Appendix — Lansing Board of Education v. National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People
Supreme Court brief1977
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
EE ET
Supreme Court, U. S.
FILED
Volume Il, Pages 185 to 404. |) = (OCT 20 1977
ET JR., CLERK
IN THE |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1977
No. ay A a 600
LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION, a Body Corporate; and Members of
the LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION; viz, VERNON D. EBERSOLE,
CLARE D. HARRINGTON, MICHAEL F. WALSH, RAY A. HANNULA,
JOAN HESS, J. C. WILLIAMS, BRUCE ANGELL, JOSEPH E. HOBRLA and
MAX D. SHUNK,
Petitioners,
VS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE,
Lansing Branch; CYNTHIA TAYLOR, JUDITH TAYLOR and ANDREA
TAYLOR, by Their Father and Next Friend, JAMES R. TAYLOR; MELINDA
LEA HEDLEY, CHRISTINE MICHELE HEDLEY, DOUGLAS JOHN HEDLEY
and DANIEL JOSEPH HEDLEY, by Their Mother and Next Friend, JOAN L.
HEDLEY; PETER MILLER and ELIZABETH MILLER, by Their Father and
Next Friend, CHARLES MILLER; FRANK J. PENNONI and JAMES PENNONI,
by Their Mother and Next Friend, KATHLEEN PENNONI; and DAVID KRON
and LISA KRON, by Their Father and Next Friend, WALTER V. KRON,
Respondents.
APPENDIX TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
To the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit
FRED C. NEWMAN
510 Stoddard Building
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Attorney for Petitioners
St. Lonis |.aw Printing Co.. Inc.. 812 Olive Street 63101 314-231-4477
ee
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1977
LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION, a Body Corporate; and Members of
the LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION; viz, VERNON D. EBERSOLE,
CLARE D. HARRINGTON, MICHAEL F. WALSH, RAY A. HANNULA,
JOAN HESS, J. C. WILLIAMS, BRUCE ANGELL, JOSEPH £. HOBRLA and
MAX D. SHUNK,
Petitioners,
VS.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE,
Lansing Branch; CYNTHIA TAYLOR, JUDITH TAYLOR and ANDREA
TAYLOR, by Their Father and Next Friend, JAMES R. TAYLOR; MELINDA
LEA HEDLEY, CHRISTINE MICHELE HEDLEY, DOUGLAS JOHN HEDLEY
and DANIEL JOSEPH HEDLEY, by Their Mother and Next Friend, JOAN L.
HEDLEY; PETER MILLER and ELIZASETY MILLER, by Their Father and
Next Friend, CHARLES MILLER; FRANK J. PENNONI and JAMES PENNONI,
by Their Mother and Next Friend, KATHLEEN PENNONI; and DAVID KRON
and LISA KRON, by Their Father and Next Friend, WALTER V. KRON,
Respondents.
APPENDIX TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
To the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX
Volume I
Court Opinions:
August 10, 1973, District Court opinion and prelimi-
Se SN kh 6 Ser eRe eee eee hee ee
October 3, 1973, Court of Appeals opinion denying
PT eT eee yee re rer eo
December 19, 1975, District Court opinion re liability
and continuing cluster plan
December 19, 1975, District Court order enjoining de-
fendants from giving force to resolutions of 2-1-73,
that cluster plan remain in effect until ordered dif-
ferently, that Lansing Board of Education submit by
3-1-76 plans to remedy constitutional violations; con-
ference and hearing to be held 3-4-76 ...........
July 26, 1977, Court of Appeals opinion affirming Dis-
trict Court judgment entered December 19, 1975...
Volume Il
Testimony, Excerpts From:
PE ED gcd dubebseunusdéetaenuene nee
ee ic clan suen eb dhe seeeneare
Se es SPE shu an beaweieeuscauaneeueeed
a EI, So Soaks + oanad novos Mekteke seen
Davis, George T., Jr.
Ebersole, Vernon
ee se oe 2 oe oe oe ee oe Oe eS oe oe he a hy a a oe ee
Page
4]
44
159
161
198
ili
I SE ads cevcaue Veen ssenesaseeee sees 261
SS EE US hed eee cv cursnceneseraduasennnes 273
i re oka cae bo ee Ree 275
Re STE ky koh ob CEASE OOS RRAS OES OuN OR OD 291
PI ED DU osc ces ccccaccend eves eckenees 292
PS, CIE oo cc ccccsecscesenctevussadien 295
OS PPT rete 296
5 SOT TT Terr Tere Tee Tee 299
ES ere wor irene ye 314
Lo ak oe eens as 326
Exhibits:
Boundary Change Resolution of March 28, 1957, af-
Gecting Déain Givest Gooes ... nce cc ccccccces 328
Boundary Change Resolution of July 8, 1957, Affecting
Michigan, Verlinden and Kalamazoo School Areas.. 331
Elementary School Enrollments History ............ 332
Ethnic Count Reports:
ee gE a ss, ala eal ira ad tots wick ore oh 350
SS EE a ok ou hou nas wae ce Roce e 363
Ethnic Count Without Clusters or One Way Busing. . 395
Excerpts:
Foreword of the 1972 Citizens’ Advisory Committee
on Education Opportunity Report ............ 373
ge Ar ee 374
1965 Citizens’ Advisory Committee Report ........ 374
Proceedings on Proposed Stipulations ............ 378
iv
Report to Lansing Board of Education Relating to
Impact of the Cluster Program on Reading and
DEE SED cau beceaddeeeseetesncsusane 379
Extract from Report to Human Relations Committee. . 382
History of Development of Lansing School District ... 387
Kalamazoo Elementary School History .......... .. 389
Lincoln School Closing Resolution ................ 390
POD WE EGCRMONS 2... ccc ccc cccccccccceces 393
Negro Enrollments at Main, Michigan, Lincoln and
EY £ i606 6 o0b05 i bu ndewnedes beck euky 394
Phasing Out of Kalamazoo and Michigan Avenue
I 6c vu tas kdes ceeeseesesensasse 395
Record of School Site Sizes, Building Construction, Ad-
dition and Modernization ..................... 397
River Island Census Tracts 1970 ................. 400
River Island Elementary School Attendance Areas.... 401
ee I PD oc ea cccccccsecccecsans 402
Verlinden Non-Resident Pupils ................... 404
— 185 —
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
*[602] KATHRYN BOUCHER,
called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testi-
fied as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Davis:
Q. State your full name and address for the record, please.
A. Kathryn A. Boucher, 1414 Lorraine, Lansing.
Q. Mrs. Boucher, have you had in the past any association
with Lansing Board of Education? A. Yes, I was a member
of the Board from July 1965 until recalled in November, 1972.
Q. And you indicate that you were recalled in °72? A. Yes.
Q. Did there come a time, Mrs. Boucher, when you took a
position with respect to the closing of Lincoln and Kalamazoo
Street Schools? A. Yes.
Q. Can you indicate what that position was? A. I believe
that I supported the closing of both of those facilities.
Q. In retrospect, Mrs. Boucher, do you believe that that had
a discriminatory effect?
[603] A. What would you like me to answer?
Q. Do you have an opinion with respect to the closing of
those schools? A. In regard to discrimination?
Q. Yes. A. As to ther or not it was discriminatory, yes,
I think they were both discriminatory by definition. At least
by mine, but I believe that that was the way that we felt was—
the way to go at the time that we did it, on advice of community
members, and probably on [604] our own feelings as to what
the community would accept. But it certainly was discrimina-
* Numbers appearing in brackets in text indicate page numbers
of original stenographic transcript of testimony.
— 186 —
tory, because we were suggesting that young children of a par-
ticular ethnic background be transported to another facility,
and that’s discriminatory, because they are the only ones that
were there.
Did we know what—-I knew what I was doing. I don't
_know—I can’t speak for anybody else. Did I think it was dis-
criminatory? Yes, I did. Did I think it was important to do it
at that time? Yes, I did. But I think I recognized that it was
discriminatory at the time, too.
* * o * * * *
[606] Q. Directing your attention to transfer policy, did you
know, have an opinion as to whether or not the transfer policy
was being misused while you were on the Board? A. While I
was on the Board?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, I think—yes.
Q. When did you become first aware that it was being mis-
used? A. I served on a Citizens’ Committee for Lansing
Schools. I think it was called a School Needs Committee, and
from 1959 to 1961, and one of the recommendations of that
Committee, coming from the Committee that I chaired, the
sub-Committee that I chaired was that the transfer policy be
eliminated because we felt that it was being misused at that
time.
Q. And that was in 1961, did you say? A. Correct.
Mr. Davis: I have no further questions. Your witness.
Cross-Examination of Kathryn Boucher
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Now when you say the transfer policy was being misused,
do you apply that to—or, I will withdraw that. The transfer
policy was open to anyone, was it not? [607] A. Correct.
= Ee
Q. And it was used by anyone who felt they had a need
and went to a doctor or a psychiatrist to——— A. Doctor, I
believe, it was at that point, Mr. Newman.
Q. Later on a psychiatrist? A. Which was rescinded.
Q. All right. But let’s do it one at a time. A. Yes.
Q. First of all, it was a doctor? A. Correct.
Q. Then it was a doctor or psychiatrist? A. 1 was not a
member of the Board when the original policy was adopted.
Q. You were a member in 1967 when it was amended to
require a psychiatrist’s evaluation? A. Right, but it was adopted
—I am not even sure when it was adopted. Maybe you can
tell me.
Q. Yes. January 1967. A. Was that the original—which
one was adopted then?
Q. That was the one that you were a member of. A. The
psychiatrist?
Q. Yes. A. What one for a doctor, what one was—or, was
that a doctor?
Q. Well I assume that was back in 1961. [608] A. No, I
don’t think so. We suggested that a psychiatrist be used in 1961
as opposed to a doctor, because we believed the policy was be-
ing abused by suggesting—having only a doctor make the
recommendation. So that it must have been, and my recollec-
tion really is not very good, that a—it was possible to transfer
youngsters with a doctor’s recommendation in 1961, and we
recommended that a psychiatrist be used as opposed to a medi-
cal doctor. Then evidently it was in 1967 by the time the Board
was willing to make that change, if that is what it says.
Q. And then in June of 1967 the Board rescinded the re-
quirement that it be made by a psychiatrist? A. Yes.
Q. Were you on the Board in 1967? A. Yes, I was.
— 188 —
Q. Now are you stating that the transfer policy was misused
on the basis of medical knowledge? A. On the basis of medical
knowledge it was misused?
Q. Are you stating that on the basis of medical knowledge?
A. Certainly not. On the basis of practical application as to
what was happening.
Q. Well, did you ever have an investigation made to find out
whether or not the certificate signed by the doctor was valid or
invalid? A. I believe that the District
[609] Q. No, no. Did you? A. No, certainly not. Absolutely
not.
Q. And the Board did not, either, did it? A. The Board,
as a matter of policy, accepted the recommendation of the
medical doctor, because that was the policy of the Board, and
my Committee originally suggested they use a psychiatrist, be-
cause they believed that a medical doctor was not sufficient to
make this kind of a recommendation. That was our opinion
and that’s what we recommended.
“~ Q. Without any expert testimony whatsoever, isn’t that true?
A. I don’t know what you would consider to be expert testi-
mony.
Q. Did you have any testimony or did you have any infor-
mation from a doctor or a psychiatrist that any one of the cer-
tificates that had been presented was invalid? A. I don’t think
so, no. I don’t believe we did. That was based on our knowl-
edge of what the kinds of youngsters that were being transferred
and what we considered to be an abuse of transfer.
Q. Without having explored to find out whether the medical
certificate was valid, isn’t that true? A. Right, we felt that if
it were necessary
Q. All right. That’s—— A. If a youngster was being trans-
ferred on a medical certifi- [610] cate and we needed a stronger
EE oOooooooeoeeeeeeeee|
— 189 —
one than a medical doctor, because it was generally an emo-
tional need, we felt that a medical doctor would have difficulty
in establishing emotional need, a psychiatrist ought to.
Q. Without ever having checked with any doctor to find out,
isn't that true? A. Not on an official basis, correct.
Q. Nor on an unofficial basis? A. I didn’t say that.
Q. Did you ever check with a doctor who had written one
of these certificates? A. Not specifically on specific youngsters,
no.
Q. You are aware of the fact that Caucasians and Negroes
were both permitted to present certificates, are you not? A.
Right.
Q. And you are aware of the fact that by numbers, at least,
there were more of the blacks who were using transfers than
Caucasians for the years that you were on the Board, isn’t that
true? A. So it seems.
Q. Now you have testified today that you personally felt that
closing Lincoln Street School and bussing the children out was
discriminatory? A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you felt that at the time? [611] A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you never had that recorded in the minutes, did
you? A. Well, I think
Q. I did not ask you A. I really don’t know. I did not
request things to be recorded in the minutes or not. I voted.
It says there I supported it, and I say here I support it. You
ask me why I suppoited it, and I am suggesting why.
Q. I didn’t ask you why. I asked you if the minutes re-
flected any statement by you that you thought this was a dis-
criminatory action. A. I don't believe so. Does it say that I
say is isn’t a discriminatory action?
+ * + * * > >
—_— ws
{612] Q. You were aware of the fact that the black community
supported the closing of Lincoln School, were you not? A.
Yes, I was, absolutely.
Q. And received commendatory letters from members of the
black community? A. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Q. Including the President of the Lansing—or, the Lincoln
School PTA? A. I wouldn't be surprised. It was accepted, no
question.
Q. Well, it was requested? A. What are you saying? Who
requested it?
Q. The black community people requested it? A. No, I don’t
believe
Q. Some of them did? A. I don’t believe that is exactly
accurate, Mr. Newman.
Q. Do you know anyone besides Dorothy Durham (Spelled
phonetically) who was opposed to it? A. I didn’t know Dorothy
Durham was. I can’t identify at this point who was supportive
and who was not. I remember at the time that there were mem-
bers of the black community who did not support closing of
the school. It was not economically feasible to continue that
school. The attendance area was shrinking. That was one rea-
son. The black community did support the closing of the
school, [613] there is absolutely no question about it. The ques-
tion to me was not did the black community support closing
of the school or not; the question to me was did I think it was
discriminatory, and I did. I still do, so——
Q. But at least on the record there is no reflection of your
expression of that opinion, is there? A. I really can’t tell you,
because I haven't read the minutes. You are telling me there
wasn’t; I believe you.
Q. Well, thank you. A. You are welcome.
Mr. Newman: That is all I have.
— 191 —
Mr. Davis: Nothing further.
The Court: Kathryn Boucher.
The Witness: Thank you.
The Court: Just a minute.
The Witness: Oh, you have got some questions?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: All righty.
The Court: When you made your decision to close the schools
or to transfer students out from the dominant black schools, you
could foresee the consequence of that act, couldn’t you?
The Witness: Yes, I could.
The Court: So at the time you made your [614] judgment
to do precisely what you did, you knew what the results would
be?
The Witness: I can’t say I knew precisely, but generally, yes,
I think it was with the knowledge of that.
The Court: And at that time you intended that kind of an
act?
The Witness: That? Yes, I felt that it was a
The Court: A transfer?
The Witness: A temporary kind of thing. You don’t want
my usual speech, I am sure, Judge, on the subject of
The Court: If you have a written copy, why you can show
it to me.
The Witness: No, I don’t have a written copy, but I am sure
there are members in the Court here that have heard it. I felt
it was transitory, and I always felt it was a temporary kind of
thing that eventually the community atmosphere would develop
that would allow and encourage natural integration in neighbor-
— 192 —
hoods. And that this was a step, it was acceptable in the black
community, it was acceptable in the white community, and that’s
not to say that either accepted it completely. They didn't. You
would be surprised if they did. They [615] didn’t. But it was
working, and so it was good.
The Court: All right.
* + . . * * >
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
HORTENSE G. CANADY
161] Q. Did there come a time, Mrs. Canady, in which you
became aware that there were in fact recall petitions suggesting
a recall of certain board members? A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me when you first became aware of their
existence? A. Early in April.
* * . > o > 2
[75] Q. Let me ask you, perhaps, a more difficult question, Mrs.
Canady: You were aware, I believe you testified, of the recall
petitions in the spring of this year; is this correct? A. That is
correct.
Q. And this was before the adoption of the plan, is this cor-
rect? A. Yes.
— 193 —
[14] HORTENSE G. CANADY,
called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testi-
fied as follows and hearing on Preliminary Injunction:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Would you state your name and address, please? A. Hor-
tense G. Canady, 3808 West Holmes Road, Lansing, Michigan.
Q. Now, Mrs. Canady, did you have an opportunity to serve
on the Lansing Board of Education? A. I did, yes.
Q. And were you on that Board of Education in June of
1972? A. In June of °72, yes, I was.
