C. The state's substantial involvement in regulation and funding makes the school's discrimination unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• D. Licensing alone forbids discrimination.

Answer: (C)

State action is the key idea here. The Fourteenth Amendment protects people from the government’s discriminatory actions, not private conduct. But when the state is deeply involved with a private school—accrediting the school, licensing its teachers, and supplying secular textbooks—that involvement can be enough to make the school’s actions resemble state actions. In that entangled setup, a discriminatory admissions policy by the private school becomes an issue of state action and falls under constitutional scrutiny. So the strongest argument against the policy is that the state’s substantial regulation and funding effectively render the school’s conduct subject to the Equal Protection Clause. Mere labeling the activity as education or relying on licensing alone isn’t enough to conclude state action in most cases, and licensing by itself doesn’t automatically forbid discrimination unless there are specific statutory or regulatory requirements prohibiting it. Hence those other points don’t carry as much weight as the demonstrated entanglement.

State action is the key idea here. The Fourteenth Amendment protects people from the government’s discriminatory actions, not private conduct. But when the state is deeply involved with a private school—accrediting the school, licensing its teachers, and supplying secular textbooks—that involvement can be enough to make the school’s actions resemble state actions. In that entangled setup, a discriminatory admissions policy by the private school becomes an issue of state action and falls under constitutional scrutiny. So the strongest argument against the policy is that the state’s substantial regulation and funding effectively render the school’s conduct subject to the Equal Protection Clause.

Mere labeling the activity as education or relying on licensing alone isn’t enough to conclude state action in most cases, and licensing by itself doesn’t automatically forbid discrimination unless there are specific statutory or regulatory requirements prohibiting it. Hence those other points don’t carry as much weight as the demonstrated entanglement.