# Appendix — Samayoa v. Chicago Board of Education

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0533%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1987
- **Citation:** 481 U.S. 1067

## Text

: jTLKRY

:
| MAY 1 Joe?
IN THE - | JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, UR,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNTTEDaemaeetet |

OCTOBER TERM, 1986

MARCO SAMAYOA, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

APPENDIX TO RESPONDENTS! BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

ROBERT C. HOWARD

55 E. Monroe Street
Suite 4005

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 372-6475

Counsel for Respondents

Of Counsel:

HUGH R. MCCOMBS, JR. ROBERT M. WEISSBOURD

DENISE L. JARRARD CLAIRE T. HARTFIELD

ISHAM, LINCOLN & HARTUNIAN, FUTTERMAN
BEALE & HOWARD, CHTD.

Three First National 55 E. Monroe St.
Plaza Suite 4005

Suite 5200 Chicago, IL 60603

Chicago, IL 60602

ey ene

acme se . Pi Stee gt ene ames

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

APPENDIX TO
RESPONDENTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

Table of Contents

Proposai of the Board of
Education to Obtain
Disney Magnet School Site ...... la

Decision and Order of

Department of Health, Education

and Welfare Administrative Law

Juage (February 15, 1977) .....- 5a

Findings of United States
Office For Civil Rights
| RO re |’

Findings of United States
Office For Civil Rights
[ea Os BOE 4-6 @ a Se tlt el le 43a

Complaint: United States '
v. Board of Education of

po ee ee ee ec
Cees, Es ct ltl kl tll tl hl Cl hl tlk 150a
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee

Memorandum Opinion of the
District Court (August 31, 1981)... 208a

First Amended Complaint ....... 236a

iia

Memorandum Opinion of the
District Court (October 13, 1981)

Second Amended Complaint. ....
Third Amended Complaint .....
Memorandum Opinion of the
District Court (November
30, 1903) . 1.4 3 bee eee ee

Order of the District
Court (January 30, 1982). ....

Fourth Amended Complaint. ....

Minute Order of the District
Court (November 18, 1983) ....

Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave

To Intervene In United States
Vv. Board of Education of the
City of Gaigage . 2. 2s 8 0 es

Plaintiffs' Memorandum In -

Support of Motion For Leave
To Intervene In United States
v. Board of Education of the

Vv.

City of Chicago .........

Memorandum Opinion of the
District Court (December
ee 1983) ° 7 . . . . . > . - s o

Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion

To Intervene In United States
v. Board of Education of the
City of Chicago .........

263a
278a

313a

360a

369a

374a

437a

439a

447a

482a

485a

iiia

Student Desegregation Plan

For Chicago Public Schools:

Educational Components

(Selected Pages). ....+ +++ ++ + 4878

Student Desegregation Plan

For Chicago Public Schools:

Student Assignment Principles

(Selected Pages). . .- +--+ ++ +++ - 500a

Board Report 73-267-15 of
the Board of Education of
the City of Chicago .......-.. 507a

Letter From Pressman &
Hartunian to Martha Jantho
(June 8, 1981) e . _ = e e e o J 7 « 7. 519a

Report of the Board of

Education of the City of

Chicago Committee on Student

Desegregation (April 21, 1982)

(Selected Pages). ...+ +++ + + + 525a

Student Assignment Plan,
Seie@ecee Chart. . . «2+ © «© © © © © © «9288

Selected Charts from Annual
Desegregation Reviews,
tC e. < 6 6 « « © «© « «+ «© «© « |63§SAR

la

BOARD OF EDUCATION
CITY OF CHICAGO
228 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone DEarborn 2-7800

REVISED PROPOSAL
PRESENTED BY
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO
TO OBTAIN THE SITE AND FACILITIES OF
THE UNITED STATES

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES HOSPITAL

September 13, 1967
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Division of Surplus Propersy [sic] - Region V
433 West Van Buren Street, Room 712

Selected Pages
x ke & &

4. oposed ° acilities Requested
After a number of months of study and
evaluation, a group of outside consultants
working with members of the staff developed a
report entitled "Increasing Desegregation of
Faculties, Students and Vocational Education
Programs." This report was approved in

principle by the Board of Education of the

2a

City of Chicago and forwarded to the U.S.
Office of Education. In so doing the Board of
Education committed itself to a new and
dynamic program of action to realistically
cope with problems of racial segregation and
quality education.

zx*rkeee

If ever a site was needed by an
institution, the site of the United States
Public Health Services Hospital is needed by
the Chicago Public Schools; moreover, it is
urgently needed now.

If the City of Chicago is to become a
truly integrated city, if the public schools
are to become increasingly integrated and to
remain integrated, it is imperative that ways
of implementing crucial elements in our report
to the U.S. Office of Education - "Increasing

Desegregation of Faculties, Students and

Vocational Education Programs" - be found now.

3a

One of the important elements in the
report designed to help stabilize the city,
and to increase integration and improve
quality of education, was the establishment of
magnet schools. Recommendations were made in
the report with respect to criteria for
desirable locations for magnet’ schools.
Within the framework of those recommendations,
the site under discussion is as nearly perfect
for one of the magnet schools as we could ever
hope to find. * * * * This site together
with one at the extreme southwest corner of
the city bordering on a suburban area, and
another one in the western section of the
city, could be the beginning of a group of at
least seven magnet schools. Each school would
have a quality program which would draw
students from a large region or, perhaps, the

total city. Once enrolled, children would

continue at the magnet school even though

4a

their home address changes. Thus the possible
adverse effects of mobility will be prevented.

The professional consultants who assisted
in the preparation of the desegregation report
to the U.S. Office of Education described the
magnet school in these terms:

"Magnet schools in all areas would be
made especially attractive, physically
and academically. They would be
staffed on an integrated basis with
excellent white and Negro teachers and
administrators. The student body not
only would be mixed racially but also
would include youngsters with
intellectual potential who had not yet
produced in an academic setting. The
magnet schools would be administered
flexibly with the principal being free
to experiment. Perhaps magnet schools
would be established in cooperation
with non-public school systems which
can and must play a significant role
if integration is to be achieved. The
educational offerings of the magnet
school in a shared time arrangement
might attract white families sending
children to parochial schools and
induce them to remain in the city.
Other possible linkages of various
types between magnet schools and
church related predominantly white
schools would be explored aggressively

and quickly by the Board."
zx kk

a

5a

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

In the Matter of

CHICAGO PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICT #299
(Hereinafter called
"School District")

DOCKET NO. S=-120

PROCEEDING UNDER
TITLE VI OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964

and

ILLINOIS OFFICE

OF EDUCATION
(Hereinafter called
"State Agency")

and INITIAL DECISION
CITY OF CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS

(Hereinafter called
"“City®) cai

ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee”

D H ORY

This proceeding arises under Section

602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000d=-1 (Title VI).