Q. And did there come a time at which the Board of Educa-
tion adopted a cluster plan? [15] A. Yes.
= * * * * >
{19] Q. Mrs. Canady, did you have an opportunity to serve on
the Education Committee for the NAACP? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you have occasion during the years 1963 through
65 to engage in a study concerning integration or segregation
in the Lansing schools? A. Yes, quite—in a variety of areas.
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
[339] DR. I, CARL CANDOLI,
called as a witness by the Board of Education, being first duly
sworn, testified as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Will you state your name in full? A. I. Carl Candoli.
— 194 —
~
Q. And you previously testified in this case, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your position with Lansing School District is what?
A. Sometimes I wonder.
I am sorry. Superintendent of Schools.
Q. And how long have you been Superintendent of Schools?
A. Four years and four months.
Q. And were you Superintendent when the so-called “Cluster
Plan” was adopted? A. I was.
Q. And you continued to be Superintendent since then? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I would like to ask you a few questions concern-
ing some of the individuals employed by the Lansing School
District, and particularly with reference to the matter of race.
In Lansing School District are there deputy [340] Superin-
tendents? A. There are, two.
Q. And who are they? A. Dr. Matthew Prophet and Dr.
Robert Chamberlain.
Q. Now are these—are they co-equals? A. Yes, I would
say so.
Q. And would you state what their color is? A. Dr. Prophet
is black, Dr. Chamberlain is white.
Q. Now is the hierarchy, is one above the other? A. Yes,
I would say that Dr. Prophet is more immediate heir, h-e-i-r.
Q. Oh, I thought you said “error.” A. No. Well, in some
instances that holds true.
Q. You told me the other day he is smarter than you are?
A. That's a fact. That's why he is Deputy.
The Court: Well, maybe he is considered as the first Vice
Presideni, and Dr. Chamberlain as the second Vice President.
— 195 —
The Witness: That is a fair analysis, yes.
Q. And who is the Director of elemetary education in Lansing
School District? A. Mrs. Eva Evans.
Q. And is she black or white? A. She is black.
[341] Q. And who is the School Board attorney? A. Mr.
Stuart Dunnings.
Q. And is he black or white? A. He is black.
Q. Now, we are concerned in this litigation about the ele-
mentary schools in Lansing School District. Do you happen to
know how many principals of the elementary schools come from
the minority ethnic groups? A. It is either 10 or 11 out of 48.
Q. Are there 48 schools? A. That's right.
Q. And are some of those elementary principals from the
black race? A. 8 or 9. I am sorry, I would have to check
my records on that.
Q. And are some from the Spanish surname? A. There are
two Chicanos.
Q. Now were you acquainted—I will withdraw that. You
are acquainted with the Board members who adopted the Cluster
Pian June 29, 1972, are you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you recall the names of the five who voted in
favor of the Cluster Plan? A. I do.
Q. And who were they? [342] A. Mr. Rosa, who testified
the day before yesterday. Mr. Beers, Mrs. Boucher, Mrs. Nuss-
dorfer, and Mrs. Canady.
Q. And were any of the five whom you have named black?
A. Yes. Mrs. Canady is black.
o o * e * * J
Q. Now from having reviewed—lI will withdraw that ques-
tion. Have you had occasion to review Board minutes and
— 196 —
“Board records pertaining to Board membership prior to the
time you came to this school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were in court the other day when Mr. Rosa
testified? A. I was, yes.
Q. And he indicated he had been a Board member for 17
years? A. Yes.
Q. From the records, from having reviewed the records, do
you know of any other Board members who have served that
[343] long? A. Oh, yes. Mr. Rosa and Mrs. Nussdorfer and
Mr. Ebersole, I believe, were the three that had the 17- or 18-
year tenure, although Mr. Walsh, who left the Board as I
was coming onto the Board, I believe he was replaced by
Mr. Michael Walsh, had had at least 12, perhaps longer, of
service to the Board, and Mr. Beers and Mrs. Boucher, I
think, were in their second term at the time of the recall.
Q. Now on the basis of having reviewed Board minutes
and Board records concerning the activities of the Board mem-
bers whom you have named, have you ever found anything
to indicate that those Board members acted or failed to act
for purposes of discriminating against any ethnic group in Lans-
ing School District? A. No. I think Mr. Rosa covered that
very, very well, and I support what he said when he said that
ther&were no overt acts of deliberate discrimination on the part
of the previous Boards. I also agree with his statement, how-
ever, that all of us at one time or another commit uncon-
sciously certain acts that must be called to our attention that do
in fact cause severe damage. So I would support Mr. Rosa’s
testimony 100 percent. I don’t think that the Board has ever
deliberately and systematically set out to do a bad deed. I do
think, however, as Mr. Rosa said, that there have been occa-
sions when all of us, [344] myself included, have either—
well, I prefer to say “subconsciously” reacted in a manner other
than the appropriate manner.
* * ? e * * e
ili
= _
[373] Redirect Examination of Dr. I. Carl Candoli
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Dr. Candoli, with regard to the Clusters known as 4
and 5 in the proposed plan which you recommended to the
Board of Education on October 9, 1975, you relied upon cer-
tain or you employed certain guidelines as to your definition of
a minority school, did you not? [374] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what were those definitions or what were those
guidelines that you relied upon? A. They were the guidelines
that we utilized four years ago as we developed the original
Cluster, and the guideline then—and we held that—was that
any school that was over 45 percent minority was considered
a racially imbalanced school.
Q. And what was the 10 percent? A. Oh, the 10 percent
was the minimum range. The range of suitability, as we utilized
it four years ago, was the 10 to 45 percent range, and that was
derived from a number of papers that have—lI don't know as
they have been published, but they were, the Department of
Education, Michigan Department of Education guidelines that
were predicated on a plus or minus 20 percent factor from
the minority population of the School District, and they were
adjusted from there for our own purpose.
Q. Now, how many schools——
The Court: What was that number?
The Witness: The State Department had some preliminary
publications that have never really been distributed, but the
figure
The Court: On a 10 to 20 basis.
The Witness: No, it was plus or minus [375] 20 percent
from the actual percentage of minority students in the school
system. And in the case of Lansing, for example, at the time
we went into this it was 25 percent minority. Plus or minus, it
— 198 —
would have been from 5 to 45. My own very real concern
suggests that with the 5 percent distribution there isn’t sufficient
support system for a youngster to make it at all, and we felt
that 10 percent was a more acceptable figure for us.
Q. Were these guidelines also found in any of the Federal
programs? A. Some of the Federal HEW guidelines allude to
that, yes, sir.
Q. 10 to 45 percent? A. No. Plus or minus 20 percent
over the actual percentage figure of minorities in a school
system.
Q. Would you give an example to illustrate? A. Okay.
Suppose Grand Rapids, which is about 28 percent minority,
were directed to desegregate. The guidelines might be from
% percent to 48 percent would be an acceptable range of schools
with desegregated student enrollment, and anything outside of
those guidelines would be either unbalanced majority or un-
balanced minority.
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
[454] DEWARD A. CLARK,
called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Will you state your name in full, please? A. Deward
Clark, Deward A. Clark.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Clark? A. I live in Lansing,
Michigan.
— 199 —
Q. And how long have you been a resident of Lansing,
Michigan? A. Since 1940.
Q. And are you married? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have children? A. Yes, two.
[455] Q. Are they grown? A. Yes.
Q. Now, are you employed at the present time? A. No, I
am retired from the Lansing School District.
Q. When were you first associated with the Lansing District?
A. 1940.
Q. And what was the nature of your association? A. I
was a teacher at Walter French Junior High School.
Q. What did you teach? A. I taught Social Studies the first
year, and the next year Science, General Science.
Q. And where did you obtain your degrees? A. My B.A.
Degree was Battlecreek College; Master's Degree, Michigan
State University.
[457] Q. How long were you the Assistant Director in the
Pupil Personnel? A. Up until 1961. I became Assistant Direc-
tor of Teacher Personnel.
Q. And how long did you remain in that position? A. Until
I retired. I became the next year the Director and Assistant
Superintendent in Personnel, and then retired in 1974.
Q. Now, when you were director of Teacher Personnel, what
were your duties? A. The main duty at that time was the re-
cruitment of teachers and placement on all levels, and also all
the other employees.
[458] The Court: What, may I have the dates again?
The Witness: That was 1961 to °74. I was Director from
62 on.
=
Q. What was the policy that you were obligated to observe
in employing personnel for Lansing School District? A. The
policy we worked under was to employ the best possible teacher
we could for the position in mind. We were given those—the
rationale for positions came from principals, and we went out
and tried to recruit people that they needed for given jobs. This
was on all levels.
As you know, during the °60’s, especially the first two-thirds
of the ‘60’s, teachers were extremely hard to get, and we re-
cruited all universities and colleges. We recruited all universi-
ties and colleges in Michigan, and then the Big Ten. We also
were obligated at that time through requests of the Board of
Education and the Principals on their special needs to try our
best to recruit minorities.
Q. And how did you go about trying to recruit minorities?
A. We went to Fisk University.
Q. Where is Fisk University? A. Fisk is in Nashville, Ten-
nessee. We went to Hampton Institute in Virginia. We went
to Howard University in Washington, D.C. Later in the 60’s we
employed a black [459] consultant in personnel, Margaret
Groves, and she took charge with Mark Burkholder of minority
recruitment. We extended the recruitment then to the Atlanta
Complex which is about five colleges; also Tuscaloosa in Ala-
bama, and had, I would say, quite a bit of success in recruiting
minorities.
Later on we went into the Chicano territory, and we re-
cruited form Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, the colleges there;
San Marcos, just north of San Antonio; and Kingsville, the big
State College; The Pan American College in Edinburg, Texas.
Also Arizina, New Mexico, and California.
Q. Did you participate in any of these searches for teachers?
A. Yes, I did. Originally I went to the first colleges I named,
and then after we hired Margaret, she took over and did that
type of recruiting. And I did start—I went out and set the pace
— 201 —
in Arizona, Texas, Mexico—or. New Mexico and California,
and then Mark Burkholder followed.
Q. Now when was Mrs. Groves employed? A. I don't have
the exact date in mind. I have been retired two years, so you
see what's happening.
I think in about—she has been with us for six or seven years.
Q. Is Mrs. Groves still employed by Lansing Schools? A. She
is, yes.
[460] Q. In what position? A. She is consultant in personnel.
Q. And you mentioned that minority teachers were recruited
at Fisk University or Fisk College? A. Fisk, Hampton Institute,
yes.
Q. Now are these black schools? A. Yes.
Q. And originally who visited those schools? A. I went the
first time, and then Margaret took over.
* * * * * * x
[462] Q. Now, how were teachers assigned to elementary
schools in Lansing School District? A. Elementary schools at
that time
Q. What time are you talking about? A. I am talking in
the 60’s and the first part of the °70’s. Elementary principals,
I am sure you understand, don’t work the full year and they
are not there during the summer months. While the principals
were there and the recruiting that we did in the spring, they
were given the opportunity to interview applicants that we
were able to send to them, and they would make their final
decision to the personnel office indicating which one of the
applicants they wanted. They would tell the personnel office
what to look for when we went South or when we [463] went
to any of the other universities and what their needs were early
in the spring, if possible. Many times it wasn't possible because
openings deveioped even after they left on their vacation.
— 202 —
So the personnel office went out and recruited for openings
then. We might have had a hundred elementary teachers to
hire, and we would hire those teachers. Many of those then
were not interviewed by principals, so the Director of Elemen-
tary Education, with the help later when we had Margaret
Groves, with her help and help from her staff, which are help-
ing teachers, and these are teachers that are superior teachers
that work with teachers. They are on her staff. They would sit
down and
Q. Whose staff? A. It was Grace Vanworth at the time,
Director of Elementary Ed, her staff helping teachers. They
would sit down and make the assignments trying to relate the
background, the kind of teacher we had with the job that was
open, and we would make the assignments then from the per-
sonnel office.
Q. Now Mrs. Evans is Director of Elementary Education
in Lansing School District, is she not now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you remember when Mrs. Evans joined Lansing
School [464] District as a teacher, or do you not? A. I don't
recall the exact date, but I certainly remember Mrs. Evans,
yes.
Q. And why it is you remember Mrs. Evans? A. Because
she is an outstanding teacher.
Q. And she has progressed through the Lansing School Dis-
trict, is that correct? A. That's correct. She is Assistant Prin-
cipal at C. W. Otto Junior High School.
Q. She was or is? A. She was, yes, sir.
Q. And then she became Director of Elementary Education?
A. Right.
Q. Now during the time you have been connected with the
Personnel Office of Lansing School District, has there ever been
any complaint from anyone about the number of minority
en eee Weners
— 203 —
teachers assigned in minority schools? A. I personally do not
recall any complaint directly from parents, nor from principals.
Q. And has there been any complaint from the Spanish sur-
named people about the assignment of Spanish surnamed teach-
ers to schools where there are substantial number of Spanish sur-
named children? A. No. The only complaint coming from the
Chicano committee—they have a committee representing the
community [465] that works with the Board of Education—
was that we couldn't get enough.
Q. They wanted more assigned? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of anyone who has ever discriminated
against any minority teacher in the matter of employment or
assignment of duties in Lansing School District? A. Well, would
you rephrase that? Do I know whether anyone was discrim-
inated against on purpose?
Q. Yes, on purpose? A. Or intent?
Q. Yes. A. No.
* * . * * - *
[466] Q. All right. How are the assistant principals and prin-
cipals selected in Lansing School District? A. Assistant prin-
cipals and principals are selected by a personnel committee.
They first make application to the Personnel Office, and I don’t
believe in the last couple of years that has changed. They make
their application. There is a Personnel Committee. On the
Personnel Committee, for example, if it is an assistant prin-
cipal, sits the principal of that given school where the vacancy
exists. Also the Director of Personnel and the Director of Sec-
ondary Education, if it is secondary, or elementary, if it is ele-
mentary, and a given number of community people generally
are on these committees.
Q. What do you mean community people? A. I mean peo-
ple that are representative of a given community. While this
may be a PTA person, it may have nothing to do with PTA,
but somebody that’s been active and inteersted in education
— i
from that community. If it’s a position—well, the last one I
can recall, there were three community people, two of them
were black and there was one white. We have had Chicanos
on the Committee also.
Q. And they participate in the selection? [467] A. In the
final selection, yes, sir. And that recommendation then goes
to the Superintendent of Schools, who in turn will recommend
to the Board of Education.
Mr. Newman: You may cross-examine.
Cross-Examination of Deward A. Clark
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Did I understand you correct, Mr. Clark, to indicate
that you have been directly involved in teacher personnel since
1961? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you indicate what the situation was that you
found in 1961 in terms of employment of minorities, numbers?
A. Yes. Of minority, we had very few minority at the begin-
ning of 1961.
Q. Can you indicate—you have an affirmative action pol-
icy, do you not, with respect to minority teachers and staff?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know when that policy went into effect? A. The
exact date, I would say perhaps four years ago.
Q. Would I be correct in assuming then there was not an
affirmative action program for teachers and staff prior to 1971?
A. You might be correct in saying there wasn’t a written pol-
icy, but there certainly was in the Personnel Office and from
the oral statements of the Board of Education, [468] I con-
sidered it an affirmative action policy. That’s why way before
the written policy we were out on the road recruiting from
the various colleges that I indicated.
.
er See eee wary ey
ee
- —— seve
— 205 —
And just one more thing. As I said, there were very few
at the beginning of 1960 and there was a gradual, not as big
as we wanted, but a gradual increase in the employment and
the percentage, the ratio of minorities to non-minorities.
Q. Were you also in charge of assigning those teachers that
were hired? A. I did not assign them directly. The secon-
dary principals interviewed for secondary, the elementary prin-
cipals, insofar as possible, interviewed for elementary. Those
that couldn't, they were out on vacation and so forth, that as-
signment came from the Director of Elementary Ed working
with the consultant in Personnel and her staff making final
assignments.
Q. Well, who had the final say, if anyone, in terms of as-
signment? Did you have a veto power at all? A. If we did,
it was never used. I wasn’t aware we had a veto power over
a principal, and the principal has the final say, period.
Q. Well, that about in terms of assigning principals, who
had the final say in that regard? A. I believe I spelled out the
way principals were hired. [469] They were hired by a Per-
sonnel Committee. No one person. However, if you check the
policy of the Board of Education, the Superintendent has an
actual veto on hiring, because it says he has full charge of hir-
ing. And I was working through the Superintendent in terms
of hiring.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: When you first took over these
duties in 1961, were there any black principals? A. 1961?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. Do you recall when the first black principal was hired?
