Laserfiche WebLink
<br />imposed, the likely result would be a homogenization of students, with enrollment effectively <br /> <br /> <br />limited to Ramsey residents and their siblings. DeBruyn Aff., ~ 14. In truth, public policy. will <br /> <br /> <br />be harmed if Look's requested relief is granted because it will increase discrimination. and <br /> <br /> <br />decrease equal access. <br /> <br />4. Administrative burdens in enforcing a temporary decree. <br />~ook's arguments illustrate the administrative burdens that will result if an injunction <br /> <br />Iss:ues. Look suggests not only that the court call a time-out for admissions lotteries and <br /> <br />decisions, but also requests that the Court consider denying sibling preferences to the brothers <br /> <br />and sisters of current PACT students who were not Ramsey residents at the time of' their <br /> <br />admission. Look Aff., ~ 16. He contends that PACT should not only create anew super- <br /> <br /> <br />preference for Ramsey residents, but also that it should stop applying the statutorily mandated <br /> <br /> <br />sibling preference to any applicant. Look further demands that PACt somehow complete. the <br /> <br /> <br />incredibly time consuming and burdensome task of determining which of its current students <br /> <br /> <br />would not have been admitted if a hypothetical alternative admissions process had been followed <br /> <br />for the past three years, since 2004. Id. <br /> <br />Significant questions remain about how the school should proceed while awaiting a <br /> <br />judicial determination of whether its status quo admissions policy is incorrect. For example, is <br /> <br />PACT supposed to hold off indefinitely on filling its classes? What are the parents of potential <br /> <br />students to do in the meantime? Any resolution requiring PACT to suspend or change its policy <br /> <br />. will require an extensive consideration of how the school is to determine which students were <br /> <br />"erroneously" admitted in the past and a comprehensive reshuffling of its student body. This <br /> <br /> <br />would inevitably.place the Court in the role of admissions officer. <br /> <br /> <br />The existence of an administrative burden associated with an injunction is "a significant <br /> <br /> <br />factor counseling against granting the injunction." Queen City Constr. v. City of Rochester, 604 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />-147- <br />