6a

On March 23, 1972, the Chicago Public
School District #299 (hereinafter called
"School District") submitted to the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(hereinafter called "Department") an
"Assurance of Compliance with the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare Regulation
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964." Such assurances are mandated under
45 C.F.R. § 80.4 as a condition precedent to
approval and extension of any Federal
financial assistance. § 80.4 (c) states in
pertinent part:

Every application for Federal

financial assistance to carry out

a program to which this part

applies ..-+ Ohell ssc. be

accompanied by an assurance that

the program will be conducted or

the facility operated in

compliance with all requirements
imposed by or pursuant to this
part." [sic]

Pursuant to 45 cC.F.R. § 80.7, the

“responsible Department official" initiated

7a

a compliance review of the Respondent School
District in 1974 to determine whether it was
complying with Title VI requirements.
(Affidavits of Kenneth Mines and Alanson J.
Sumner) The School District was notified by
letter from Martin Gerry, Director of the
Office for Civil Rights (hereinafter called
"OCR"), dated October 6, 1975, that it was
in violation of Title VI as to the issues of
faculty and professional staff assignment
and special bilingual instructional staff
assignment and special bilingual instruc-
tional services.

Gu Aprii 98, r976, a Retice eof
Opportunity for Hearing (Docket No. S=-120)
was filed by the Department wherein Respon-
dents School District and Illinois Office of
Education (hereinafter called "State
Agency") were notified that they would be

given an opportunity to be heard concerning

8a

the allegations of noncompliance with Title
VI. Issue was joined thereafter and the
Respondents requested a hearing before a
duly appointed Administrative Law Judge.

On July 30, 1976, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter
called "HUD") filed a Notice of Opportunity
to Request a Hearing (Docket No. 77-1)
wherein Respondents School District and City
of Chicago (hereinafter called "City") were
notified that they would be given an
opportunity to be heard concerning
allegations of noncompliance with Title VI.
On August 18, 1976, the Department submitted
a Motion to Join and Consolidate Administra-

tive Proceedings.1} The proceedings S-120

1 The Department of Housing and Urban
Development assigned all responsibilities
under 24 C.F.R. Part 1 relating to all
actions for "securing voluntary compliance
or related or investigations, compliance
reviews, complaints, determinations of

(continued...)

ad

9a

and 77-1 were consolidated by Order of the
undersigned on September 9, 1976, pursuant
to 45 C.F.R. §§ 80.9(e) and 81.55 and 24
C.F.R. § 1.9 (e) and 2.55.

Upon completion of all pre-trial
matters, a hearing date was set for October
13, 1976. In open court on October 13,
1976, the Respondent School District
submitted written Notice of Waiver of
hearing. Respondents State Agency and City
orally supported the Notice. The Department
acknowledged the Respondents' right to waive
their participation in a hearing and moved
the Administrative Law Judge to proceed with
a limited unilateral hearing to receive oral

testimony from its witnesses. The Court

1(...continued)

apparent failure to comply and resolutions
of matters by informal means" concerning
elementary and secondary schools to the
Department on May 25, 1966. 35 Fed. Reg.
3233 (1967).

10a

requested written briefs on the matter. On
October 27, 1976, the Respondents' Motion
(or Notice) for waiver of hearing was
granted and the Department's Motion to
proceed with a limited unilateral hearing
was denied. The Court recognized that the
right to a hearing belongs to the Respon-
dent(s) and may be waived by the Respon-
dent(s). 45 C.F.R. §§ 80.8 (Cc), 80.9 (a)
and 81.72 (b). The Department's right to
present its case to the fullest was also
recognized. The parties were then given a
reasonable period of time to submit "any and
all affidavits and depositions to clarify
and supplement the record." (Order dated
October 27, 1976, at 2).

The record for decision was closed on

January 31, 1977.

lla

LSSUES
1. Is the School District in violation

of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42
U.S.C. § 2000d et. seg.) as a result of its
policies and practices relating to lingual
instruction of students whose first language
is other than English? This will depend
upon whether the School District provides
adequate lingual instruction to ae sig-
nificant portion of the national origin
minority students whose first language is
other than English and who require special
lingual instruction in order to meaningfully

participate in the educational process.

zxkeekee

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Respondent Board of Education

of the City of Chicago is a body politic and

corporate organized and existing under state

12a

law, vested with the responsibility of
operating the public school system of the
City of Chicago.

2 The assignment of teachers and
professional staff in the Chicago public
school system is completely within the
discretionary control and responsibility of
the Chicago Board of Education and the
General Superintendent of Schools acting for
the School District under state law.

3. The Illinois Office of Education is
an agency of the Government of the State of
Illinois which is vested with responsibility
for supervising the policy of and maintain-
ing the systems of public elementary and
secondary education which are operated by
school districts in the state. In addition,
it is the agency which receives, adminis-
ters, and disburses funds granted to the

state by agencies of the United States

13a

Government for educational purposes under
various federal statutory grant programs
administered by the Department and other
federal agencies.

4. The City of Chicago is a body
corporate organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Illinois and is the
agency of local government eligible to
receive, administer, obligate and disburse
funds granted by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and other federal
agencies under various federal statutory
grant programs.

5. In 1974, the Office for Civil
Rights initiated a compliance review of the
Respondent School District to determine
whether it was complying with Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

6. On October 6, 1975, the School

District was notified by letter by the

14a

Director of the Office of Civil Rights that
it was in violation of Title VI as to the
issues of faculty and professional staff
assignment and provision of special
bilingual instructional services.

7. A Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
was filed on April 9, 1976 wherein
Respondents School District and State Agency
were notified that they would be given an
opportunity to be heard concerning the
allegations of noncompliance with Title VI.

8. A Notice of Opportunity to Request
a Hearing was filed on July 30, 1976 wherein
the School District and City of Chicago were
notified that they would be given an
opportunity to be heard concerning the
allegations of noncompliance with Title VI.

9. On October 13, 1976, the School
District submitted a Motion for Waiver of

Hearing which was subsequently granted on

15a

October 27, 1976 and the case has therefore
been decided upon the record of evidence as
constituted on January 31, 1977.

x*ekeeRek

33. The Department has provided
adequate guidelines in those areas in which
the School District has been deficient, made
available technical assistance, and rejected
on reasonable grounds the School District's
February 13, 1976 plan.

34. The School District is a recipient
of Federal funds from the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare and Department
of Housing and Urban Development.

35. Federal financial assistance from
the Department applied for and/or received
by the School District under the following
authorizations are either administered in a

discriminatory manner or support programs

16a

which are infected by a discriminatory
environment:

{Listing 18 Funding
Programs (a) -(r)]

36. Federal financial assistance from
the Department of Housing and Urban
Development under the following
authorizations are either administered in a
discriminatory manner or support programs
which are infected by a discriminatory
environment:

(a) Title I of the Demonstration

Center and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.

3301, et. seg.).
(b) Title I of the Housing &

Community Development Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 5301, et. seq.).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

i. The Administrative Law Judge by
virtue of his designation has full authority

to preside over all proceedings in this

as) Ra

17a

matter and to issue an Initial Decision
herein.

2. The School District has failed to
take the affirmative steps necessary to open
its instructional program to its non- or
limited-English speaking national origin
minority school children in violation of Lau
v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 560 (1974) and Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. The School District has violated
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by
failing to adequately identify and assess
its national origin minority students.

4. The School District's assessment
and identification efforts have restricted
non- or limited-English speaking national
origin minority children from enjoying the
benefits of the School District's educa-

tional programs in violation of Title VI.