A. I don’t recall the exact date, sir.
Q. Do you recall who it was? A. As a principal?
Q. Yes. A. It could have been Cal Anderson.
—=— =
Q. Let me ask you a different question: Do you recall what
school this black principal went to? A. Well Cal Anderson
was an Assistant Principal at West Junior High School.
Q. All right. Elementary School principal? A. Elementary
school perhaps was Olivia Letts.
Q. And where was she assigned? A. I don’t know whether
she was Cedar Street or where at that [470] time.
Q. Isn't it a fact she was assigned to Lincoln Street School?
A. Could be.
Q. You don’t recall? A. Not exactly, no.
Q. Isn't it a fact
as Personnel Director.
A. That probably was before my time
Q. Isn't it also a fact when you took office or took the Di-
rector of Teacher Personnel Office in 1961, that Lincoln was
a black school? A. Yes, it was.
Q. Referring now, for the Court’s benefit and co-counsel’s
benefit, to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 21, directing your attention to
Page 167
The Court: What is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 21, do you have that?
“Report to the Human Relations Committee.”
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Now you indicated you had at least some responsibility
in the assignment of teachers, is that correct? A. In the way
I indicated, yes, an indirect.
Q. This chart on page 167 purports to show the number of
minorities at the various elementary schools, do you see this?
[471] A. Yes.
The Court: What chart is that, what page?
Mr. Davis: 167. It is towards the very end.
The Court: All right.
= _
Q. It purports to show the number of minority, adminis-
trators and teachers and librarians, for the year 1963-64, is
that correct? A. Yes.
The Court: Can you indicate by virtue of that chart which
schools seem to have a minority principal, which would be in
the second column there under “Administration”?
The Witness: Here on the first page it indicates Lincoln, one.
On the second page it indicates Walnut, one.
The Court: This was in 63 then?
Mr. Davis: °63, that’s correct.
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Now in terms of teachers, which would be in the second
column from your right, can you indicate which schools have
the minority or have minority teachers in excess of one? A. In
excess of one, there was Lincoln had 3, Allen had 3.
[472] Q. All right. Lincoln had 3 of 7, is that correct? A.
Three of 7.
Q. Plus the administrator? A. Yes.
Q. And—— A. Allen had 3 of 26.
Q. Now before we go further, isn’t a fact that in that pe-iod
of time, 1963-64, that Allen was becoming heavily minority?
A. Well, it was becoming heavily minority, but it didn’t happen
all at once. It was a slow process.
Q. But it was one of those schools that had the most minority
students in it, was it not? A. Well, I couldn’t say. I don’t have
those figures in my fingertips.
Mr. Davis: I direct the Court’s attention to page 9 of this
Exhibit, which shows the minority count for Allen.
Q. Now I would ask you to tell me whether I am correct that
they had 149 minorities out of 516? A. You are asking me?
— 208 —
Q. Yes. A. That's what this chart says, yes.
Q. Okay. Directing your attention then back to Page 167,
can you indicate the next school that has more than one [473]
minority teacher? A. Michigan Avenue.
Q. And that was a black school, was it not? A. Yes.
Q. And the next one? I think we skipped one here. Do you
see this school here, Main, can you tell me what they had in
minority teachers? A. You told me in excess. They had 1.
Q. In excess of 1, they had 1. That is Lincoln. And Michi-
gan, correct? A. And Michigan, but Main was one. How-
ever ——
The Court: So Lincoln had 3, Main 1?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And Michigan 3?
The Witness: Michigan 3, yes.
The Court: Out of 13 in Michigan and——
The Witness: 26 in Allen.
The Court: 26 in Allen?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court. All right.
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Were you aware of the fact that the predominately mi-
nority schools tended to have the most black teachers when you
took your position? A. Yes, I was perfectly aware of that, and
the Board at the [474] time in our discussions had discussed
with me the situation and the possibility—not “possibility,” but
what we should do was to hire minority teachers and make sure
from thereon that we were not loading them into an all-black
school. I remember at a meeting with some of the representa-
tives of NAACP, at that time there was a gentleman, a minister,
—- dll
—
I MB ks
— 209 —
| believe it was, had got up, and we explained to him that our
philosophy was, and would be from there on when we recruited,
to try to scatter the minority teachers. We had little difficulty
when we came to the Chicanos, because the Chicanos had a spe-
cific need, a language need, and the scattering of them didn’t
make good sense, because we were trying to hire minorities
there that spoke Spanish and could help the youngsters on the
early grade level, so there would be no doubt some concentration
there, and that made sense to have it there. But we did go into
the idea of spreading the teachers about.
The minister made the point that afterall, the white people
should have the chance of associating with the black people.
We felt at the time that the black teachers should be in the white
community as well as in the black community.
Q. In light of that stated policy that you indicate you adopted
when you took over, let me ask you about some [475] particular
schools. First of all, about Michigan. We indicated, I believe,
that Michigan had three teachers. A. Yes.
Q. At that time? A. Yes.
Q. And you adopted a policy of not assigning black teachers
to just black schools, is that correct? A. This is what we tried
to do, yes.
Q. You were not present yesterday when Mr. Semrau testified,
were you? A. No, I was not.
Q. Well, let me indicate what his testimony was and ask you if
that is your recollection.
He indicated—
(To Mr. Newman) And correct me if | am wrong, Counsel—
that in 1968-69 there were 3 of 14 minority teachers. He indi-
cated in the next year, 1969-70, that it had got up to 4 of 13.
Do you recall an extra teacher being added to Michigan after
this policy? A. No, but with federal programs going on, this
could well have happened.
— 210—
Q. He indicates in the next year 1970-71 there were 5 of 13.
A. Now I don't know the reason for that, but I am pretty sure
it came through Federal funds and funding, especially [476]
for that school. If we could hire a minority that seemed to have
more than the white at that period, we would put her there.
Q. I didn’t quite understand that? A. If we could hire a
minority that seemed to have a better background for that given
position at that time, she no doubt was put over at Mr. Semrau’s
school in Michigan Avenue.
Q. Do you recall that happening? A. No. I say specifically
I don’t recall who was put there or why. My opinion is it was
related to Federal funds and Federal programs.
Q. But you do know that it is a fact that after you took over
your position, that the percentage of minority teachers at Michi-
gan did in fact increase? A. Yes. However, let me say some-
thing: The ratio was 3 to 7, as I noticed there. Did the ratio
increase so much? Because you had a total staff of 14, you are
talking the ratio of minority against, so let’s talk in ratios there.
Q. My figures indicate 3 of 14 in 1968-69, and it went up to
5 of 13 in 1971-72. A. However, the first figure you gave me
was 3 of 7. That’s what I am referring to.
Q. That was Lincoln, Lincoln School had 3 of 7. I am re-
ferring to Michigan Avenue? [477] A. Okay.
Q. Well, was there anything done in moving to Lincoln Street
School after your policy of not loading up teachers at one school,
was there anything done about transferring some of the minority
teachers from Lincoln, which had 3 of 7 plus the principal?
A. This I don’t know. The Director of Elementary Education
would have charge of that.
Q. Well, let’s direct your attention to apother school. Main,
I believe "63-64, according to Page 167 of the chart, had one
teacher, is that correct? A. Right.
—211—
Q. You do know for a fact that that number increased?
A. Right, and I do know for a fact that the PTA and the people
at Main Street School called it one of the best faculties of the
District.
Q. But the fact is that there was a deliberate effort made,
was there not, to put more minority teachers at Main Street
School? A. I don’t know whether it was deliberate or not and
what rationale the Director of Elementary Education had at
that time. I know that her rationale came from the request of
the principal, and his request usually came from the request of
the Community. So that’s all I can go on there. And my under-
standing was that the Community was [478] exceedingly pleased
with the staff of Main Street School.
Q. Well, is it your understanding that was the reason why
minority teachers were placed in minority schools? A. I think
the reason for placing any teachers is to get the best success we
can get for the children of that given community. If it happened
to be a minority, that’s where the minority went.
* * * * * . a
[481] Q. Can you indicate for 1967-68 what the percentage
was of minority students? A. The percentage of minority stu-
dents was 14 percent.
Q. And the percentage for minority staff? A. Was 3.8.
Q. And these are contained in the bottom two lines? A. Yes.
Q. Of this Exhibit, correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the number of teachers, elementary teachers in "67-68
was 39, is that correct? A. Yes. 39 black, 21 secondary black,
and there were 4 black [482] administrators.
The Court: What, 39?
The Witness: Yes, 39 black elementary teachers in 67, and
there are 21 secondary and 4 black administrators.
By Mr. Davis:
— 212 —
Q. And then in '68-69 it looks like there is one less black
elementary teacher, 38, is that correct? A. That's right.
Q. And those numbers are reflected all the way across for
each year up to 1972, correct? A. Yes.
Q. I refer you to four pages later. It should be page 39. This
chart purports to show, does it not, faculty assignment by race?
A. This, I am not acquainted with this chart, but this is what it
looks like, yes. What date is this?
Q. This is as of——-— A. This shows 8% percent minority
teachers.
Q. This is 1972, January 27, 1972. A. I see.
The Court: Now what schedule? Let’s see if we are on the
same——
The Witness: 35.
The Court: ——track here.
[483] The Witness: Well, this only goes through °71, but in
‘71 we had 9.2 percent minority staff.
The Court’ Where are the dates on these charts?
Mr. Davis: That’s at the beginning of the entire volume,
your Honor.
The Court: Oh, I see.
The Witness: And in "72 I am sure we had more than 9
percent, yet this only shows 8.
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Now Section 4 indicates the names of schools with no
minority teachers. From your recollection, would that be cor-
rect in 1972, as you remember? A. Yes, or I couldn't say spe-
cifically, but I wouldn't question it. It looks all right to me.
As I recall, the year I left in "74 there weren’t any schools
without minority teachers.
— 213 —
Q. Before referring to the next chart, just to make sure that
this is within your area of experience and expertise, the assign-
ment of teachers around the School District after they were
hired, was this within your duties? A. The recruitment was
in—within my duties, and the assignment, insofar as, a con-
sultant from my office served with the Director and the Princi-
pals in the assignment. As I explained before, the Principals
generally [484] had the say on which teacher they wanted.
The Director of Elementary Ed worked with her staff and a
member of my staff in making summer assignments.
Q. Would you have been aware in your professional respon-
sibilities of the experience of the teachers at the various schools?
A. I would if it were brought specifically to my attention for
a given reason, but as these assignments were made, the Direc-
tor of Elementary Ed certainly was aware of experience.
Q. Do you recall being made aware or having it brought
to your attention that minority schools had the most experienced
teachers, do you recall that ever being brought to your atten-
tion? A. No.
Q. Do you recall whether or not that was true or not? A.
I don’t know whether that was so.
Q. Directing your attention—and you may not know the
answer; just say so—to two pages later in this volume.
Mr. Davis: Your Honor, it should be Page 41.
The Court: The pages just aren't numbered.
Mr. Davis: I know. This one.
Q. It purports to show the years of experience to various
[485] schools. Would you be aware of whether any of these
figures were correct or incorrect? A. No, I am not aware
whether they would be or not.
Q. I see. Very well. Well, when you determined or found
out that even after your policy minority teachers were still being
—214—
assigned to minority schools, being Main and Michigan, did
you bring this to anyone’s attention, the School Board, indicat-
ing that this was contrary to your policy? A. No.
* iad s * * * *
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
[198] GEORGE T. DAVIS, JR.,
called as a witness by the defendants, being first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Your name is George T. Davis, Junior? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is your residence address? A. 526 South
Chestnut Street.
Q. Lansing, Michigan? A. Lansing, Michigan.
Q. How long have you lived in Lansing, Michigan? A. 28
years.
[199] Q. And what is your age? A. 28.
Q. Now, did you attend school in Lansing? A. Yes, I at-
tended Kalamazoo, Western, and Sexton.
* > s * e * *
[200] Q. And you are black yourself? A. (Witness nodding).
Q. I mean, the record has to show that. A. Yes.
Q. I can tell it. A. Yes.
* . a as 7 * *
[201] Q. Now, what elementary school did you attend in
Lansing School District? A. Kalamazoo Street School.
Q. And at the time you went there to the Kalamazoo Street
School, about what was the division of the races? A. At that
-_
— 215 —
time I lived on the north side of the Main Street, 838 West
Main Street, and on the south side of the Main Street, on the
other side of the street, most of the kids went to—all of the
kids went to Lincoln and I went to Kalamazoo Street, because
I lived on the other side of the street.
Q. Now, do you know about what the percentage of blacks
[202] was and the percentage of the whites was at Kalamazoo
when you attended Kalamazoo? A. At that time it must have
been around about—I would say around about under 10
percent.
Q. The number of black students would be about under 10
percent? A. Yes.
Q. And the bulk were whites? A. Yes, sir.
* s * * * * +
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
[488] VERNON EBERSOLE,
called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Please state your name in full? A. Vernon D. Ebersole.
* * * * * * *
[488] Q. Are you a member of the Board of Education of
Lansing School District? [489] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you had any other connection or association with
Lansing School District other than as a Board member? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. What? A. I was a teacher.
- * . * * * *
— 216—
Q. What did you teach? A. Music.
[490] Q. And by that, what do you mean? A. Band, orchestra,
choir, glee clubs.
Q. When you taught, were there any minority students in your
classes or courses or organization? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you first become a member of the Board of
Education? A. July 1, 1955.
Q. How did you happen to seek membership on the Board
of Education? A. Prior to that there was a Citizens’ Committee
that had been organized, and I served on that committee, and
that stirred up interest in the workings of the Board of Educa-
tion, so the following year I ran for the Board of Education
and was elected.
Q. And how long have you served? A. Since 1955, 21 years.
[498] By Mr. Newman:
Q. Mr. Ebersole, are you familiar with some of the sites of
the elementary schools in Lansing School District? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And with regard to the matter of site size, are you able
to make any general statement that applies with regard to the
site size and the time that it was acquired, the site was acquired?
A. That is within my term on the Board.
[499] The Court: You are referring now to the——
Mr. Newman: If the Court please, I will hand Mr. Ebersole
Defendants’ Exhibit 18
Q. and ask you if you recognize this as a history of an
account of the site size in Lansing School District? A. Yes, I do.
Q. With regard to the matter of site size, what can be said
as to the size relative to the time the site was acquired? A. Well,
prior to my being on the board, and just glancing down this list,
—~4——__—_-_—___.4—
— 217 —
the original site sizes were considerably smaller than they are
today, very much smaller.
Q. Now after you were on the Board and after annexations
took place, can you say whether or not there was any increase
in the site size of elementary schools? A. Yes, there was.
Q. Will you state to the Court whether or not with regard to
annexations that took place the annexed school district had ac-
quired sites before annexation occurred? A. Many had.
Q. And after Lansing School District had grown with the
annexations, did the School District itself procure some sites?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And with regard to the sites that were procured by
Lansing [500] School District, will you state whether or not
there was a tendency to increase the size of the sites? A.
Wherever possible, yes, sir.
Q. And how were these sites procured by Lansing School
District while you were on the Board? A. Through purchase.
Q. And was there ever any indication of exchange, that you
might recall? A. There could have been one or two where we
had a piece of land that we figured out was not adaptable to a
school site and a realtor had the land that would fit into the
picture, and he and the Board would arrange a swap of those
pieces of land, yes.
Q. Now where you procured sites by purchase, will you state
whether or not those sites were in developed areas or undevel-
oped areas? A. They were, by and large, in undeveloped areas.
[501] Q. And with regard to the purchase price for sites in
undeveloped areas, will you state to the Court what the price
would be relative to purchase of land in a developed area? A.
In relation to——
rr eemeaeaeeeems nemee ee emr nes me
— 218 —
Q. Yes. If you have to buy sites where there is a built-up
area with houses or buildings on it, how does that compare with
the purchase of sites that I guess are undeveloped? A. The
developed areas of course are much higher.
Q. Now are you familiar with—I know your testimony, but
are you familiar with Beekman Center? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that an elementary school? A. No, sir.
Q. What kind of a school is it? A. It is for the mentally
retarded, primarily.
Q. Now was that a school facility that was developed after
you were on the Board of Education? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall the purchase of land for that center? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And do you recall how many acres was procured? [502]
A. Approximately 50 acres.
Q. And do you recall the price? A. I think it was around
a thousand dollars an acre.
The Court: Is that site on this schedule, Beekmea?
The Witness: No, sir, it is not.
Mr. Newman: Your Honor, on Deefndants’ Exhibit 17 Beek-
man Center is recorded 56 acres.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. While you have been on the Board of Education, has the
Board of Education purchased land to expand the sites of some
of the elementary schools, some of the older elementary schools?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Has the Board of Education also purchased land for the
Vivian Riddle School? A. Yes, sir.
— 219 —
Q. And do you recall what the purchase price was in general
with regard to sites for Vivian Riddle School? A. They run
between $350,000 and $400,000.