18a

5. The School District is not
addressing the needs of approximately 31,000
children enrolled in the School District in
violation of Title VI.

6. To separate minority school
children from others of similar age and
qualifications solely because of their race
generates a feeling of inferiority as to
their status in the community that may

affect their hearts and minds in a way

unlikely ever to be undone. Brown v. Board
of Education, Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1854).

7. Two elements must be shown for a
finding of actionable de jure segregation:
(1) that action or failure to act by
responsible school authorities in regard to
problems or practices related to segregation
was taken with segregative intent and (2)

that the action, or failure to act, has

resulted in creating, continuing or

19a

7 Sa a
fi
}
oft
<

increasing the segregation which exists in

the school system. Washington v. Davis, 96
S.Ct. 2040 (1976), Milliken v. Bradley, 418
U.S. 717 (1974), Keyes _v. School District
No. 1, Denver, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), and
Ww Vv. = b °
Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).

8. Intent or purpose to discriminate

may be either express or inferred. Village

Gerp.,;, 97 S.Ct. S855 (1977), Austin
Independent School District v. United
States, 97 S.Ct. 517 (1976), and Washington
v. Davis, 96 S.Ct. 2040 (1976).

9. The School District's consciously
consummated actions or omissions in regard
to the assignment of teachers and profes-
sional staff which has resulted in racially 4

identifiable faculties, raises a normal

20a

inference of intent to separate the facul-
ties on the basis of race.

10. The School District purposely
assigned teachers and professional staff to
certain schools on the basis of race.

11. The cumulative effect of the
actions or omissions of the Chicago Public
School officials has been to place black
administrators, black teachers and black
students in a limited number of schools and
increasingly to isolate another number of
schools with almost exclusively white
administrators, white teachers and white
students.

12. The responsibility for assignment
patterns of teachers and professional staff
which made for racially identifiable schools
is that of the Respondent School District
not of the teachers or personnel being

assigned.

4
3
j
3
3
|
j
q

21a

13. Under both the Constitutional and
the Title VI standard minority school
children have been deprived of their right
to be educated in a system operated free of
racial discrimination in that assignment
policies and practices of Chicago Public
School officials have made for the racial
identifiability of schools as intended for
students of a particular race.

14. No correlation between the level
of teacher experience at a particular school
and the quality of educational services
delivered to the students of that particular
school has been presented. Accordingly,
there is no violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution or Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act in regard to the
quality of educational services delivered to

minority students.

22a

15. No evidence has been presented to
establish that teachers in minority schools
have lesser levels of teaching experience
which affects their proficiency.
Accordingly, no violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution or Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act exists as to the
quality of educational services delivered to
minority students.

16. The Department has been unable to
secure voluntary compliance of Respondent
School District. The Department rejected on
reasonable grounds the School District's
February 13, 1976 plan, has provided
adequate guidelines in those areas in which
the School District has been deficient, and
has made available technical assistance.

17. The School District is not in com-
pliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act in regard to its teacher and

7
.

2

«

23a
professional staff assignments and delivery
of equal educational opportunities to non-
or limited-English speaking national origin
minority school children.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Federal financial assistance admin-
istered by the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare under the following
authorizations shall be -terminated and
refused to be granted or continued to the
Respondent School District:

zx kee

[listing 18 funding
programs (a) - (r)]

2. Federal financial assistance admin-
istered by HUD under the following
authorizations shall be terminated and
refused to be granted or continued to

Respondent School District:

24a

(a) Title I of the Demonstration
Center and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.

3301, et. seq.).

(b) Title I of the Housing &

Community Development Act of 1974

(42 U.S.C. 5301, et. seqg.).

3. Additional Federal financial
assistance for which Respondent School
District would be eligible to apply for and
receive, either directly from HEW or through
the Illinois Office of Education, but for
its noncompliance with Title VI and the
Fourteenth Amendment, are to be refused to
be granted.

4. This termination and refusal to
grant or continue Federal financial
assistance shall remain in force until
Respondent School District corrects its
noncompliance with Title VI and the
Fourteenth Amendment, and satisfies the
Director, Office for Civil Rights, HEW that

it is in compliance.

ee

25a

5. This Initial Decision and Order
shall become final unless, within 20 days
after mailing of the Initial Decision and
Order, any party submits exceptions to the
Reviewing Authority (Civil Rights) of HEW in

accordance with 45 C.F.R. 81.103.

DATE: February 15, 1977

EVERETT J. HAMMARSTROM
Administrative Law
Judge

26a

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530

4/21/80
Dr. Angeline Caruso
Acting General Superintendent
of Schools

Chicago Board of Education
228 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dear Dr. Caruso:

On October 28, 1979, the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) referred
the Chicago school case to the Department of

Justice for appropriate legal action. HEW

has advised us that, despite several months

of negotiation following that agency's
notice to Dr. Hannon on April 9, 1979, that
the Chicago School District was ineligible
to receive funding under the Emergency

School Aid Act due to ongoing violations of

Pt} ery

iia i

27a

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the parties have failed to reach agreement
on a plan to remedy school segregation in
Chicago.

We write to inform you and the Board
of Education that both our analysis of the
evidence developed by HEW and our
independent review of the history of
segregation in the Chicago public schools
have convinced us that the present
segregation of students by race found
throughout the district has been caused, in
substantial part, by actions and omissions
of the Board of Education. Further, we have
concluded that these actions and omissions
were undertaken with unlawful intent to
segregate children on the basis of race.

Specific evidence in support of this
conclusion has been presented in the

Appendix to HEW's April 9, 1979, letter

28a

referred to above. We believe that the
following segregative techniques have
contributed substantially to student
segregation in Chicago:

(a) The drawing and alteration
of school attendance area boundaries
in such a way as to institute,
maintain or increase racial
segregation of students;

(b) The adjustment of grade
structures among schools so as to
create or maintain racial segregation;

(c) The maintenance of racially
segregated branches of schools;

(da) The placement of permanent
and temporary facilities to relieve
student overcrowding and the failure
to use alternative, educationally
sound measures to relieve student

overcrowding so that, by action and

29a

omission, racial segregation of
students was created or maintained;

(e) The maintenance of a
racially disproportionate number of
severely overcrowded and thereby
educationally inferior schools in such
a way as to identify, in conjunction
with the practices described in the
next two subparagraphs, those schools
as intended for black students and
less crowded schools as intended for
white students;

(f) The assignment of teachers
and staff to schools in such a way as
to match the race of the faculties
with the race of the _ students
attending the schools;

(g) The employment of a
permissive transfer policy which

allowed white students to _avoid

30a

attending their schools of assignment
when their race was in the minority in
favor of attendance at other schools
where their race constituted the
majority of student enrollment; and
(h) The association of
segregated schools with segregated
public housing projects.
Through these and other devices, the Board
of Education has contributed, over a
substantial period of time and in a
substantial portion of the schools, to the
racial isolation manifest today in the
Chicago Public School Systen.

Based on the facts and applicable law,
we have concluded that the Chicago Board of
Education has violated Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the assurances the

Board made that it would comply with that

Title as a condition of the receipt of

3la

federal funds. We have also concluded that
the Board's proposals to date to remedy
voluntarily this violation have been
inadequate and that, unless voluntary
compliance can be assured in the manner set
out below, it will be necessary for the
United States to file suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern
District of TIllinois seeking judicial
enforcement of the Board's assurances and an
order that the Board develop a desegregation
plan that would eliminate the present
effects of those violations.

These same conclusions also apply to
Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This
statute authorizes the Attorney General to
bring a school desegregation suit when, as
is the case here, he has received a

complaint signed by parents to the effect

that their minor children, as members of a

32a

class similarly situated, are being deprived
by a school board of the equal protection of
the laws. Although distinct from the
Attorney General's authority to sue to
enforce the assurances made pursuant to
Title VI of the same Act, a Title IV claim
would be made in the same suit. The remedy
to cure the Title VI violation would suffice
for Title IV as well.

We believe the district must commit
itself to a plan which will eradicate
segregation to the maximum extent feasible
in order to remedy the de jure segregation
which is prevalent in your public schools.
We have reviewed the remedy proposals
presented by the Board during its
negotiations with HEW and we agree with
HEW's assessment that these proposals fall

short of legal standards established by the

United States Supreme Court. During last

33a

year's term, the Court, in ruling that
‘eohuatee and Dayton, Ohio, must fully
desegregate their schools, reiterated its
prior holding that violations leading to
racial segregation in a substantial portion
of a school system raise a rebuttable
presumption that any existing systemwide
segregation resulted from illegal acts, thus
justifying a systemwide remedy. The Board,
in responding to HEW's allegations, has not
rebutted this presumption. This continues
to be our position after a careful review of
the report submitted on March 27, 1980, by
the Board in response to HEW's Appendix.
While the response sheds new light on
several areas of factual dispute, it fails
to dispel our overall conclusion, which is
based on both HEW's study and our own, that

the Board has intentionally segregated

students throughout a substantial portion of

“ie 34a

the school system. Thus, we believe that a
systemwide remedy is required. The Board's
past proposals have been unsatisfactory
because they are limited in scope, i.e.,
they do not provide for the maximum feasible
desegregation under the circumstances.
Other legal inadequacies in the proposals
were detailed in the September 26, 1979,
letter to Dr. Hannon from David Tatel, then
Director of the Office for Civil Rights,
HEW.

We recognize that the development of
an adequate desegregation plan for Chicago
will be difficult, yet we believe there are
a number of constructive and meaningful
steps which can be taken. In various
factual contexts the federal courts have
developed imaginative and flexible relief
for desegregating school districts. We

would be pleased to assist your Board in

35a

seeking the most effective and least
disruptive legal remedy for Chicago. For
example, in response to a request from the
Board of Education, HEW has also provided a
feasibility study which demonstrates one way
in which various desegregation techniques
can be used to develop a specific plan. We
believe a plan modeled after this study
would satisfy the Board's legal obligation
to remedy the constitutional and statutory
violations committed, but we think there are
a number of similar ways in which this goal
could be accomplished. We are willing to
discuss and advise with the Board on the
development of such ways.

In enacting the provisions which
forbid discrimination by recipients of
federal funds and which authorize the
Attorney General to bring’ school

desegregation suits, Congress emphasized

36a

that voluntary resolution of differences is
preferable to formal enforcement by the
federal government. Thus, under Title VI,
the funding agency must determine that
voluntary compliance by the recipient cannot
be attained before taking action. That
determination has been made by HEW with
respect to your Board of Education.
Likewise, Title IV requires the Attorney
General to certify that a school board has
had a reasonable time to adjust the
conditions which amount to a deprivation of
the equal protection of the laws.

Although we think that a “reasonable
time has elapsed, we believe it is
consistent with Congress' intent that we
determine whether the Chicago Board of
Education is now willing to commit itself to
the adoption and implementation of an

effective desegregation plan without

37a

contesting its liability to do so in court.
We are encouraged by the statement in Dr.
Hannon's November 26, 1979, letter to me
that the Board has asked that additional
negotiations on this matter take place.
Public reports of the Board's
financial difficulties and the interim
economy measures which have been proposed to
Gate have raised a new concern: that, in
meeting urgent economic problems, the Board
not do anything that will further segregate
students in the Chicago public schools, will
have a discriminatorily disparate impact on
black or other minority students, will make
permanent desegregative steps more difficuit
or more expensive, or will pass up
reasonable alternative changes that will be
integrative. We are particularly concerned
that the cumulative impact of announced

school closings will fall disproportionately

38a

on black students and that the modest gains
under your Access to Excellence program will
be precipitously discarded. Further, we are
not satisfied that other closings (and the
resulting student re-assignments) could not
produce equal if not greater savings.

Thus, we invite the Board to enter
into negotiations aimed at reaching an
agreement containing the following elements:

(1) An assurance that ali school
Closings, reductions or changes in
programs, new construction or other
actions resulting in significant
changes in student assignment will not
be undertaken without a written
analysis of their impact on present
student segregation or their
opportunity to contribute to an
effective overall desegregation plan

in the future. The impact analysis
Ad

ye

39a

should include a statement setting

forth facts which demonstrate that:
(a) The proposed change will not
contribute to segregation of
students;
(b) The proposed change will not
have a disproportionately harmful
impact on black and other
minority students attending
Chicago's public schools;
(c) The proposed change will not
make future desegregative changes
more difficult or expensive; and
(dq) There are no reasonable
alternatives to the proposed
change which would better serve
to correct past segregative
assignments.

We also seek an assurance that the

Board will not implement any changes

40a

which the above analysis indicates
will have a segregative impact; and

(2) A commitment to the adoption
and implementation of a comprehensive
desegregation program which is
consistent with the principles I have
outlined above.

The Board's obligation not to
discriminate is a continuing one arising out
of both the Fourteenth Amendment and Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since
we are of the view that the Board's previous
assurances of nondiscrimination made to the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
have not been sufficient to end a variety of
racially discriminatory practices, it is our
position that the above agreement must take
the form of a consent decree so as to be
enforceable in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

ee a ee ee

4la

We understand that a new Board of
Education will be formed soon. We look
forward to working with the new Board in a
search for a solution to this most difficult
problem that will be consistent with both
our law enforcement responsibilities and the
vitality of the Chicago school system. We
are available for any further information or
Clarification of our position that you may
need. Thomas P. Sullivan, the United States
Attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois, concurs with the Attorney
General's views on this matter and has
stated his desire to be fully involved in
the negotiations in this matter. We suggest
that we meet with you or your
representatives within a week or two, either
in Washington or Chicago, to begin
discussions. Our goal is to arrive at a

settlement by early summer if we are to

42a

avoid going to court to resolve this matter.

Sincerely,

Drew S. Days III
Assistant Attorney Genera*
Civil Rights Division

43a

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

JUNE 12, 1980

Dr. Angeline Caruso

Interim General Superintendent of Schools
Chicago Board of Education

228 North LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dear Dr. Caruso:

I have completed a review of the
information submitted by the Chicago Public
School District in response to the
determination of ineligibility for
Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) funds set
forth in my letter of February 28, 1980.
This review included an analysis of the two

documents presented at the show cause
meeting on March 27, 1980, entitled
Response the Chicago Public School
District to the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare's Determination of

44a

° 80 Ss
e nse) and Supplement to the Response
Su m - In addition, it included an

examination of the civil rights compliance
data required of all ESAA applicants and
the additional information requested by the
Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to ensure
that the district implemented the remedial
plans developed during the last year's
waiver of ineligibility negotiations.
Portions of this data and other information
were submitted on March 27, April 7, and
May 5, 6, 19 and 27, 1980.