Q. The total? A. The total.
Q. Do you.remmber how many sites there were? A. There
were approximately 33 or 34.
[503] Q. And were those parcels that were purchased for the
Vivian Riddle School located in a built-up area or an undevel-
oped area? A. In a built-up area.
Q. Now, will you state for the Court what your view of bus-
sing of school children is? A. My view of school bussing is that
we should have no bussing of youngsters except where the
matter of distance and/or safety.
Q. And what was your position before you became a Board
member? A. The same.
Q. With regard to bussing? A. The same.
Q. What is your position now? A. That is my position now.
Q. Do you recall that a time came when mobile units were
employed in Lansing School District to house children? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember about when that was? A. It was
around 1960 to ’61, in that year, the early 60's.
Q. That’s when it began? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why were mobile units employed? A. Because of the
overcrowding of the schools.
[504] Q. And were they employed throughout the School Dis-
trict where necessary? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did a time come when some of the parents of stu-
dents at Main Street objected to the use of mobile units there?
A. Yes, sir.
= =
Q. And do you recall what was eventually done with regard
to the matter of using mobile units at Main Street? A. Well, a
mobile unit was put in there.
Q. All right. How long—do you remember how long mobile
units stayed at Main Street? A. No.
Mr. Newman: This is Defendants’ Exhibit 16.
The Court: Maybe we better take a ten-minute recess for the
convenience of all.
(At 11:06 a.m. a recess was taken.)
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Mr. Ebersole, do you have before you a copy of De-
fendants Exhibit 16? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And will you observe the column headed “1962?” A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And do you see the names of any elementary schools in
that column? [S05] A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are they? A. Wainright, Main, Cavanaugh.
. * * * . * >
[505] Q. In 1962, what was the racial composition again of
the elementary school? A. It was predominantly white.
Q. And what was the racial composition
The Court: What was the answer?
The Witness: Wainright.
The Court: Wainright?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: In 1962?
[506] The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And the question is what was the racial
~ <=
‘lei ial i
!
— 221 —
Mr. Newman: Composition of the student body.
The Court: The student body of Wainright?
Mr. Newman: Yes, sir.
The Court: Where do we find that out on this document?
The Witness: It isn’t on the document, sir
Mr. Newman: This is memory we are testing.
The Court: All right. The memory bank?
The Witness: Yes.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. And what was the racial composition of Main in 1962?
A. It was predominantly black.
Q. And what was the racial composition of the student body
at Cavanaugh? A. Predominantly white.
The Court: Wainright was predominantly white also?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
[507] Q. Now the columns headed 1963 and 1964 record the
same schools, do they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you come to 1965, you observe Bingham, High,
Cedar, Wainright, Everett, Main, Bingham, Holmes, Wainright,
is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And what was the—as you recall—the racial makeup of
the student body at Bingham in 1965? A. That was predomi-
nantly white.
Q. And how about High? A. High at that time, as I recollect,
was bordering on the Chicanos as a predominate.
Q. What about Cedar? A. Well, Cedar was still predomi-
nantly white, but again the Chicanos were moving in.
— 222 —
Q. And do you recall what the racial makeup of student
body at Everett was at that time? A. That was white.
Q. And then Main? A. Main was black.
Q. And Bingham? A. White.
Q. And Holmes? A. That was white.
{S08} Q. And then Wainright again? A. Still white.
Q. Now did a time come when some of the parents at Main
Sireet School objected to the use of mobile units? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And eventually was some action taken with regard to the
matter of mobile units being located at Main? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that action? A. The action was that the mobile
unit was moved from Main.
Q. Now you have indicated that mobile units were used to
relieve overcrowding. A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was done to take care of whatever overcrowding
existed after the mobile units were removed? A. These—the
overflow at Main were moved to another school.
Q. And I hand you Defendants’ Exhibit 81——~
The Court: Well, now, just a minute. Moved to another
school?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Were they assigned to another school?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: How did they get there, walk?
[509] The Witness: No.
The Court: Bussed?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
— 223 —
The Court: And what schoo! was that that they were moved
to?
The Witness: Walnut.
The Court: Walton?
The Witness: Walnut.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Now 81 reflects a resolution that was adopted by the
Board of Education, does it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what does this relate to? A. The transfer of children
from Main Street School to Walnut Street School.
Q. And at that time what was the racial makeup of the stu-
dent body at Walnut School? A. Predominantly white.
Q. An ddo you know why it was that Walnut Street School
was selected for the transfer of these students? A. Yes, because
their room was available to put these folks over there.
Q. And what was the desires of the parents of the children?
A. From Main Street?
[510] Q. Yes. A. They were very desirous to have this done.
Q. Now Exhibit 81 indicates that the motion was made by
Mr. Walsh. A. Yes, sir, that is Mr. Thomas Walsh.
Q. Yes, sir. Do you recall how long Mr. Walsh served as a
member of the Board of Education? A. He served for 12 years.
Q. And are you familiar with Mr. Walsh's political philosophy
and how it was on Governmental and school matters? A. Yes,
sir.
The Court: That is Thomas Walsh?
The Witness: Thomas Walsh, yes, sir. That differentiates
from the current Mr. Walsh, who is Michael Walsh.
— 224 —
A. Mr. Newman: I am sorry, I——
The Court: All right. Go ahead.
Q. How would you characterize Mr. Walsh’s political phi-
losophy? A. His philosophy is very liberal.
Q. And is he a member of any political party that you know
of? A. If I understand, he is a member of the Democratic Party.
Q. Have you ever known Mr. Walsh to support any dis-
criminatory action against any minority? A. No, sir.
[511] Q. Have you ever known him to support any discrim-
inatory action against anyone, as a matter of fact? A. No, sir.
Q. Now while you were on the Board, were citizens’ com-
mittees appointed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you recall whether a citizens’ committee was
appointed by the Board of Education in 1965? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newman: This is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5.
Q. I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5, which purports to be a
report of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee that was appointed
in 65 and reported in 1966. Do you recognize this as a doc-
ument similar to which you have seen before? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on page Ronian numeral five, do you see the names
of the members of the Executive Committee? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The Chairman was whom? A. Rabbi Philip Frankel.
Q. Are you acquainted with Rabbi Frankel? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is he associated with some religious organization in
Lansing School District? [512] A. Yes, sir, he is the Rabbi
of the Jewish Church in Lansing.
The Court: I think there is testimony already in the record
of Rabbi Frankel’s participation in the Committee activities,
and likewise with Mrs. Canady. We have had a hearing on
this matter before, several hearings, and this Committee Re-
— 225 —
port has been discussed before. So the Court is familiar with
the fact that Rabbi Frankel was a Rabbi in the Jewish faith
and actively participated in this program.
Mr. Newman: Well, your Honor, I wanted to bring out in
addition that there were members of other minority groups
that served, and the capacity in which they served.
The Court: Wasn't that already testified to?
Mr. Newman: I do not believe so.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Newman: Except that I know that Mrs. Clinton Canady,
Jr., testified that she was a member, but I don’t believe that
it has been established as to the racial background of Dr. Hazel
Turner and some of the other members. I was just simply
trying to bring out that this committee was made up of a cross
section of Lansing and included a number of blacks and some
Spanish [513] surnamed people also.
The Court: Go ahead.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Over ine years have you been acquainted with Mrs. Clin-
ton Canady, Jr.? A. Yes.
Q. Is she also known as “Hortense Canady?” A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know offhand how long your relationship with
Mrs. Canady has lasted? A. Up to the—at the time of the for-
mation of this Committee, I became acquainted with her.
Q. All right. Did she later on become a member of the
Board of Education? A. Yes, sir, she did.
Q. Do you rememver about when that was? A. 1969, I be-
lieve.
Q. Now do you recognize on the Committee any other mem-
bers of any minority groups? A. My recollection is under the
— 226 —
Steering Committee, that Mr. David Duncan and Mr. Albert
L. Kelley were of minority groups.
Q. And on Committee as a whole, do you recognize any
other names than you have already mentioned? A. Yes.
[514] Q. And what other names do you recognize? A. Mr.
Benjamin Gibson, Mr. Curtis L.
Q. Mr. Benjamin Gibson, what is his profession? A. He is
an attorney.
Q. And what minority group does he belong to? A. He is
black.
Q. All right. A. Mr. Curtis Groves. He works at the Post
Office, and he is a black. Grady Porter is a black. I believe
he works at Oldsmobile. Mr. William Riddle, he is a black.
Q. And if there are other minority members, you don’t rec-
ognize them? A. I don’t recognize them as such.
Q. Now during the time that this Committee was function-
ing, was the Board concerned with Lincoln Elementary School
and any desire of parents of students attending that school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was that, what was the problem or what was
going on with regard to Lincoln Elementary School while this
Committee was functioning? A. The two—there were two
problems: One was the population of the Lincoln School was
falling off as the expansion of Oldsmobile was taking place,
and the second was that the black community was quite anx-
ious to have this [515] facility closed and their pupils trans-
ferred to another location.
QO. And did a time come when that was—when Lincoln
School was closed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With reference
Mr. Newman: My problem arises from the fact that I have
a copy of a Board resolution that is not marked as an Exhibit,
a
—
~~ $87
and yet it is in the schedule—or, it is in the Exhibits that have
been received, Defendant’s Exhibit 30. .
The Court: See if you have it.
Q. I invite your attention to Defendants’ Exhibit 30, Page 5.
Mr. Newman: Now, your Honor, up in the right-hand cor-
ner there is a number 61, but below that is July 22, 1965,
Page 5S.
The Court: Yes, Lincoln School.
Q. Were you at the meeting on July 22, 1965, when this
resolution was submitted to the Board of Education? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And who made the motion? A. It was moved by Mr.
Thomas Walsh.
Q. And who supported it? A. Mrs. Katherine Boucher.
Q. And will you state to the Court whether or not there
had [516] been any discussion of this matter closing Lincoln
School with concerned parents before the Board acted? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And was there discussion that night, if you recall? A.
Yes, sir, there was.
Q. And was that motion to close Lincoln as an elementary
school passed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Vernon D. Ebersole vote on this matter? A. Yes.
he did.
Q. And what was your vote? A. “No.”
Q. And you were one dissenter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you state to the Court what the basis of your
dissent was? A. Yes, sir, and I believe it states it in the min-
utes of that meeting.
— 228 —
Q. All right. A. That the Board was moving too rapidly
towards the closing of the Lincoln School, and there were many
other facets which should be investigated before taking this step.
Q. Now was this facility, was this building actually aban-
doned by Lansing School District at that time, or was the-——
[517] A. No, it was not.
Q. Or was continued use made of the building? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember for what purpose? A. For the handi-
capped young people, emotionally disturbed.
Q. And were there any citizens in that area who were also
permitted to use the building during the—when the children
were not present? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who were permitted to use it? A. The people in
the area using it as a community center.
Q. And now did a time come when that building was de-
molished? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did this happen? A. The reason for that being that
facilities had been acquired for moving the people that were
using the buildirg to another location, plus the fact that Olds-
mobile needed this land for their expansion purposes.
Q. Now you say that the school population had been de-
clining at Lincoln? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What would bring that about? A. Well, | had mentioned
one, the expansion of Oldsmobile. The second one was the
highway expansion of 496 coming down and taking up two
streets, Main Street on one side [518] and St. Joe on the other,
which cleared out many, many homes.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Boucher? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you have some idea about her political philosophy?
A. She I would class as 2 liberal, as | would Mr. Walsh.
——————
— 229 —
Q. Have you ever known Mrs. Boucher to vote to discrimi-
nate against anybody? A. No, sir.
Q. Now how did the Committee that was functioning at that
time respond, if you recall, to closing of Lincoln Elementary
School?
The Court: What page?
The Witness: Page 9, sir.
A. According i the Committee report—and may I read this?
Q. Yes, I think so. A. “It is recommended, therefore, that as
and to the extent that predominately Negro schools”—that is
naming Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Main—“continue to be over-
crowded, that the present policy of transporting the overflow
of children to other areas in the City at large be continued and
that, as and when these schools are phased out, which will be
the subject of separate recommendations, all of the children
from these service areas be transported to and throughout the
other service areas of [519] the City at large, following the
general policy set forth by the Board of Education in phasing
out the Lincoln Elementary School.”
Q. Now during this period of time around 1964 and ’65 were
the number of students who attended the Kalamazoo Street
School affected in any way? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what way? A. Again the I-496 corridor was taking
out homes of youngsters attending this school as well as the
State of Michigan having an expansion program to the west of
the Capitol taking out homes with the idea that a new Capitol
as well as additional State office buildings were to be built.
Q. And did a time come when consideration was given to
closing Kalamazoo School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you recall whether or not the Committee had any
recommendations to make with regard to Kalamazoo Street
School and its continued use? A. Yes, sir.
— 230 —
Q. I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 and call your attention to
Page 23. Does that set forth the recommendations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what were the recommendations with regard to
Kalamazoo [520] Street School? A. That this facility be phased
out as a K-6 facility at the earliest date possible with no major
expenditures to be made on the physical plant, and that the
students in the present attendance area be bussed to outlying
schools which serve predominately white attendance areas.
Q. And did a time come when the Board of Education did
phase out Kalamazoo Street School as an elementary school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I hand you Defendants’ Exhibit 31 and ask you to
state what that is. A. It is phasing out of the Kalamazoo and
Michigan Avenue Schools.
Q. Who made the resolution? A. Mrs. Canady.
Q. And who supported it? A. Mr. Ebersole.
Q. That is you? A. That is me.
Q. Now would you read that resolution, please?
The Court: What page.
The Witness: Page 7, sir.
The Court: All right.
A. “It was moved by Mrs. Canady, supported by Mr. Eber-
sole, that the scheduled plan for the phasing out of the [521]
Kalamazoo Elementary School by June 30, 1970, and the
Michigan Avenue Elementary School by June 30, 1971, as out-
lined in the position paper entitled ‘Final Plans for Eliminating
DeFacto Segregation in Elementary Schools,’ unquote, dated
September 22, 1969, be adopted; that special plans be developed
for future use of the Michigan Avenue School as an elementary
center for enrichment and have the Kalamazoo School as a
center for continuing education including program descriptions,
— 231 —
space allocation, and cost estimates of any necessary renovation;
and that fixed geographic boundaries be established assigning
pupils in these two attendance areas to specific receiving schools.”
Q. Now was that motion put to a vote? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did it carry? A. It carried unanimously.
Q. And was Kalamazoo Street School phased out as an ele-
mentary school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what happened to the students who remained in
that attendance area? A. They were bussed, as the resolution
Suggests, to predominantly white schools.
Q. Did Mrs. Canady ever vote to discriminate against any
[522] group, that you know of? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Ebersole, inviting your attention again to Plain-
tiffs’ Exhibit 5, Page 25
The Court: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5, that is a report.
Mr. Newman: Citizens’ Committee.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. At the bottom of the page do you find any entry concern-
ing the Committee’s reaction to the closing of Lincoln School?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what does it say? A. “The Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee is in accord with the action taken by the Superintendent
and the Board of Education in closing Lincoln School as an
elementary school and commends their positive approach
‘ +
The Court: Is this on Page 1?
Mr. Newman: 25, your Honor.
The Court: I have got Page 6.
— 232 —
The Witness: At the bottom.
The Court: That is
Mr. Newman: Page 25.
The Court: 25?
Mr. Newman: Yes, sir.
[523] The Witness: That is titled “Lincoln Elementary School.”
The Court: Yes. All right.
A. The bottom paragraph: “And commends their positive
approach to a difficult problem.”
Mr. Newman: Your Honor, pages 26 and 27. Twenty-six
is headed “Main Street School.”
The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Did the Committee make any recommendations with re-
gard to Main Street School and bussing of students? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What recommendation was made? A. “That the enroll-
ment be reduced and that overflow enrollment be continued to
be transported to other schools.”
Q. And did their Committee also consider Michigan Avenue
School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it make any recommendations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it make any recommendations relative to what should
be done with Michigan Avenue School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were they? A. That this building be phased out as
a K-6 facility as [524] soon as possible with no major expendi-
tures made on the physical plant.
Q. Did it make any discussions or recommendations as to
assignments of students? A. Yes, sir.
— -
Q. What? A. That the students in the present attendance
area be bussed to outlying schools which serve predominantly
white attendance areas.
Q. Now will you state to the Court whether any influences
have operated to affect the Board with regard to Michigan Ave-
nue School over which the Board had no control? A. Yes, sir,
there have been two. I stated one, and that was the expansion
of the State of Michigan in acquiring land for future growth in
their office and Capitol Complex. And the second was a Logan-
Butler artery traffic pattern, which has been on the drawing
board for approximately 15 years with the State Highway De-
partment. This means that Logan would be one-way going
either north or south with Butler Boulevard then becoming one-
way going in the opposite direction. This affected the thinking
along Michigan Avenue School lines quite a bit.