I regret to inform you that, based on
this review, I cannot revoke the two
principal bases for the determination of
ineligibility in my earlier letter. These
two bases of ineligibility are as follows:

1) The plan submitted with the

district's basic grant

application -- Access to

45a"

Excellence -- is not the type of
plan for which basic grant funds
may be awarded. It does not meet
the requirements of section
606(a) of the Act, as interpreted
by section 185.11 of the

implementing regulations.

2) The district is ‘ineligible for
both a basic and a magnet grant
under the ESAA because it
continues to operate racially
segregated and overcrowded
schools in violation of section
606(c)(1)(D) of the ESAA, as
interpreted by section 185.43(d)
of the regulations, and Title VI

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As was explained in my earlier letter, both

of these bases of ineligibility derive from

46a

the facts and conclusions set out in the
Appendix to the former Department of
Health, Education and Welfare's letter of
April 9, 1979, concerning the assignment of
students to racially segregated and
overcrowded schools.

I also am sorry to report that,
although you have now provided to the
Department all of the information required
to establish the district's eligibility for
ESAA funding, the information submitted in
response to OCR's requests shows that the
school district has not fully complied with
the remedial plans developed in the areas
of teacher assignment, classroom
segregation and bilingual education. As a
result, the various forms of racial and
ethnic discrimination covered by those
plans have not ceased to exist and continue
to serve as bases of ineligibility for this

year's ESAA funds.

47a

Before addressing these additional
matters, I want to explain why the legal
and factual arguments in the Response and
Supplement are not adequate grounds for
revoking or modifying the two principal

bases for my determination.

Assignment of Students to Racially
Se qregated a and Overcrow ded Sc ho ools

In the Response, the school districy
denies that it has unlawfully discriminated
on the basis.of race in assigning students
to schools. The district contends that the
Appendix to the letter of April 9, 1979,
applies an erroneous legal standard for
proving the segregative "purpose" or
"intent" of Chicago school officials, makes
a number of faulty assumptions, and
contains assertions that are factually
inaccurate and incomplete. The district

Claims, therefore, that it is net in

48a

violation of Federal civil rights laws and
that the plan submitted with its basic
grant application -- Access to Excellence
-- qualifies for ESAA funding as a “non-
required" plan for the reduction of
minority group isolation. Response, p. l-
3.

These contentions do not provide a
sufficient basis upon which to withdraw or
modify the conclusions in the Appendix. In
the Response, for example, the district
misconstrues the legal standard applied in
the Appendix and misreads the Supreme
Court's recent decisions in Columbus Board

of Education v. Penick, 99 S.Ct. 2941

(1979), and Dayton Board: of Education v.
Brinkman, 99 S.Ct. 2971 (1979). Contrary

to the claim in the Response, the Appendix
does not rely exclusively -- in theory or
in fact -- on the "natural, probable and

foreseeable consequences" test for proving

49a

the segregative "purpose" or "intent" of
Chicago school officials.

The district's claims of improper use
of school enrollment and capacity data also
are unfounded. For example, the district
criticizes the analysis in the Appendix for
excluding mobile classroom units in
determining a school's capacity. The
Response states that this "predetermines
the result concerning overcrowding" at
schools with mobiles and "results in the
deceptively large disparity in the
Appendix's overcrowding statistics" for
white and black schools. Response, p. 21.
The Department's exclusion of mobiles in
determining capacity, however, is
consistent with the district's policies on
the use of mobile classrooms. Board Report
72653-A, "Guidelines for the Use of Mobile
Classrooms", December 9, 1964. See also

Progress Report on Mobile Classroom Units,

50a

May 8, 1963. Because these policies
provide that mobiles are to be used as a
temporary response to the problem of
overcrowding, it is not unreasonable to
consider a school with mobiles to be
overcrowded and to exclude mobiles in
determining a school's capacity. Moreover,
the disparity in the Appendix's
overcrowding statistics for white and black
schools is not “deceptively large", but
merely reflects the fact that
disproportionate numbers of black students
have been assigned to overcrowded schools,
including schools with mobile classrooms.
Another critisicm [sic] of the
Appendix's use of enrollment and capacity
information is that references to the
relative size of white and black schools
are irrelevant to the issues of
discrimination and overcrowding. Response,
p. 19. This criticism, however, disregards

51a

the district's own policy on the maximun,
optimum size for elementary schools, which
since 1962 has provided that an elementary
school should not enroll more than 1,200
students. Statement to the Board of
Education, October 10, 1962. More

significantly, it ignores the segregative

consequences of the district's actions
affecting school size. The Appendix
contains many examples where the district
violated its optimum size policy by
building additions and placing mobiles at
large, overcrowded black schools. These
examples further show that there often were
smaller white schools in the area at which
the district could have built an addition
or placed mobiles, without violating the
optimum size policy, to accommodate
students from the overcrowded _ black
schools. Instead of adopting these

reasonable, less segregative alternatives,

52a

however, the district repeatedly violated
its optimum size policy and maintained
racial segregation by ution actions to
enlarge overcrowded and frequently
oversized black schools.

In the Supplement, the district
expands on the arguments put forward in the
Response and addresses the specific
examples of segregative conduct discussed
in the Appendix. The incident-by-incident
rebuttal in the Supplement, however,
contains many serious deficiences. It
relies on inaccurate and incomplete factual
information, examines certain events in
isolation from other relevant events,
mischaracterizes the purpose and effects of
particular actions, fails to respond to
specific allegations in the Appendix, and
draws conclusions that are not supported by
the evidence. Thus, even though the

Supplement points out a few factual errors

53a

in the Appendix, it does not alter the
Appendix's basic conclusions.

Several of the major deficiencies in
the Supplement are illustrated in its
analysis of the actions taken by the
district at schools serving the Cabrini-
Green housing project and surrounding area
between the mid 1950's and early 1960's.
Citing data on the race of families
residing in the housing project from 1948
to 1965, the Supplement correctly states
that the Appendix erred in claiming that
Cabrini-Green was predominantly black from
its inception. Supplement, p. 18-19. The
Supplement uses this same data, however, to
Support the assertion that the Jenner
School, located adjacent to the housing
project, was integrated in 1954 and 1958
when sizeable additions were built at that

school. Supplement, p. 19-20. This

assertion is simply untrue.

54a

Several witnesses -- including former
employees of the district and persons
active in school affairs -- have informed

OCR that although Cabrini-Green did house

white families in the 1950's, Jenner's
enrollment was virtually all black as early
as 1949. These witnesses explain that
white children from the project attended
parochial schools in the area, not Jenner,
during this period. Thus, because the
Supplement cUraws erroneous conclusions from
housing data, it fails to disprove the
essential facts in the Appendix -- that
Jenner was a black school throughout the
1950's when Chicago school officials were
planning and constructing the two large
additions at that school.

The Supplement _s [sic] analyses of
other actions in this area are similarly

misleading and incomplete. The Supplement

states, for example, that the two boundary

55a

changes between the Ogden and Franklin
schools in 1961 and 1962 “had the effect of
substantially integrating Ogden."
Supplement, p. 21, 66. To support this
proposition, the Supplement compares 1963-
64 and 1964-65 racial data on the
enrollment at Ogden. Supplement, p. 66.
Obviously, however, this comparison is
inapposite because the two boundary changes
became effective in 1561-62 and 1962-63,
respectively. Board Report 69011-H, April
12, 1961; Board Report 70933-A, December
26, 1962. Moreover, since Ogden's
enrollment was only 4.1% black in 1963-64,
the boundary changes could not have had a
significant integrative effect at Ogden.
And the Supplement does not deny that the
boundary changes also had segregative
effects at predominantly black Franklin,

which lost most of its white students to

56a

Ogden as a result of the boundary
adjustments.

Another example from this area is the
opening of LaSalle School in 1961. The
Supplement claims that the new facility
simply replaced the old, LaSalle School on
the same site and that the school opened
with an integrated enrollment. Supplement,
p. 21. This explanation, however, ignores
alternative sites that were available to
the district, including several sites that
were actually proposed by local community
groups. Furthermore, LaSalle was not
"integrated" when it opened. In 1963-64,
LaSalle's enrollment was only 4.5% black.
Although the school aiso enrolled 26.9%
other minority students in that year, the
enrollment of these students did not make
LaSalle an "integrated" school. Rather, it
merely shows that the district did not

segregate white and other minority students

57a

to the same extent that it segregated white
and black students. This fact is born out
by other actions discussed in the Appendix.
E.g., Appendix, p. 60-62.

The Supplement's discussion of new
school construction along Ashland Avenue
between 1970 and 1974 again illustrates
several notable deficiencies. The
Supplement states that seven new schools
were opened during this period "to
accommodate the sudden and ,substantial
increases" in black student population
caused by "drastic demographic changes" in
the area. Supplement, p. 25-33. The
Supplement explains that, as a result of
these demographic changes, "[w]hen a new
school was planned its attendance area
would be integrated, but by the time the
school was opened the neighborhood had
become predominantly black." u ement,

p. 29. In addition, the Supplement claims

58a

that "[e]mphasis was necessarily placed on
accommodating students within their
attendance areas, since adjacent areas were
either already overcrowded or about to
become so." Supplement, p. 3l.

This analysis is inadequate because it
fails to respond to several specific
allegations in the Appendix. Even if the
Department accepted the contention, which
it does not, that the district's site
selection practices did not contribute to
the creation of segregated student bodies
at these seven schools, the district still
has not explained why these schools also
were assigned identifiably black faculties
and black administrators. The -district
also has not explained the highly
improbable coincidence that only these
schools and other black schools opened with
the names of famous black Americans.

Appendix, p. 20-21.

59a

The Supplement's failure to address
these issues is significant. It has been
recognized in several Supreme Court
decisions that a school can be identified
as a "white" or a "black" school by
referring to factors other than just the
racial composition of its enrollment.
E.g., Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413
U.S. 189, 202 (1973)? Swann v. C¢ otte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1,
19 (1971)? Green v. County Schoci Board of
New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 435 (1968).

Moreover, evidence relating to the

assignment of faculty and administrators is
highly probative of the segregative intent
of school officials. -g., Dayton Board of
Education v. Brinkman, supra, 99 S.Ct. at
2978-79; Keyes v. Scholl District No. l,
supra, 413 U.S. at 209-10; Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
supra, 402 U.S. at 18; Green v. unt

60a

School Board of New Kent County, supra,
391 U.S. at 435; Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.

2d 580, 595 (lst Cir. 1974), cert. denied,,
421 U.S. 963 (1975).

Another deficiency in the Supplement's
explanation of the new construction along
Ashland Avenue is that it is based on two
questionable propositions. The first is
that the district simply was overwhelmed by
events and was unable to influence the
racial composition of schools in the area.
This proposition belies the district's
knowledge of demographic patterns and
projections for this area and its ability
to plan for such developments. The second
proposition is that there was no direction
in which the district could have moved to
build new schools. This proposition
completely disregards the traditionally
white areas to the west. In short, the

Supplement has not demonstrated the

6la

validity of the two basic propositions
underlying its explanation.

Like the contentions in the Supplement
already discussed, the district's
assertions on the placement of mobile
Classroom units also are based on
inaccurate, incomplete and often misleading
factual information. Specifically, the
district denies that a disproportionate
number of mobiles were ever placed at
identifiably black schools. The Supplement
states that "the Board assigned mobiles
wherever they were needed, regardless of
the racial composition of the school that
received them" and that "numerous mobiles
were assigned to integrated or
predominantly white schools, as well as to
predominantly black schools." Su ement,
p. 39.

To support these assertions, the

district compares the racial compositions

62a

of schools that received mobiles in 1963-
64, 1966-67 and 1972-73. Supplement, p.
39. This comparison, however, focuses on
the number of schools receiving mobiles and
ignores the fact that significantly more
mobiles were assigned to identifiably black
schools than were assigned to integrated or
predominantly white schools. For example,
an analysis of the placement of mobiles at
90-100% black and 90-100% white schools in
1966-67 shows that the black schools with
mobiles had an average of 6.7 mobiles per
school, while the white schools with
mobiles had an average of only 3.2 mobiles
per school. This analysis also shows that
64.4% of all mobiles assigned in 1966-67
were assigned to 90-100% black schools,
while only 22.6% of the mobiles were
assigned to 90-100% white schools. An
analysis of prior and subsequent years'

data also reveals similar assignment

63a

patterns. Thus, while the Supplement does
show that mobiles were placed at integrated
and predominantly white schools, it fails
to refute the allegation in the Appendix
that the district assigned a
disproportionate number of mobile
classrooms to identifiably black schools.
The district also defends its use of
temporary classrooms by stating that mobile
units were assigned to preserve and
stabilize integration at particular
schools. Supplement, p. 41-44. The
evidence cited to support this contention,
however, has little probative value. The
Supplement states, for example, that Board
Report 2, dated February 24, 1965, "shows
the placement of mobile units to reduce
Class size to 32.5 or less pupils at 51
racially integrated schools." Supplement,
p. 42. In fact, however, this report does

not show that mobiles actually were

64a

assigned to any of the 51 schools. It
merely shows that 20 of the 51 schools
listed in the report needed mobiles to meet
the prescribed class size. Moreover, eight
of the 20 schools needing mobiles had
enrollments that were in excess of 75%
white or 75% black, and the remaining 12
schools needed a total of only 23 mobiles.
The other evidence cited in the
Supplement to support this contention--
namely, the examples in which mobiles
allegedly were placed at particular schools
to promote integration -- are similarly
unpersuasive. The Supplement claims, for
example, that mobiles were assigned to the
Vanderpoel and Barnard schools in the early
1970's "to foster integration" and "to
accommodate an increasingly integrated
enrollment." Supplement, p. 42, 44.
However, the Supplement's discussion of

these actions is incomplete because it

65a

ignores numerous other segregative actions
that the district took at these and other
schools in the area.