Q. Why? A. For the simple reason within this Logan-Butler
Complex, the Schodtttself would be left on an Island, per se,
[525] with youngsters crossing two main highways; and, sec-
ondly, the lack of students to attend this school.
Q. Now, has the State of Michigan ever indicated to you
whether or not—so indicated to the Board of Education whether
its program of converting these two streets into boulevards has
been abandoned? A. No, they have not.
Q. Has the State of—or, I will withdraw that. What has
happened to Michigan Avenue School as far as the State of
Michigan? A. The State has purchased the building.
Q. And when did that take place, if you recall? A. Approxi-
mately two years ago.
Q. And since the State has taken or has purchased this build-
ing, do you know if any additional land became available to
the School District to use in connection with Michigan Avenue?
A. Only that land which we have purchased in this area.
—_— "a
Q. And where was that? A. This was to the south and west
of the Michigan Avenue School, approximately two to three
blocks.
Q. Do you know whether or not the State of Michigan has
abandoned its contemplated project of expanding the Capitol
Complex to the west? A. I do not.
[526] Q. Do you know whether in fact the State of Michigan
has developed other areas for Government—for State Govern-
ment buildings? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And where are they located? A. They are in the south-
west part of the community known as Windsor Township.
Q. Has there been any expansion of business in the area
that has affected decisions as to the elementary schools in their
so-called “River Island Area”? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What? A. Primarily the expansion of the Oldsmobile
plant.
Q. And are you familiar with the industry known as In-
dustrial Welding? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has any other activity taken place that has affected schools
in the so-called “River Island Area”? A. There is another factor
that has entered into it, and that was the expansion of the Lan-
sing Community College.
Q. And how did that effect elementary schools in that area?
A. By removing homes in their expansion program.
Q. And reducing the
tion.
A. Reducing the student popula-
Q. Have there been any other schools phased out in this [527]
area besides Kalamazoo and Lincoln? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were they? A. There has been the Townsend Street
School. !
— 235 —
Q. Now why was that phased out? A. The lack of student
population and the expansion of the downtown area.
The Court: We will take a recess at this time. 1:30.
(At 12:10 p.m. the noon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION, MONDAY, OCTOBER 20,
1975, 1:40 P.M.
The Court: All right. You may proceed.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Mr. Ebersole, do you recall when you were on the Board
in 1957 when a time came when some white people from the
Main Street attendance area requested the Board of Education
to take some action with regard to transferring students? A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you step down, and with reference to this
map, would you point out to the Court where the so-called
“Heatherwood Area” is located in the Lansing School District?
[528] A. Right in here.
Q. In Main Street. You may return to the stand.
At that time how was the population distributed in the Main
Street attendance area? A. Well, it was predominantly black.
Q. Where did the blacks tend to live and where did the
whites tend to live geographically? A. The whites tended to
live in the Heatherwood area as I pointed out. The blacks lived
to the south of that and to the east.
Now, what did the whites want the Board of Education to
do with regard to the matter of some change to be made in
Main Street attendance area? A. They wished the boundary
lines could be changed so that more whites could be brought
into the Main Street area.
— 236 —
Q. I am talking about whites now. A. Oh, excuse me. I
don't know.
Mr. Newman: May I ask a leading question, your Honor?
The Court: Yes, you may.
Q. Was there a time when some of the white residents of the
Main Street attendance area wanted a portion of Main Street
detached from the Main Street attendance area, or do you recall
that? [529] A. Yes.
Q. All right. What did they want the Board of Education
to do? A. To attach to that another elementary attendance area.
Q. And did the Board of Education grant that request? A.
They did not.
Q. Then subsequently did some of the black parents come to
the Boerd of Education with a request with regard to Main
Street School attendance area? A. Yes, they did.
Q. And do you recall what the representatives of the Black
community in that area desired? A. They also desired a change
of boundaries in which Blacks could be transferred to another
school.
Q. And was that request granted? A. It was not.
Q. Now, why were both of these requests refused? A. For
the simple reason that again—at that time the philosophy of
the Board was this was a neighborhood school and that the
youngsters would do as well or better within their own neigh-
borhood school concept than picking them up and transferring
them to another district.
The Court: Just a moment. In the Main Street School in
the Heathers Addition—
The Witness: Heatherwood.
[530] The Court: Heatherwood.
=
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Heatherwood was predominately white and the
Main Street was predominately black?
The Witness: That's right.
Mr. Newman: Excuse me, your Honor——
The Court: Now could you change the boundaries in any
way which would dilute the composition of each school?
The Witness: Not and do what the folks requested.
The Court: Well, that isn’t the question. The question is
could it be done?
The Witness: At that time?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: No.
The Court: Why not?
The Witness: Because of the distance that the youngsters
would have to walk to get to school.
The Court: Is that the only reason?
The Witness: Weil, that was a predominate reason, yes.
The Court: What was the distance?
The Witness: That I wouldn't know. I'd have to go back
and measure it.
[531] The Court: Was it a mile?
The Witness: Oh, yes, at least a mile.
The Court: A mile and a half?
The Witness: Yes, yes, sir.
The Court: Not all children would have to walk a mile and
a half?
— 238 —
The Witness: No, not all of them.
The Court: If they're adjoining, those closer to the dividing
line would have to walk less distance probably than those who
were more remote from the line?
The Witness: Not in the composition of the neighborhood.
We have a senior high school that sits between the two—sets
between the two schools, and they would have to be walking
around the senior high, either way.
The Court: Well, how big an area does the senior high take?
The Witness: Twenty-five acres.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Mr. Ebersole, with reference to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 57, do
you observe the Main Street attendance area, the Verlinden
attendance area and the Michigan Avenue attendance areas?
[532] A. I do.
Q. Would you step down and point out to the Court where
those three areas are? A. Main, Michigan, Verlinden?
Q. Now, will you point on that map where the Heatherwood
attendance—or, where the whites living in Main Street area?
A. In here.
The Court: And that’s what?
The Witness: Beg your pardon?
The Court: And that’s what?
The Witness: That's the Heatherwood area in the Main
Street.
The Court: You see, when we put it on the record, we have
to have it identified.
The Witness: I am sorry.
— 239 —
The Court: The “here” wouldn't be intelligible to the review-
ing Court.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. The Court is asking whether that is north, south, east, or
west so that the record will reflect. Now with regard to Main
Street attendance area, what part is the so-called “Heatherwood”
that was predominately white at that time? A. That is in the
northern part of the Main Street attendance area.
[533] Q. And then what is the school service area of Michigan?
A. Michigan is a corridor-type running east and west between
Verlinden and Main.
Q. Now, where in the Michigan attendance area is Sexton
High School located? A. Sexton High is in the western part of
the Michigan attendance area.
Q. Now if the whites had been detached from Main and
attached to Verlinden, what would have happened to Michigan
Avenue? A. Well, if any boundary changes were to be made in
here, all three schools would have had to be taken into consider-
ation.
Q. But assuming the boundary lines were simply changed at
the north end of Main and the corridor of Michigan was chopped
off so that you had lines running from Verlinden extending down
to Main, what racial composition would be picked up if that
were done? A. White.
Q. Now, at that time—this is 1957. A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the racial makeup of Michigan Avenue? A.
That was white.
Q. And if, on the other hand, assuming that the lines had
been extended north from Main up to Verlinden, again would
you have to cut off the Sexton area? [534] A. You are presum-
ing to take the northern boundary of Michigan?
— 240 —
Q. Yes. No, the northern boundary of Main and extend it
north. A. To the northern boundary of Michigan?
Q. Well, up into the Verlinden area. A. Again, you would
wind up with predominately whites.
Q. All right.
The Court: That would be the consequence of that?
The Witness: Yes, sir. But remember you have Sexton High
School in here, of which you have no population at all, and the
northern boundary of Michigan borders right on Sexton High
School, so you would pick up very, very few whites, if you were
to move this boundary up here.
The Court: Well, if the request of the Blacks at Main was to
include more people in the Heather-——
The Witness: Heatherwood.
The Court: —-—wood Addition——
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: ——-your denial of that request maintained then
a predominantly black school and a predominantly white school?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
[535] The Court: That was a consequence of that decision?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Well, I think you misspoke, Mr. Ebersole. Heatherwood
is in Main, Main attendance area.
The Court: Well, the white—then what area of it did the
blacks request that you include in the Main Street School?
The Witness: They didn’t request any special area. They
wanted us to take this whole area in here and redraw boundaries
="
so that the mix was changed around. We had the Administra-
tion study it, and they could come to no satisfactory conclusion
that the boundary lines could be changed so a satisfactory de-
cision could be made so the youngsters that were black could
get to either Verlinden and/or Michigan so the racial mix would
be better.
Q. At that time was anyone suggesting that students should
be bussed? A. No, sir.
Q. Now with regard to the two buildings, the school building
at Main and the school building at Verlinden, are these buildings
described in any particular descriptive phrase [536] that indi-
cates anything as to their similarity? A. They're identical twins.
Q. And were both of these—were additions added to both of
these buildings? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were both of these buildings modernized? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Do you favor a neighborhood school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why? A. This gives the youngster the best opportunity
of having not only the association of the school, but the asso-
ciation of the parents and the parent working with the school
for the best educational possibility for the youngster.
Mr. Newman: You may cross-examine.
Cross-Examination of Vernon D. Ebersole
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Mr. Ebersole, I understand you have been ill lately, is
that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. cross-examination may take a while, and i would
like it, if it goes on and you would like water or something, to
let me know, because I do—— A. I have a signal with the
gentleman, I will raise my hand.
— 242 —
[537] The Court: And if you want to quit anytime, just let us
know.
The Witness: I know. I am okay.
Q. Going back to 1957, I am going to hand you Plaintiffs’
Exhibits 68 through 71. I am going to give the Judge a copy.
Mr. Davis: These are the Court copies, your Honor, just so
you can follow us.
Q. You indicated that a group of black parents came to you
and asked that the boundary line be changed from Main Street
School to go north and include some whites, is that correct? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And I believe you indicated that the reason that could
not be done was distance, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in looking at the map before us, can you indicate
or tell me whether I am correct: To take the Main boundary
line and to move it up adjacent to the Verlinden boundary line,
it’s two blocks? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you would have to move the boundary line an addi-
tional two blocks to include white students in the Main at-
tendance area? A. That's right.
{538} Q. And it was your feeling at that time that to move the
attendance area two blocks, that children had to travel an
unreasonable long distance? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Isn't it true that from the western edge of Michigan,
Michigan Avenue attendance area, that their closest school
would have been Main or Verlinden as opposed to Michigan,
looking at your map? A. No, I don’t agree.
Q. Then it is your—and we can draw our own conclusions
from the map—but it is your testimony that the area farthest
west of the Michigan attendance area is closer to Michigan
than it is to Verlinden or Main? A. Mr. Davis, let's put the
record straight. The farthest attendance area encompasses this
On si a
>
: ="
Sexton High School plot, and there are no youngsters or houses
within that area.
Q. Well A. So that the first street would be—and I
think it is McPhearson (to the Court) here, we are talking
about this. You have got it upside down for me.
Here it is. Right here. This is Main, this is Michigan, this
is Michigan area here. There is nothing in here. This would
be the first street that would have any houses on, and then
on the east side of the street only, so that even the youngsters
here would have farther [539] to go to Michigan than here—
or, to Main rather than they would to Michigan. Now, do you
want me to spell that out for the record?
The Court: Were you getting that?
The Reporter: I was taking it down, Judge.
The Court: You did take it down?
The Reporter: Yes.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: Is that clear enough?
The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Davis:
Q. In 1957 a committee was appointed to investigate,
among other things, the boundary lines between Main and
Verlinden and Michigan, were they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were on the Board when this Committee was
appointed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this Committee studied the situation and came back
with recommendations, did they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did this Committee, after its study and evaluation
in 1957, come back and recommend that in fact the Main
—— 968
Street School boundary line should be changed? A. I don't
recall.
Q. Let me refresh your recollection, sir.
[540] The Court: What report is that?
Mr. Davis: This is contained in your pretrial statement, the
minutes of March 28, 1957.
The Witness: Here.
The Court: Counsel, the Exhibit number of that?
Mr. Davis: That is the pretrial statement, our agreed stipu-
lations of fact. I am referring to these minutes.
Q. Can you indicate your conditions by reading the second
and third—well, read the first three paragraphs of that, to
refresh your recollection. Could you read it out loud, please.
A. Surely. “It was moved by Rosa, seconded by Ebersole that
the following resolution concerning the Main Street School
area be adopted:
“Whereas, the number of Negro children attending the Main
Street Elementary School has been increasing materially in
recent years until at the opening of school in September of °56
the school was slightly overcrowded and the enrollment con-
sisted of 62 Negroes———”
Q. That is percent, isn’t it, sir? A. “62 percent, which over-
crowding was soon eliminated and the percentage of Negroes
reduced to 55 percent by adjustments to school boundaries,
and
[541] “Whereas, the Board of Education considered that the
trend of an increasing ratio of Negro to white enrollment at
the Michigan Street School could develop into complete segre-
gation, a situation not conducive to satisfactory race relations,
and
“Whereas, after the Board had unsuccessfully sought a
means of reversing the trend towards a segregated Main Street
+a oe
—-+~»-———
=
School, it appointed a committee in response to a request by
parents from the area to analyze the conditions and recom-
mend corrective measures.”
Shall I go ahead?
Q. Yes, I want you to read the first recommendation be-
cause you indicated you weren't clear. A. “Whereas, the Com-
mittee recommended that the Board of Education, number one,
adjust further the school boundaries to reduce the Negro-to-
White ratio.”
Q. Thank you. Then the Committee you appointed in 1957
did in fact recommend the boundaries be changed? A. Ac-
cording to the record I just read, the answer is yes.
Q. Well, do you recall that the record indicates that you
seconded that resolution? A. Yes, sir, it is on the record.
Q. Now, did you in fact follow their recommendation? A.
No.
Q. And the reason was distance? [542] A. I would like to
refresh my memory as I did.
Q. I refer you to the second page of that resolution, and to
the third paragraph. A. “Whereas, after thorough study of
the recommendations, the Board of Education has concluded
that the first recommendations cannot accomplish any mate-
rial results unless some children travel unreasonably long dis-
tances.”
Q. Thank you. Then do you now recall that the reason the
boundaries were not changed was because of distances? A.
That’s what the record says, sir.
Q. Now I am going to ask you to look at the map before
you and look at the southern boundary line of Verlinden and
the area immediately north of that. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now that area was white, was it not? A. Yes, sir.
="
Mr. Davis: Does the Court see the area I am referring to?
The Court: Verlinden?
Mr. Davis: The southern portion of Verlinden.
The Court: Down here?
Mr. Davis: This area right here.
The Court: Which is Michigan?
Mr. Davis: No, in the Verlinden area.
[543] The Court: I mean Michigan Avenue?
Mr. Davis: Right. Between Michigan and Ottowa.
Q. And you indicate that area was white? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Ebersole: Isn’t it a fact upon
pressure from the community you in fact took that area, which
was white, from the Michigan attendance zone and made it a
part of Verlinden? A. I don’t recall.
Mr. Davis: For the Court's benefit, I refer to Answers to
Interrogatories, Answer to Interrogatory number 1B. It is on
the Answers to Interrogatories. This is a separate document.
The Court: Is that it?
Mr. Davis: No, it is a thick document. It is Answers to
Interrogatories.
(Discussion was had off the record at the bench.)
Mr. Davis: I am referring to this answer there.
The Court: I will read it. “The area between the City limits
on the west and Jenison Avenue on the east and between
Michigan Avenue on the south and Ottowa Street extended
from the City limits on the north [544] shall be removed from
the Michigan Avenue School area and added to the Verlinden
School area.” All right.
—
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Again I ask you, Mr. Ebersole, isn’t it a fact in 1957
you took an area that was composed of white children, took
it from Michigan Avenue and put it into Verlinden? A. If
that is the record, the answer is yes.
The Court: I read that for the purpose of relieving this wit-
ness of the burden of reading it.
The Witness: Thank you.
Q. And I believe you testified, Mr. Ebersole, that you were
in favor of the neighborhood concept, school concept? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And that your feeling in rejecting the various proposals
to change school boundary lines was in part premised upon
that belief, that children should attend their closest school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, did you not in fact second the motion to phase out
Kalamazoo Street School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you realize at that time for that entire attendance
area those children would not be able to attend their neigh-
borhood school? A. Yes, sir.
{545}; The Court: Was a consequence of that action by the
Board transferring Michigan—portions of Michigan’ to Verlin-
den, that those students transferred by the change of the bound-
ary would be going to a school other than its neighborhood
school?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: All right. What was the consequence of it?
The Witness: The real consequence was to relieve the over-
crowding of Michigan Avenue at the time. That was the rea-
son for the transfer.
By Mr. Davis:
—
Q. Mr. Ebersole, did you realize as a member of the Board
that the transfer policy existing within the District was being
used by white students to leave predominantly black schools
and to go to predominantly white schools? A. The policy you
are talking about is what?
Q. Using the special transfers to leave Main Street School,
Michigan Street School, and to go to Verlinden, did you rec-
ognize that? A. Yes, I do. A physician’s statement, you are
speaking about?
Q. Yes. But did you recognize the fact that that was being
misused by those children? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: Do you recall receiving a
[546] report from the Committee on school needs in 1961?
A. No, I don’t remember, but we probably did.
Q. Do you recall that in 1961 a report condemned the
practice of the misuse of these special transfers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall in 1964 a report of the Human Relations-—
a report to the Human Relations Committee that again con-
demned this practice? A. I wouldn’t deny it.
Q. Do you recail the 1966 Citizens’ Advisory Committee
again condemning that practice? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Directing your attention to the placement of mobile
units at Main Street School, you recall that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the reason was that that school was overcrowded?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was consideration given at that time in light of the over-
crowding, the changing of boundaries? A. No, sir.
Q. No studies or anything were made to see that that would
work? A. No, I didn’t say that. Studies were made, and the
other schools had as many youngsters as they could take care
of at that time.
T
EE eeeoO
—"
[547] QO. Would that have been true with Verlinden Street
School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you indicate or explain to me why those years be-
tween 1962 and ‘65 Verlinden was overcrowded that the School
District permitted these transfers in numbers of 25 to 30 of
non-resident people into Verlinden, if it was overcrowded?
Mr. Newman: Your Honor, I would have to object that this
is a misstatement. The figure would reflect the non-residents in
Verlinden does not reflect a transfer of 25 to 30 a year or any
other figure.
Mr. Davis: Your Honor, I will refer to Plaintiff's Exhibit 21,
a report to the Human Relations Committee, which does not
talk about non-residents but talks about transfers. I refer to
Page—I believe it is on 154.
The Court: Is this the Human Relations Committee Report?
The Witness: That's correct.
Mr. Davis: That's correct.
The Court: 154?
Mr. Davis: Yes, Page 154.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Davis:
Q. The chart on this Exhibit being page 154, Plaintiff's
[548] Exhibit 21, shows, does it not, that there were 25 trans-
fers into Verlinden in ‘62-63, and 35 transfers into Verlinden
in 63-64, does it not?
The Court: I can’t see—do I have the right one?
(Discussion was had at the bench between Mr. Davis and the
Court out of the Reporter's hearing and off the record.)
The Court: All right.
— 250 —
Q. It reflects in "62-63 25 transferred in, and in °63-64 33
transferred in, correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Again then I ask you, do you have an explanation why
if Verlinden was overcrowded such a high number of transfers
were permitted into that school? A. I don’t recall that I said
Verlinden was overcrowded. What I said was that Verlinden
has enough students. There is a difference between having
enough students and overcrowding, and bringing these folks in
did not overcrowd the school, per se, during either of those two
years.
Q. But there was not enough additional room for any change
of boundaries, is that correct? A. That’s right, any significant,
change, yes, sir.
The Court: If I haven't requested it, I would like, and I think
it is important that I do have, [549] a list of every change of
boundary, at least from 1948 to the present time, in the School
District, including the annexations. All right.
Mr. Davis: I would indicate to the Court that one of our
interrogatories asked for all school boundaries, and contained in
the Answers to Interrogatories are all the school boundary
changes that the Board has indicated to the Plaintiffs.
The Court: Is this from 1948?
Mr. Davis: If I can find my interrogatory, | can——
Mr. Newman: I think actually you requested boundary line
changes to certain schools, and we furnished that information.
The Court: It is necessary that I have all boundary line
changes, particularly within that range of time.
Mr. Newman: Well, and I assume it is in order that we pre-
pare them?
The Court: Yes.
re
— 251 —
Mr. Newman: I would like to state this, your Honor: I don’t
believe the pleadings made any issue of boundary lines. The
only information that we were requested to furnish on boundary
lines are in the areas where the minority schools are located,
and we have [550] furnished that.
The Court: Mr. Newman, the Court has to have that infor-
mation in this case, and I direct the School Board to furnish
it to the Court.
Mr. Newman: Your Honor, I am not being disrespectful.
The Court: Yes, I know you are not, but I just want to make
sure that the order is understood.
Mr. Newman: All right. Now, your Honor, I have to give
you the unfortunate fact that the Board of Education will not
be able to provide very complete information, because when
boundary line changes are made, sometimes apparently this
was done, in all case I would guess it was done, without any
record being made as to what the boundary line was prior to
the change. All you have is the new boundary line, and in
some cases we have not been able to find, particularly, you
know, this is true with reference to the information Mr. Davis
asked, we did not find the original boundary lines for the school
attendance areas about which he inquired. We gleaned from
the minutes the changes that were recorded, but in some cases
there was no record available or discoverable as to what the
boundary lines were before.
Now as to what brought this about, I don’t know. i assume
there was a period of time when they [551] simply weren't keep-
ing records, I don’t know.
The Court: Boundary line changes are an ingredient or is
an ingredient which is considered as a major factor in cases of
this kind.
Mr. Newman: Well, again, I just want the record to show
that we have some practical problems. We are not trying to
— 252 —
evade or avoid. Good heavens, we spent probably, I don't
know, a hundred hours going through the minutes searching
for the information Mr. Davis asked for.
The Court: I know it is a heavy burden preparing for and
trying these cases, and I am well aware of it.
Mr. Newman: Your Honor, I am not complaining. I am just
explaining what has happened, and I don’t want anyone to
think we didn’t search and didn't look.
The Court: I acknowledge that that is what you are doing.
Mr. Newman: I guess I am complaining, but I am not being
obnoxious.
The Court: I recognize both.
By Mr. Davis:
Q. In that same vain, Mr. Ebersole, well, let me ask you:
Was there a time that Main Street School was immediately
[552] adjacent to Verlinden? A. You mean the boundary lines?
Q. Yes. A. I don’t recall.
Q. Do you know what the boundary lines for Main Street
School were prior to 1956? A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Ebersole, you have testified about the composition of
the Citizens’ Committee in 1966. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you pointed out who a number of those members
were. Let me ask you this: Did you have confidence in that
Committee? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you think they would do a fine and thorough job?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When they recommended an end—when they recom-
mended boundary line changes, was there any particular reason
why you did not accept that part of their proposal? A. Mr.
ee
— 253 —
Davis, as I recall, I believe our resolution that we just read
from a few minutes ago outlined the reason why.
Q. All right. That was in 1957. I am now referring to 1966:
would the reason have been the same? A. No, I don't recall.
[553] Q. Now I don't want to be argumentative at all. A.
Neither do I.
Q. I understand in ‘57 you couldn't change the boundary
lines because of distance? A. Right.
Q. But °67 you took an action that would send all of the
children from Kalamazoo for a much longer distance, bussing
them out; I wonder if you can reconcile those two views? A.
I think so. In °57 the issue of bussing hadn't even entered into
the picture as far as the Lansing School System was concerned.
The only busses we had at that time was the one school bus
that we had inherited with the Everett Elementary School.
Q. By 1967 you had busses and your philosophy was dif-
ferent about——— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Transporting them by bus then? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Then from "67 up until "72 you voted against
bussing children, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you reconcile those two views, how in "67 it was
all right to bus, at least the blacks out, but in ‘72 it was again
not all right? [554] A. Perhaps I made a mistake in ‘67.
Q. Well, did you take any act to end this one-way bussing
after you had found you had made a mistake? A. As an in-
dividual?
Q. As a Board member. A. No.
Q. Do you recall the Board member that served with you
in 1971? A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, were they good Board members? A.
Yes.
— 254 —
Q. Again directing your attention to mobile units, Defend-
ants’ Exhibit 16 concerning mobile unit locations indicates that
in 1972 and °73 mobile units were placed at Verlinden, is that
what you recall? A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it a fact—was the reason that Verlinden was be-
coming overcrowded? A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it a fact in "72-73 when Verlinden was becoming
overcrowded, that Main Street School was showing a lot of
vacancies, was uncrowded? A. Not that I recall, no.
Q. I now refer to the Ethnic Count report for 1972, for
1973, the fourth Friday count, I can give you an Exhibit [555]
Number on that.
Mr. Newman: What Exhibit Number?
Mr. Davis: Part of the year 72-73.
Okay. That would be Exhibits 63 and 72.
Q. And ask you, Mr. Ebersole, if you will indicate the num-
ber of students at Main for those two years? A. °72, 283.
73, 232.
Q. All right. The enrollment was decreasing, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was far under capacity, was it not? A. Yes.
Q. Then the question again that I asked you, at the time
that you put mobile units at Verlinden because it was over-
crowded, was during the same period of time that Main was
showing a lot of vacancies? A. Well, Mr. Davis, there is more
that goes into it than just spaces for youngsters.
Q. I know, but my question to you is, at the time you put
mobile units there A. The answer is yes.
Q.
is yes.
there was space available in Main? A. The answer
|
— 255 —
The Court: He said the answer is yes.
Mr. Davis: Thank you.
Q. Directing your attention to the October 9th, 1975 Board
[556] of Education meeting, can you indicate to the Court how
you voted on the Administration’s proposed plan? A. You will
have to fill me in a little more than that, Mr. Davis.
Q. Do you recall the time when Dr. Candoli presented a
plan to the Board of Education calling for an addition to Cluster
II, plus the additions to Clusters IV and V? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Can you indicate how you voted at that time? A. I voted
no.
Q. Can you indicate to the Court why? A. Yes. I was
opposed to going along on the full program as Dr. Candoli
outlined it, because of the fact that Clusters IV and V had not
been presented to the community or the communities which
would be involved in this, and I feel very strongly that they
should have the opportunity of discussing and knowing just
what is involved in forming these two new Clusters.
Q. Would it be your position then that the Board should
not take any action in this regard unless the community says
it is okay? A. No.
Q. Would the attitudes of the community affect your de-
cision as to whether or not you supported or didn’t support it?
A. No.
[557] Q. Then if the attitudes of the community would not make
a difference in your decision, why then postpone it until the
community tells you what their attitudes are? A. Well, let's
reverse that. I didn’t say what the attitudes of the community
were. I said so you could have the opportunity of having the
community know what is involved in the Cluster Program so
that they could be educated into what is involved and how
they would enter into the whole picture.
— 256 —
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not we should
add Clusters IV and V? A. Yes.
Q. What is that opinion? A. No.
Q. And are there any other reasons for your opinion other
than the community has not had an opportunity to know? A.
I think I have expressed that, that I think we should have the
neighborhood school concept.
Q. What would be your view, Mr. Ebersole, as to who should
fill this new facility, who should attend it? A. Well, Mr. Davis,
since we are under an injunction from the Court not to build
the building, I think this is an irrelevant question at this time.
The Court: It is relevant at this time. It would assist the
Court in making a judgment [558] that it has to make in the
case.
Q. Do you recall the question?
The Court: You were not enjoined from testifying. You
were just enjoined from continuing with construction. So there
is no injunction by this Court limiting your testimony.
The Witness: By the same token, you enjoined us to present
a plan to you for the operation of this school.
The Court: The Court has to make a ruling before that school
operates.
The Witness: Right.
The Court: And it has to know what your intentions are,
what your plans for that school are. The Court is concerned
about no plan at all.
The Witness: Which we didn’t have.
The Court: And the building underway making way.
The Witness: Right.
i
—
The Court: With the intervening time between the last session
and this Court and the convening of the present session of the
Court, the time in which the Court was of the opinion that you
would be working on plans, which the Court could evaluate, so
your—the question which counsel has asked may be asked,
and [559] I request you to answer it.
The Witness: All right. I am ready.
The Court: Thank you.
Q. Do you recall the question? A. Would you want to re-
state it again, sir?
Q. Certainly. In your mind who would attend the Vivian
Riddle School? A. My basic thought is the youngsters in the
neighborhood.
Q. And would that include the children from the Lincoln
and the Kalamazoo Street area? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you believe this with the recognition that if your
plan went through or your hopes went through, that this school
would be overwhelmingly black? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you supported the site location and the plan for this
school with that in mind? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis: I have no further questions.
Redirect Examination of Vernon D. Ebersole
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Mr. Ebersole;-with regard to the matter of bussing black
children from Lansing School District, were you present at the
meeting when the first bussing program was installed from Main
to Walnut? [560] A. I don’t think I was.
Q. And with regard to the second program at Lincoln Street,
or, Lincoln School, how did you vote on phasing out Lincoln
— 258 —
and transferring students by bus out of that attendance area?
A. I voted yes.
Q. You voted what? On Lincoln, I am talking about. A.
On Lincoln, no, I voted no.
Q. Now in 1969 when the vote was with regard to Kala-
mazoo, why did you vote then at that time, in favor of bussing
the children out from that attendance area? A. The school was
losing their population over a period of time for the reasons |
gave, the State Complex, the 1-496 Complex, to the point where
it was getting uneconomical to operate it with the number of
youngsters that would be attending. The situation worked out
at Lincoln apparently had been satisfactory, and this was the
best solution for this situation at that time.
Q. Now you were asked questions about use of special trans-
fers. Was the use of the so-called medical transfer solely for
the benefit of whites? A. No, sir.
Q. Was it available without restriction to anybody in the
School District? A. Yes, sir.
[561] Q. Do you know whether or not blacks as well as whites
used this program? A. They did.
Q. Now are you acquainted with Stuart Dunnings, Jr.? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Is he black or white? A. He is black.
Q. Is he the attorney for the Lansing School District? A.
He is.
Q. Do you know whether or not he actually presented medical
certificates for the transfer of some of his children? A. He did.
Q. And if anyone else presented such a statement from a
doctor, regardless of whether the person presenting it was black
or white or brown, would you feel it should be given considera-
tion? A. Yes, sir.
ooo
— 259 —
Q. Now you were asked apparently spaces becoming avail-
able in Main Street for 1972 and '73, and it was—you indicated
it appeared to be that there were spaces becoming available. Do .
you recall any structural changes made at Main Street that
affected the number of class rooms that were there, by either
increasing or decreasing them? A. No, I don't.
[562] Q. If the number of classrooms had been reduced, then
this figure as to the number of pupils that could be accom-
modated would also be reduced, would it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don’t recall whether that happened? A. No.
Q. Mr. Ebersole, I will inquire whether you recall if when
Mr. Hubbell and his associates conducted the survey in 1973,
if residents in the area of Main, Kalamazoo, Lincoln, and
Michigan were asked what they thought—what use they thought
should be made of the School that was to be built on the west
side of Lansing? A. Yes, I recall.
Q. And do you recall what the response of the largest single
number was?
Mr. Davis: Your Honor, at this point I am going to object.
I think the question calls for him to answer questions that more
appropriately would be asked of Mr. Hubbell. I point out that
his report is in evidence, and it seems as he is asking the witness
what Hubbell said. I object strenuously.
The Court: Do you have the Hubbell reports?
Mr. Newman: Yes, I do, your Honor.
The Court: I am talking to the Clerk [563] of the Court.
Mr. Newman: Well, your Honor, it is Defendants’ Exhibit
20.
The Witness: No, it is the one prior to that.
Mr. Newman: No, no. It is the 1973, Defendants’ Exhibit
20.
— 260 —
The Court: I have the Exhibit, counsel.
Mr. Newman: Sir?
The Court: I have the Exhibit now.
By Mr. Newman: .
Q. I invite your attention to question number 12. Will you
read the question, please? A. “In about two years a new school
will be built on the west side to replace the Michigan Avenue
School. Who do you think should go there?”
Q. And what was the first choice? A. “Neighborhood area
school children.”
Q. And does this Exhibit also reflect the average among
all of the school areas, as well as there is an average, and then
the figures for each individual school area, attendance area?
A. Yes.
Q. And what do they show? A. The average is 49 percent.
Main, 42 percent. Michigan [564] Avenue, 52 percent. Kala-
mazoo, 53 percent. Lincoln, 83 percent.
Mr. Newman: That is all I have.
Mr. Davis: Just one question, your Honor.
Recross-Examination of Vernon D. Ebersole
By Mr. Davis:
Q. You were asked concerning what had happened to the
capacity of Main Street School, whether it had been reduced,
et cetera. Do you recall that?
Mr. Davis: I refer the Court to Plaintiff's Exhibit 36, which
is a 1971 Facility Planning Study.