For example, the district opened the
W.E. Green School in 1972 just to the
northeast of Barnard and east of
Vanderpoel. Green opened with a 71% black
faculty and a virtually all-black
enrollment. It also enrolled at least 260
black students who had attended Vanderpoel
and Barnard in 1971. By locating Green so
that it took in areas from the | east and
northeast portions of the Vanderpoel and
Barnard attendance zones, the district
guaranteed that Green's enrollment would be
all-black. Moreover, there were other
possible locations for Green to the west.
These alternative sites would have

integrated Green and would have avoided the

reassignment of at least 260 black students

66a

from two integrated schools to an all-black
school.

During an earlier period, the district
also took other segregative actions at the
schools in this area, including the
maintenance of Barnard and Bates as
separate white and black schools. These
schools shared a common attendance boundary
and were located less than one mile apart.
Bates was a K-6 school on a small site, and
it had sent its seventh and eighth grade
students to the all-black Shoop School for
many years. Shoop, however, had eight
mobiles as early as 1965, several years
before Barnard, also a K=-8 school, received
its first mobile classroom. If the
district had assigned Bates' seventh and
eight grade students to Barnard rather than
to Shoop, the district could have

integrated Barnard long before the early

67a

1970's. Instead, the district maintained
Barnard as an all-white school.

The Supplement concludes its analysis
of the allegations regarding mobile
Classrooms by attempting to refute the
specific examples discussed in the
Appendix. - Once again, however, the
Supplement's explanations are inadequate.

For example, the Supplement
acknowledges that 16 mobile units were

placed at the Altgeld School in 1964 and
1965 as its enrollment became severely
overcrowded and overwhelmingly black.
Supplement, p. 47. The Supplement attempts
to show, however, that the less segregative
alternatives proposed in the Appendix were
not reasonable means of relieving the
overcrowding at Altgeld. Specifically, the
Su e states that the Raster and

O'Toole schools were overcrowded, not

underutilized, and that Barton was not

— am i

68a

nearby but was located one and one-half
miles away. Supplement, p. 47. Moreover,
the Supplement claims that boundary changes
between the Barton and Cook schools in 1965
and 1968 utilized the excess capacity and
integrated the student body at Barton.
Supplement, p. 47.

This response is inadequate because it
dismisses without explanation the
Appendix's suggestion that some mobiles be
placed at Raster and O'Toole to accommodate
students from Altgeld. Appendix, p. 30. In
1965, these schools were virtually all-
white and had no mobiles, although they
were located on sites of sufficient size to
accommodate mobiles. Thus, the placement
of mobiles at these schools could have
relieved overcrowding at Altgeld and
integrated both Raster and O'Toole.
Furthermore, by simply categorizing Raster

and O'Toole as "“overcrowded", the

69a

Supplement totally disregards the
significant differences that existed in the
size and degree of overcrowding at Altgeld
and the two white schools. The Appendix's
suggestion also would have eliminated these
differences by distributing the burden of.
overcrowding more equitably among these
schools.

The Supplement's explanation also
fails because it does not adequately
explain why the district did not reassign
students to or place mobiles at Barton to
relieve the overcrowding at Altgeld. In
all probability, any problems arising from
the distance between Altgeld and Barton
could have been solved through attendance
area adjustments. Moreover, the Cook-
Barton boundary changes tend to confirn,

rather than refute, the allegations in the

Appendix.

70a

Given the speed with which demographic
changes were occurring in this area of the
city, the boundary change between Cook and
Barton in 1968 is too remote in time to
explain or justify the district's failure
to use Barton to relieve Altgeld's
overcrowding in 1965. The 1965 boundary
change, on the other hand, is highly
relevant. Contrary to the statements in
the Supplement, however, this boundary
change had significant segregative effects
at both Cook and Barton. As the following
table shows, the 1965 boundary change
transferred mostly white students from
racially changing Cook (96.9% white in
1963) to identifiably white Barton (100.0%

white in 1963):

Cook
Enrollment White Black

1965 750 - 66.0% 34.0%

1966 1010 24.4% 75.6%

7la

Barton
Enrollment White Black
399 95.2% 4.0%
500 88.0% 11.8%

Thus, the 1965 boundary change between Cook
and Barton actually promoted the
segregation of white and black students in
schools along Ashland Avenue. For this
reason, it does not justify the district's
decision to place 16 mobiles at
identifiably black Altgeld, rather than
reassign some Altgeld students to
identifiably white and underutilized
Barton.

The district's actions in creating ané
altering attendance boundaries, feeder
patterns and optional zones is another area

in which the Supplement fails to rebut the

basic findings set forth in the Appendix.

72a

As was explained previously, the Supplement
s [sic] analysis of the two Ogden-Franklin
boundary changes was based on erroneous and
incomplete factual information. Similarly,
the Supplement totally mischaracterizes the
effects of the 1965 boundary change between
Cook and Barton. These and other
deficiences [sic] also can be found in the
justifications given for the other actions

affecting school boundaries discussed in
the Appendix.

For example, the Supplement does not
dispute the basic facts in the Appendix
regarding the adjustments in attendance
areas, grade structures and feeder patterns
<2 eight elementary schools prior to the
opening of two new schools -- Orr Middle
(later renamed Piccolo Middle) and Laura
Ward -- in 1973. Specifically, the
district changed the grade structures of

four schools with negligible black

73a

enrollments north of Chicago Avenue and
designated those schools as feeder schools
for Piccolo Middle. At the same time, in
anticipation of the opening of Laura Ward,
the district adjusted the attendance areas,
grade structures and feeder patterns of
four virtually all-black schools
immediately south of Chicago Avenue. The
effect of these changes was to create two
sets of racially identifiable schools with
contiguous attendance areas. Black
students attended schools south of Chicago
Avenue, while white students attended
schools north of Chicago Avenue. Appendix,
p. 60-62.

In addition, despite the numerous
changes made by the district, two black
schools south of Chicago Avenue remained
overcrowded, requiring ten and twelve

mobiles to accommodate their students.

None of the schools north of Chicago

74a

Avenue, on the other hand, required
mobiles. In fact, several of these schools
reported the availability of surplus
classrooms in 1973.

The Supplement attempts to justify the
district's actions by arguing that (1)
since Piccolo Middle served students in
grades 6-8 and Laura Ward served students
in grades K-8, "any complete restructuring
of attendance areas was not feasible, as
the two schools were not intended to enroll
students in comparable grade levels"
(Supplement, p. 97); (2) the actions
resulted "in the maximum amount of
integration that was possible in this
geocraphic area" (Supplement, p. 97); and
(3) the less segregative alternative
proposed in the Appendix was not feasible
because- it would have resulted in

overcrowding at Piccolo Middle in 1975.

(Supplement, p. 99). These arguments,

75a

however, do not refute the allegations in
the Appendix.

The Supplement's first argument fails
because it completely ignores the
substantial grade restructuring and
boundary adjustments that occurred at the
eight schools affected by the new school
openings, including the restructuring of
grades at several of the black schools
south of Chicago Avenue. The Supplement
provides no explanation why alternative
boundaries and grade structures would have
been any more extensive or burdensome then
[sic] those actually adopted in 1973.