Q. And just ask you to indicate to the Court what the capacity
was of Main in 1971? A. 330.
— 261 —
Mr. Davis: All right. Thank you. I have no further ques-
tions.
Mr. Newman: I have no further questions of Mr. Ebersole.
your Honor.
The Court: You may stand down. Thank you very much,
Mr. Ebersole.
(Witness excused.)
* * * * * * *
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
RAY HANNULA
[320] called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly
sworn, testified as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Will you state your name in full? A. Ray Albert Han-
nula.
* * * * o > >
Q. How long have you lived in Lansing? A. All of my life.
Q. Are you a married man? A. Yes.
Q. Have you had any children? A. Yes.
[321] Q. How many? A. Three.
Q. And what schools have they attended in Lansing School
District? A. I have had a daughter attend Grand River Ave-
nue School, an elementary school; Wainright, Dwight Rich, and
Harry Hill; a son attended Wainright, Dwight Rich, and is
currently in Harry Hill. The daughter is graduated from Harry
Hill.
— 262 —
I have another son who is in special education who has at-
tended a variety of schools in the District.
* * * * * * *
Q. Now are you also connected with Lansing School Dis-
trict? A. Yes, I am.
Q. In what capacity? A. As a member of the Board of
Education.
Q. And how long have you been a member of the Board of
Education? A. Since July of 1971.
Q. And were you elected or appointed? [322] A. Elected.
Q. Have you held any office? A. Yes.
Q. What office? A. That of Secretary, and I am currently
serving as Vice President.
Q. Now did a time come when the Board of Education of
Lansing School District considered a program to change the
racial composition of some of the elementary schools? A. Yes.
Q. And when did that take place? A. This was approxi-
mately two and a-half to three years ago, as I recall, shortly
after I got on the Board.
Q. And did a time come when a plan was devised and the
Board of Education voted on it, a so-called “Cluster Plan”?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what that was? A. Again, that was
approximately two to two and a-half years ago.
Q. And were you present at the time the Board voted upon
the adoption or the rejection of the Cluster Plan? A. I was not.
Q. And where were you when the vote was taken? A. I was
attending a convention in New York City, and the [323] meet-
ing was a specially called meeting, June 29th.
— 263 —
Q. In connection with your employment or what? A. Yes,
in connection with my employment.
Q. And a special meeting was called June 29, 1972? A. Yes.
Q. By the Board of Education? A. Yes.
Q. Now, had you made your position with regard to the
Cluster Plan known to the other members of the Board of Edu-
cation? A. Yes.
Q. What was your position? A. I was opposed to it.
Q. And why were you opposed to it? A. Basically I felt that
I represented the voters of the Lansing School District, and it
was my opinion that 80 percent of them were opposed to this.
I did try to encourage my fellow members to, rather than
adopt it immediately, take a year, and if in fact this was the
thing, the type of thing we should do, to attempt to convince
the public, who I felt was unalterably opposed to it, that this
was the way we shouid go, sell the idea.
Q. Were you concerned about any phase of the plan or the
opcration of the plan as far as transportation of students was
concerned? [324] A. Yes. I guess I be'ieve in neighborhood
schools. I live in my present address for approximately fourteen
years, and the prime reason for moving there was to get closer
to an elementary school when my children started attending. |
mentioned that the daughter had attended Grand River Avenue
School for a short time. I think it was approximately one month.
We were situated on the street 918 Maryland, some eleven
blocks from that school, and my wife and I didn’t want her to
walk. So we did move. We moved across town away from
basically the area that both of us had grown up in where our
family and friends were, and moved completely across town
to a new area just to get close to an elementary school, and we
are currently one and a half blocks from Wainwright School.
Q. And how long ago was it you moved? A. Oh, it is ap-
proximately fourteen years.
— 264 —
Q. Now will you state whether or not you have any minority
neighbors in the area in which you reside?. A. Yes, I do. I
have a black man that lives the first house south of me, a black
family directly across the street. I would—and it is a guess—I
would guess it would be—Churchill Downs area is at least 10
percent minority. —
Q. Now, in arriving at the opinion you did about the adop-
tion of the Cluster Plan, were you motivated by [325] racial
considerations? A. No.
Q. Were there any considerations other than what you
thought the people of the community's reaction would be, plus
your feeling about bussing? A. I suspect there was some con-
sideration of cost. It would seem to me that the monies that
we were planning to—had proposed to be spent for bussing,
lunches, et cetera, might better be spent for additional staff,
aides, et cetera, within the existing neighborhood schools.
Q. And do you know approximately what the additional
cost for the operation of these Clusters? A. I understand it is
slightly over $100,000 per year continuing cost for the existing
Clusters, $150,000, somewhere in that neighborhood.
Q. Now, did a time come when there was a recall election?
A. Yes.
Q. And was a new Board elected? A. Yes.
Q. And did a time come when the Cluster Program resolu-
tion was reconsidered by the new Board—or, I will withdraw
that. How many new members were elected to the Board? A.
Five.
Q. And do you recall what the vote was about the adoption
[326] of the Cluster Plan to begin with? A. It was five to three.
Q. Five in favor and t! .ee against? A. Three against, yes.
Q. And after the recall election, were the five that voted in
favor of the Plan replaced? A. Yes.
— 265 —
Q. And did the Board subsequently rescind the Cluster
Resolution? A. Yes.
Q. How did you vote on that? A. I voted for rescission.
Q. And will you state whether or not this was consistent
with your position before the resolution was originally adopted?
A. It was.
Q. Were you racially motivated in the vote you cast? A. I
was not.
Mr. Newman: You may cross-examine.
Cross-Examination of Ray Hannula
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Mr. Hannula, how long have you been on the Board of
Education? A. Approximately four years.
Q. Were you on the Board at a time in 1970 when the [327]
Citizens’ Advisory Committee made their report to the Board?
A. Relative to desegregation of the elementary schools?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. And were you aware of the—or, did they make you
aware of the analysis and investigation they had done prior to
submitting this report? A. Yes.
Q. And were you aware they had been stud) '»g this for a
period of approximately a year? A. Yes.
Q. Were you aware they had all of the census figures, the
school enrollment figures, the projection figures at their dis-
posal? A. Yes.
Q. And they came back, did they not, and made three al-
ternative proposals? A. Yes.
Q. And each one of these three alternative proposals in-
volved much more wide-scale bussing than the one finally
adopted, isn’t that correct? A. That's true.
— 266 —
Q. One of their proposals would have involved all of the
elementary schools in the Lansing School District, is [328] that
true? A. That's my recollection.
Q. Another one would invoive approximately 25 of the ele-
mentary schools? A. I think it was approximately half, which
would be 25.
Q. And instead the Board of Education adopted, did they
not, a much less expensive plan? A. That's true.
Q. I believe you stated on direct examination that your sug-
gestion was that—or, you were telling the other Board members
they ought to wait another year, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And what was the purpose of this extra year you wanted
to wait? A. Well, we had a number of public hearings on the
three plans that were suggested by the ad hoc committee, and
we were getting quite a bit of input from the community at
those hearings, and we were getting—I am sure individually I
was—getting input from friends, foes, et cetera. My impres-
sion was that 75 to 80 percent of the community were violently
opposed to this plan.
Q. And that was your reason for opposing it, was it not,
was public pressure? A. Well, I wouldn’t—yes, I guess you
could call it that. I didn’t feel it as a pressure. I felt it as a
respon- [329] sibility to the voters who elected me.
Q. All right. But it was not any flaw or problem you found
with the plan? A. I wasn’t sure of the educational benefits that
would be derived from the plan, and I was also aware of the
pressure from the public for the bussing of the lower elementary
students or younger ones.
Q. K through 2? A. Yes, and K through 6, if you will.
Q. Were you concerned that the Cluster Plan may have an
adverse effect upon the achievement of students involved? A.
=—
No, but I didn’t necessarily believe it would have a positive
effect, either.
Q. Were you concerned that bussing would have a negative
effect on achievement level? A. No.
Q. So your main concern then was simply the public didn’t
want it? A. That, plus the question in my mind as to the edu-
cational benefits of it, and the cost.
Q. Did you have any other fears or concerns when you
voted to rescind the Cluster Plan that I haven't asked you about?
A. No.
Q. We have covered them—public opinion, cost, and whether
[330] or not there was any benefit to it, would that be a fair
statement? A. Yes.
Mr. Newman: I think he included bussing.
The Court: Pardon?
Mr. Newman: I believe that Mr. Hannula said his concern
about bussing was another reason. I am sure that was inadvert-
ently overlooked. But when a summary is asked, I think every-
thing should be included.
Mr. Davis: Well, let me———
The Court: Well, Mr. Newman, let’s get things straight now;
you have an opportunity to rehabilitate your client, or your
witness, on redirect, and instead of—if he omits something,
you can furnish the omission without interfering with the cross-
examination. .
Mr. Newman: Your Honor, I apologize. I intended to state
an objection. That would embrace my objection, that he had
given four things, not just three. I agree that I didn’t follow
the proper procedure. I am sorry. I will observe it the next
time and state an objection rather than an observation.
The Court: Fine. Thank you.
— 268 —
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Did you have a concern about bussing itself? [331] A.
Yes. I think that is the concern that I felt that the public had,
basically. a
Q. I am talking about your concerns. Did you have a con-
cern as « Board member about bussing? A. Yes.
Q. And what was this concern? A. The concern was that
I feel that people move into an area, and basically one of the
prime reasons they move where they are is to locate next to
elementary schools, which is why I moved, and I felt that a
person who is selecting a home in a particular area to be next
to a school ought not be subjected to having his child bussed
away from that school that he purposely located next *o.
Q. Is that concern that you have equally applicable to black
families as to white? A. Yes.
Q. And can I ask you where was this concern when your
Board bussed blacks from Lincoln up to Kendon? A. Well, in
this instance I wasn’t on the Board at the time that was done.
I believe that the Lincoln School was demolished, torn down
to make room for Oldsmobile’s expansion, and the children
were bussed out of that attendance area to an available school.
I personally may have chosen a closer school.
Q. Well, where was this concern when the Board bussed the
[332] blacks from Kalamazoo to eight or ten outlying districts?
A. Again the same thing is true. It was a decision reached be-
fore I was on the Board.
Q. Well, what about the bussing of a certain portion of the
Main Street students out? That School remained open, did it
not? A. Yes, and that was in effect at the time I was elected
to the Board.
Q. Well, did you personally make any move to rescind any
of these plans? A. No.
— 269 —
Q. Why? A. Well, at the time 1 came on the Board the
whole question of the desegregation of the elementary schools
was under consideration. I felt that the policies and practices
that were in effect were those that should be kept until we
could reach some type of decision regarding these.
Q. Well. at the time of the rescission weren't we talking about
a plan that was in effect? A. We were talking about the Cluster
Plan, not the other portion of the bussing.
Q. But in 1973 when you voted for rescission, the bussing
for the Cluster Plan was already in operation, was it not? A.
That’s true.
[333] Q. Just as the bussing in the Main Street attendance
area to the outlying districts was in effect? A. I am not sure
that under the Cluster Plan students from Main Street bussed
other than to Cluster Schools.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: Do you know what the effect,
or did you know what the effect of the rescission would be
when you voted to rescind that plan? A. In my estimation,
it would have eliminated the clusters and left the bussing of
Kalamazoo Street attendance area children and perhaps Main
Street and whatever else was involved back to what it had been
before the imposition of the clusters.
Q. In other words, and correct me if I am wrong, it would
have stopped the bussing of white children, but the bussing
of black children would have continued? A. That’s true, I
would think.
Q. And you knew the effect of that rescission would be to
send black children, who were then attending desegregated
schools, back to segregated schools? A. No, those that are
bussed out of Kalamazoo are going to predominantly majority
student schools.
Q. Well, talking about the children from Main that under
the Cluster Plan were bussed to desegregated schools, you knew
—
the effect of that rescission would be to send those children
back to segregated Main Street School? [334] A. Yes.
Q. The same is true of that effect in terms of both black
children and Michigan Avenue School? A. Yes.
Q. You knew the. rescission would be taking them out of
desegregated schools and sending them back to Michigan?
A. Yes.
Q. I assume the rest of the Board knew of this effect? A.
I am sure they did.
Q. Were you present at a Board of Education meeting
October 9th when the new Cluster Plan was presented? A. I
was.
Q. And were you informed by the staff or the administration
that there were certain schools within a district not involved in
the cluster that were becoming segregated? A. Yes.
Q. Were you informed that a plan had been devised to
eliminate this? A. Yes.
Q. And was that plan explained to you? A. It was.
Q. Did that explanation contain facts and figures in terms of
projected enrollment under the plan? A. Yes, I believe it did.
Q. And were you told that as to Cluster Two, the only [335]
effective way to desegregate that facility was to add two more
schools to it? A. Per this plan, yes.
Q. And can you tell the Court after that explanation what
your vote was? A. I was opposed to it.
Q. Why? A. Because again it was an expansion of the
Cluster Plan that was in existence that we are forced to continue
by an injunction, and I still feel that the community is opposed
to this Cluster bussing.
Q. Then is it your position that you will be opposed to any
desegregation plan as long as it is your feeling that the com-
am BE a
munity doesn't want it? A. No. It would depend on what was
involved. I can bluesky a number of types of things that perhaps
would accomplish desegregation in the community. Quite
frankly, I don’t know how we would go about it. I think if there
were a way that the School Board would encourage open hous-
ing, integrated neighborhoods, I would support it 100 percent.
I think this is the natural way for people to live together, and
to select the portion of town they wish to live in and the school
that their children should attend.
Q. And that’s the only sort of proposal that you will go along
with, one that encourages open housing, et cetera? [336] A.
No, I didn’t say that. I said I could imagine that as one possible
solution.
Q. Do any other solutions come to mind, other than sug-
gesting that the residential patterns be changed? A. Not at this
point in time.
Q. Well, do you believe changing of school district boundary
lines would help? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have school district boundary line changes in
mind? A. None have been recommended by the Administra-
tion, but perhaps that might be another way.
Q. Well, do you think if I showed you a school district map
you could indicate some boundary lines that may have an
effect? A. No, because I am not 100 percent assured of the
distribution of the minority-majority people in a particular
school attendance area, but perhaps gerrymandering could be
done for integration.
Q. I see. So while you voted no on the Cluster II, you did
not have any alternatives in mind? A. No, I did not.
Q. And the proposal was made, was it not. to add Clusters
4 and 5? A. Yes.
Q. And you voted no on that? [337] A. Yes.
=
Q. I assume for the same reason? A. Yes.
Q. The public didn't want it? A. Yes.
Mr. Davis: No further questions.
Mr. Newman: I have no further questions.
The Court: Did you ever take into consideration any of the
Constitutional obligations placed upon you as a Board member
by the Constitution of the State of Michigan?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Did you read that section of the Constitution
of the State of Michigan on discrimination?
The Witness: No, I don’t think I have.
The Court: You have never read them?
The Witness: But I am aware of the contents.
The Court: So in your calculation of what you do, you
didn’t take into consideration the Constitutional provisions of
the Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitutional provisions
of the State of Michigan?
The Witness: I feel that I have. I feel [338] that this
School District has never acted consciously to deprive any body
of people their Constitutional rights, their equal rights. I
strongly favor integrated schools. I live in an integrated neigh-
borhood myself. I think it is good. I think it is good for the
children, I think it is good for the adults. I do feel that I was
elected to office to represent the public as well as uphold the
Constitution of the State of Michigan. I think I have done that.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Davis: Nothing further.
. * . * > > +
i a a
=—
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
[233] NED S. HUBBELL,
called as a witness by the defendants, being first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Mr. Hubbell, will you please state your name? A. Ned
S. Hubbell.
Q. And where do you live? A. In Port Huron, Michigan,
1004 Hollis Street.
[234] Q. What is your age, sir? A. 46.
Q. And what is your educational background? A. I have a
Bachelor’s Degree from Northwestern University, and a Master's
Degree from Wayne State University, and some additional gradu-
ate work at some three other universities.
Q. And are you engaged in a business or occupation? A. I
have my own consulting firm for the past 8 years, a professional
firm that specializes largely in educational school-community
relations and opinion research.
Q. And have you conducted surveys in connection with
your work? A. Yes. Particularly an increased number in the
last two or three school years. This school year alone, the one
just completed, we have conducted opinion polls for nine school
district opinion polls in this year. About 25 school districts,
I believe, in the last two and a half to three years.
Q. Have you conducted any opinion polls for the Lansing
School District? A. We conducted initially in the spring an
opinion poll [235] conducted on behalf of the Lansing Schools,
utilizing voluntary interviewers, and more recently, conducted
a specific opinion poll of a part of the Lansing School area, as
recently as the first week of July.
ao SPO oe
Q. Now, what was the request that was made to you rela-
tive to the conducting of this survey? A. We were asked if
we could systematically poll the opinions of school parents
in an area of the School District that comprised four attendance
areas, elementary [236] school attendance areas. I believe just
two schools were operative in those areas. They were the Main
School area, Michigan School area, Kalamazoo and Lincoln
School area.
[246] We asked them who did they think should attend the
new Michigan Avenue School when it was built and completed
on the west side. Nearly half of them, 49 percent said that
ir should be neighborhood area children. About one-fourth, 29
percent, suggested the new school be an integrated school.
Another 16 percent said it should be open to all students.
* € * * * * >
[255] Q. And by ethnic group, 67 percent of the whites thought
it should be a neighborhood area school? A. Yes, sir, that
is correct.
Q. 49 percent of the blacks thought it should be a neighbor-
hood area school? A. That is correct.
* * * . * * *
Testimony at Trial
[185] A. Our firm was retained by the Lansing School Dis-
trict in [186] September of 1974 to conduct one part of an
evaluation that they were undertaking later that year of the
Cluster Plan. The Board instructed us to—as part of that evalu-
ation, to conduct an opinion research project designed to seek
opinions from those directly affected by the Cluster Plan.
[198] The major drawback of the Cluster Plan, according to
Lansing elementary teachers and support staff members, is that
—
it takes children away from their neighborhood schools through
busing.
* * * * 7 > *
[199] About one-fourth of the present and former Cluster par-
ents felt the plan had had—has had a negative effect on their
children. But as the next transparency shows, the majority of
present Cluster parents and nearly half of those who did have
children in the Cluster schools last year feel the plan has had
no effect on their youngster.
* * * * * * >
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
[295] JOHN LEWIS, JR.,
called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly sworn
testified as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Newman:
Q. Will you please state your name in full? A. John Lewis,
Jr.
Q. And did you receive a subpoena that required your pres-
ence in court today? A. I did.
Q. And are you here in response to that subpoena, are you
not? A. I am.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Lewis? A. 1520 West Lenawee,
Lansing, Michigan.
Q. And what is your age? A. 41.
Q. Are you a married man? A. I am.
Q. And did you have any children? A. Yes.
[296] Q. How many? A. Four.
=
Q. And have they attended the Lansing School System
schools? A. They have.
Q. And did you attend a college or a university? A. I did.
Q. And what was that? A. Michigan State University.
Q. Where are you employed, Mr. Lewis? A. Oldsmobile.
Q. And what is the nature of your employment? A. I am in
the Labor Relations Department. I am a representative.
Q. And did your children attend any elementary school in
the Lansing School District?
The Court: You say—pardon me. You say you are a rep-
resentative. Are you a representative [297] of the Oldsmobile
people or a representative of the Union?
The Witness: I am on the Labor Relations staff at Oldsmobile
representing Oldsmobile management.
The Court: All right. Thank you.
Q. Did your children attend elementary school in Lansing?
A. They did.
Q. And what school did they attend? A. Main Street.
Q. And was there a time when there was a principal at—
well, I will withdraw that. For the record, because the Re-
porter just takes down words, would you state whether you are
black or white? A. Black.
Q. And while your children were in elementary school, were
you acquainted with any principal at that school? A. Yes, I was.
Q. And how many principals did you know there? A. Two
Q. And who were they? A. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Keyes.
Q. Now have you been a member of any parent-teacher’s as-
sociation? A. Yes.
an $97
Q. What parent-teachers’ association? [298] A. Main Street
PTA and several other PTA units at some of the other schools.
Q. And do you know about how long Mr. Hayes served as a
principal at Main Street School? A. Not exactly. I would
imagine that’s going back quite a ways. I would say somewhere
in the neighborhood of maybe eight to ten years, I think.
Q. Now did you hold any office in the Main Street Parent-
Teachers’ Association? A. I was President of the Main Street
PTA.
Q. Were you acquainted with a gentleman by the name of
Stuart A. Nolan? A. Yes.
Q. Did he hold any office in the Main Street Parent-Teach-
ers’ Association? A. I believe he was either Father Vice—he was
the Vice President.
Q. Now did a time come in the year 1966 when you and
| Mr. Noland on behalf of the Main Street Parent-Teachers’ As-
sociation wrote a letter to Dr. Manning concerning J. E. Hayes?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you state for the record whether Stuart Nolan
was black or white? A. He was black.
[299] Q. And would you state for the record whether J. E.
Hayes was black or white? A. He was white.
Q. Now what was the reason you wrote to Doctor—or, |
will withdraw that. Do you recall what Mr. Manning’s position
was in Lansing School District? A. I believe he was the Super-
intendent. |
Q. And do you recall the reason for having written to Dr.
Manning on behalf of the Main Street Parent-Teachers’ As-
sociation? A. I think so. I think that was at a time that Mr.
Hayes, we were about to lose our principal, who we thought very
highly of, and we did as a PTA send a letter to the Board of
an $98 <=
Education recommending that he be considered for an admin-
istrative post.
Q. And did you indicate to the Administration how you
regarded the way in which Mr. Hayes performed his duties at
Main Street School? A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe we
did.
Q. And do you recall how you made that indication or what
you said, in substance? A. Well, if I am permitted to say, we
were all very fond of Mr. Hayes, and we were pleased with the
job that he had done working in conjunction with the PTA at
Main Street School.
[300] Q. And what kind of school was operated there as far
as you were concerned with regard to making—learning possi-
bilities available to your children? A. Let me say, at that time
I think that Mr. Hayes, along with his staff, did an excellent
job.
Q. And how did you and the PTA members regard the school
in comparison to other elementary schools in Lansing School
District? A. Well, that was our school, and naturally we felt
that there wasn’t another school in the City any better.
Q. And do you recall the makeup of the staff there with re-
gard to the number who were black and the number who were
white? A. No, I can’t honestly sit here and say that | do—can
differentiate specifically.
Q. Okay. Were there some black teachers there? A. Yes.
Q. Were there some white teachers there? A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you have already testified that you thought
that was a very good staff? A. Yes.
Q. Thank you very much.
Mr. Newman: You may cross-examine.
—
{301] Cross-Examination of John Lewis, Jr.
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Mr. Lewis, you testified a letter was written to representa-
tives of the Board of Education commending a principal, is that
correct? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you make any other communications, either written
or verbal, to the Board of Education? A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever complain about anything to the Board of
Education? A. Let’s say I stated my opinions about certain
situations that existed in the School System to the Board of
Education, yes.
Q. Can you indicate to the Court the nature of some of your
complaints? A. The one complaint that I had—and this is just
one among many, but this is what I feel was the key complaint,
was the fact that our school over there, even in light of the fact
of the excellent staff they had there at Main Street School,
nevertheless it was a situation whereby—and I am not exact on
these percentages, but Main Street School was approximately 80
percent black, and this was disturbing, and this was a topic
of discussion throughout my stint at Main Street School with
[302] the Administration and so forth. Our feelings and my
feeling were then, and are now, that an individual, a youngster
cannot get quality education in a segregated environment. That
is because when he goes out into the world after his school days,
he doesn’t go out into the world into an all black and/or an all
white world, but a mixture of all kinds of races, creeds, colors,
and so forth. And if he doesn’t have the—if he isn’t exposed to
this sort of thing while he is experiencing a learning process in
school, then his ability to communicate with those other people
out there in the world, he is at a loss. That is my personal feel-
ings, and that also was the feelings of the PTA Board.
Q. These were expressed to the Board of Education? A. They
were.
— 280 —
Q. Did you actualiy go down to the Board of Education
meetings and express this? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did you also have occasion to complain to the Board of
Education about the one-way bussing? A. Very definitely.
Q. And can you indicate the nature of your complaint about
one-way bussing? A. Well, first of all, we felt that our school
was an excellent school, both the structure and the staff that
[303] we had there, and we felt kind of being slapped in the face
when it was being talked about taking our kinds out from our
school and filtering them in at some of the other schools, but
yet still no one out of the other schools were being brought into
Main Street, and this highly upset us.
Q. So your feeling was then that if they were going to trans-
port the black children from Main Street School to the outlying
schools, that they should also bring children from the outlying
schools into Main Street School? A. That is correct.
Q. And these feelings were expressed to the Board of Educa-
tion? A. They were.
Q. Do you recall whether or not you or your group ever
mentioned to the Board by complaint or otherwise anything to
do with school boundaries? Do you recall that or not? A. We
may have, but to recall it vividly, that I couldn't attest to.
Q. Are you familiar with the term “gerrymandering of bound-
aries? A. Vaguely, yes.
Q. Is it your feeling then that as President of the PTA some-
thing had been done with the boundaries, gerrymandering
[304] of the boundaries?
Mr. Newman: Well, until the basis is laid to show that any-
thing was done to the boundaries with regard to this school and
this witness was aware of anything that was done to the bound-
aries of this service area, I will object to this question.
— 281 —
The Court: Objection overruled. The question is on cross-
examination. It is searching for—it is relevant, too, on the
basis of whether he knew if there were any gerrymandering of
boundary lines and whether he followed up on it.
By Mr. Davis:
Q. Do you recall any discussion with respect to that? A. We
did have some discussion as it related to certain boundary
changes, and the effects that those changes might have on the
school, but to recall exactly as specifically what our discussions
about those boundary changes were, that I could not do at this
time because that was quite sometime ago.
Q. Very well.
Mr. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Newman: Thank you very much.
May the witness be excused, if he desires to?
The Court: I have a question or two.
Mr. Newman: Oh, I am sorry.
[305] The Court: All right. Mr. Lewis, you hesitated when
you were asked if there were any black teachers in the schools;
do you recall that when you were testifying?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: May I ask why was the hesitation?
The Witness: Well, my tenure as a PTA President at that
time, I believe that was some nine or ten years ago, I had to
stop momentarily to think back, and then I remembered that
there was some black teachers at that school.
The Court: Do you recall approximately how many?
The Witness: Well, I can only think of one right now, a lady
by the name of Ferguson, I believe, at that time.
— 282 —
The Court: Do you have an opinion as to whether a change
in boundaries would decrease the segregated condition of the
Main School?
A. I think at that time my thinking was that a change in the
boundary would not decrease the desegregation at Main Street
School. It would not decrease the segregation.
The Court: Decrease the segregated [306] condition of the
school? The school was a segregated school. It was 80 percent.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Well, did you think of any terms of—why were
you concerned about boundaries if you didn’t think it would
make some changes in the segregation of the school, increase
the area of desegregation and decrease the area of segregation?
The Witness: Your Honor, I guess I am not quite follow-
ing ——
The Court: Maybe I am not clear.
The Witness:
what you are saying.
The Court: You said that you were concerned about bound-
aries, and you did talk—you did communicate with the Board
on boundaries. What was your object in communicating with
the Board on the boundary issues?
The Witness: Well, I think at that time the concern was
that—and here I got to get back, because we were—it was all—
it was being geared to, as we saw it, whereby our students would
be leaving our school and our area and no one was being
brought back in, and even with our students leaving the area
and going out and infiltrating the other school in the district
there, that in a sense still left our school [307] in the same type
of situation as it was beforehand. In other words, the boundary
changes didn’t help our situation.
— 283 —
The Court: Well, when you are—the changes that were ap-
parently were changes in school assignment or student assign-
ment.
The Witness: I believe so.
The Court: And that didn’t have anything to do with bound-
aries. Boundaries are moving lines of the limits of a service
area, either contracting them or setting them in different struc-
tures so as to increase the number of persons who may not be
in the school racial; whites, for example, and decreasing the
number of blacks that would be in the school. That is what
boundaries, change in boundaries are for, in a large measure.
The Witness: Well, the boundary changes in that sense did
decrease the number of blacks in the school, but it did not in-
crease the number of whites in the school.
The Court: Well, did they actually change boundaries when
they bussed your students out of—your black students out of
your school? The boundaries of the service areas of the school
remained the same, didn’t they?
[308] The Witness: Sitting here trying to recall, I can’t actually
Say.
The Court: So you don’t know whether there were any bound-
ary changes made upon the one-way bussing of black stu-
dents to white schools?
A. No, I couldn’t sit here and testify that on my—lI can't
remember back to that point.
The Court: So you don’t know whether there were any bound-
ary changes made of any kind during that period of time af-
fecting Main Street School?
The Witness: Thinking back, your Honor, I think—of course
I can’t be absolutely sure, but I think there were some boundary
changes made that did directly affect Main Street School, but in
— 284 —
trying to think back exactly what those changes were and so
forth
The Court: You don’t know whether it decreased?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: Or increased the segregated condition.
All right.
Mr. Davis: I have several more questions, if the Court please.
Further Cross-Examination of John Lewis, Jr.
[309] By Mr. Davis:
Q. Mr. Lewis, how long have you lived at your current ad-
dress? A. Approximately eight years.
Q. How long have you lived in Lansing? A. Ever since I
got out of college back in 1956.
Q. And where did you live in 1956? A. Over at—on West
Street. I believe the address was 911 West Street.
Q. And do you know what school district that would be in,
which school attendance area? A. Oh, Main Street.
Q. So you have lived in the Main Street attendance area since
1956? A. (Witness nodding.)
The Court: The answer is yes? He nodded his head. Did
you get that, Mr. Reporter?
The Reporter: Yes.
A. I am sorry.
Q. You are familiar with the residents in that area in terms
of racial makeup? A. Yes.
Q. Now I direct your attention and I am going to refer to—
if I could find the correct Exhibit number—I am [310] going
to refer to Plaintiffs 68, 69, 70 and I will hand the Court a copy
of one so the Court can follow it.
— 285 —
I show you what purports to be school attendance area for
what we call the “River Island School,” do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. Now in relationship to that map, can you indicate where
your residence was in °56? You indicate West Street. Can you
find it on the map?
The Court: Would that be about near Main Street School?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: There is a WES, and then there is a black dot
that apparently blocks out the rest of it.
The Witness: Right here. Here is West.
Q. Okay. Now you are pointing almost directly at the loca-
tion of Main Street School, that circle, and you lived right near
the circle on this particular map? A. Yes, just adjacent.
Q. About how far from the school? A. About a half a block.
Q. All right. You lived on the south side of the expressway,
which is denoted on this map? [311] A. Yes.
Q. Now when you moved, you moved to where, your present
address? A. I moved three—two times. From West Street over
to Everett Drive, and from Everett Drive over to my present
address.
Q. And where is that? A. 1520 West Lenawee, which is right
in there.
The Court: Where?
Mr. Davis: Soon as he points it out I will describe it for the
map.
The Court: Oh, yes. I see it.
Q. It appears to be near the corner of Jenison and Lenawee
just inside about a block from that intersection, Jenison and
Lenawee. A. Just about a block.
— 286 —
Q. And a block toward the inner part of Main Street attend-
ance area or towards the west, correct? A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now I am going to ask you to test your recall
in terms of persons, the racial composition of particular neigh-
bors as of 1956 as best you can recall, or 57, in those years, and
tell me if | am correct: That the area below Michigan Avenue
south towards Main Street School District was an area of in-
creasing black population; [312] the farther south you went,
the higher the density of blacks? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. Now taking Main—Michigan Avenue and going north,
this is 1956 or about, going north from that bottom line of Ver-
linden or Michigan Avenue, was that an area of increasing white
population? A. Yes.
Q. So if the boundary line were to be moved south, the Main
Street boundary line were to be moved south, the area which
would be cut off or at the top would be black in population, do
you understand me? If we take the northern area of Main Street
attendance zone, that area would be—and placed it up into
Verlinden, that would bring blacks into Verlinden, would it not?
A. Yes.
Q. On the other hand, if we take the Verlinden boundary line,
the southern boundary line of Verlinden in 1956 and move that
up or north, that would—and brought that area into Main, that
would bring whites into Main, would it not? A. Yes.
Q. And this would be based on where, according to your
recollection, the whites and the blacks live? A. That’s correct.
[313] Q. And is it your recollection that the—say the area—l
am trying to read the name of the street. It appears to be
“Washtenaw.” Would you say that that would probably be the
area that separated the black population from the white popula-
tion, or would it be another street?
Let me rephase that for you. Based on your recollection
in 1956, where was the dividing line that cut off the black
—_ wn
community from the white community? What street was kind
of the center street? In this area? A. Yes, I am thinking maybe
Allegan.
Q. Allegan. All right. You are indicating by your recollec-
tion Allegan Street was kind of a cut-off point, and that seems
to run right through where Sexton High School is. It is black on
our map, is that correct? But it is where—is that correct? A.
Yes, to the best of my recollection.
The Court: I am trying to locate Allegan.
Mr. Davis: Perhaps I can help you. Allegan is this street
right here.
The Court: Oh, yes. Fine. That's west of Wa
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.