The Supplement's second argument is
simply untrue. To show that the actions
taken resulted in "the maximum amount of
integration that was possible", the
Supplement points out that several of the

schools north of Chicago Avenue had

substantial Hispanic enrollments.

76a ee

Supplement, p. 97-98. However, for the
reasons stated earlier in connection with
the opening of LaSalle School, this fact
does not explain the almost complete
segregation of white and black students in
schools immediately north and south of
Chicago Avenue. Moreover, in making this
argument, the Supplement completely
disregards the less segregative alternative-
proposed in the Appendix. Appendix, p. 62.

The Supplement's third argument
attacks the alternative proposed in the
Appendix because it would have caused
Piccolo Middle to become overcrowded by
1975. The Supplement cites no evidence,
however, to support the suggestion that
prior to the opening of the two new schools
in 1973, Chicago school officials
anticipated the potential for overcrowding
at Piccolo Middle in 1975. More

significantly, this argument ignores the

77a

fact that several of the black schools
south of Chicago Avenue already were
overcrowded in 1973. Thus, it fails to
show that the alternative actions proposed
in the Appendix were not feasible means of
reducing the racial segregation and
overcrowding that existed in the schools
serving this area in 1973.

In responding to other allegations in
the Appendix regarding the creation and
alteration of optional zones and feeder
patterns, the Supplement asserts that the
actions taken by the district were
legitimate efforts to stabilize integration
at schools with declining white
enrollments. Supplement, p. 80-90. The

4
Supplement argues, in essence, that the
district was justified in allowing white

students to attend schools with substantial
but declining white enrollments, rather

than the predominantly black schools to

78a

which the students otherwise would have
been assigned, because the actions were
necessary to stem the decline in white
enrollment at such schools.* The theory
underlying this argument is that white
students are less likely to flee schools
with black students if the white students
are grouped in sufficiently large numbers
at the school.

There are two principal reasons why this
argument fails to justify the actions taken
by the district. First, the argument
ignores the segregative effects of the
actions at the schools to which the white
students _ otherwise would have been

assigned. In many instances, these schools

The Supplement attempts to justify other
segregative actions discussed in the
Appendix on the basis of this same
argument. Supplement, p-. 36, 50-51, 77.
For the reasons subsequently discussed,
however, the argument also fails to
justify those actions.

79a

became virtually all-black following the
district's action. Second, the evidence on
optional zones and feeder patterns cannot
be viewed in isolation from the other
evidence of intentionally segregative
actions discussed in the Appendix. This
evidence shows that the district took
mumerous other segregative actions at the
same schools or at other schools in the
Same areas of the city as those discussed
in the Appendix; that these other
segregative actions were roughly
contemporaneous with those actions; and
that the other actions also were taken to
satisfy white community desires. Thus,
when the district's actions in creating and
altering optional zones and feeder patterns
are viewed in conjunction with all of the
other evidence, it is quite Clear that the

actions form a pattern of segregative

activity.

80a

These same two factors also distinguish

Johnson v. Board of Education of the City

of Chicago, 604 F.2d 504 (7th Civ. L979) ,
which the district cites in support of its
position. In Johnson, the Court of Appeals
upheld the constitutionality of the
racially controlled admissions programs at
Gage Park and Morgan Park high schools as
lawful efforts to prevent de facto
segregation. The programs at Gage Park and
Morgan Park, however, specifically provided
that excluded black students may attend
white or other integrated schools, with bus
transportation provided by the district.
Thus, unlike its actions affecting optional
zones and feeder patterns, the district
took positive steps in implementing the
Gage Park and Morgan Park plans to ensure
that they did not increase racial

segregation at other schools. Moreover,

the issue before the Court in Johnson was a

8la

narrow one - - whether the admissions
programs in effect at two high schools were
unlawful. The conclusions in the Appendix,
on the other hand, are based on an
examination and analysis of school
officials’ actions dating back over the
past several decades and affecting sc>ools
throughout the system. The importance of
this distinction has been recognized by the
courts in numerous school desegregation
cases, particulary with respect to proving
segregative "intent":

Although it might not be possible to
infer the requisite discriminatory
intent from any one instance in the
record, it is clear that the
district court found a purposeful
pattern of racial discrimination
based on the aggregate of many
decisions of the Board and its
agents. United States v. Board of
Commissioners, Indianapolis, 474
P.2@ @1, 84 (7th Cir. 1973), Sart.
denied, 413 U.S. 920 (1974); accord,
Horgan_v.—Kerrigan, supra, 509 F.2d
at 582; Vv s ct o

, 443 F.2d $73,
575-76 (6th Cir. 1971).

82a

Thus, the Supplement again fails to refute
the allegations in the Appendix.

The Supplement also challenges the
Appendix's analyses of the various programs
proposed by the district to relieve
overcrowding through the reassignment and
transportation of students. The
explanations given in the Supplement,
however, suffer from many of the same
deficiencies previously discussed in
connection with the other examples from the
Appendix.

For example, the Supplement does not
dispute the fact that a lack of support
from the affected communities, including
the white community, caused the district
not to adopt the "Intra-Community Pilot
Program" for the South Shore area in 1967.
Supplement, p. 139. Under this program,
students from three overcrowded black

schools --Bryn Mawr, Mann and Caldwell--

83a

were to transfer to nine underutilized
white schools. This program was proposed
both to relieve overcrowding at the black
sending schools and to promote stable

integration at the white receiving schools.

Board Report 68-17-2, January 10, 1968;

Board Report 67-1271-6, December 27, 1967.
The Supplement defends the district's

rejection of this proposal by stating that
the district adopted "an alternative plan
which resulted in the opening of two new
schools -- the Black School and Black Annex
-- with racially stable enrollments."
Supplement, p. 139. The Supplement also
points out that these "mini-magnet" schools
have remained stably integrated since their
opening in 1968. Supplement, p. 85-86,
139.

The defense put forward in the
Supplement is inadequate for two reasons.

First, as originally proposed by the

84a

Superintendent, the "Intra-Community Pilot
Program" and the creation of magnet schools
were separate, complementary programs.
Contrary to the suggestion in the
Supplement, they were not alternative or

substitute proposals. creasin

Desegregation of Faculties, Students, and
Vocational Education Programs, Section B,

August” 23, 1967. Second, and more

significantly, the Supplement fails to
recognize important differences in the two
programs, particularly in their effects on
the related problems of overcrowding and
racial segregation.

Under the "Intra-Community Pilot
Program", a total of 462 students would
have transferred from the three overcrowded
black schools to the nine underutilized
white schools. ° epo 68-17-2,
January 10, 1968. This program would have

had a substantial impact on the overcrowded

85a

e
conditions at the black sending schools and
would have improved integration at all nine
white receiving schools. By contrast, the
establishment of Black and Black Annex
created two new integrated schools, but had
little effect on the overcrowding at black
schools or the segregation at white schools
in the South Shore area. Only about 200
black students were authorized to attend
Black and Black Annex because of the 50%
white-50% black admissions goal established
for those schools. In addition, these 200
black students were drawn from the 20
schools that were authorized to send
students to Black and Black Annex, not just
from schools with serious overcrowding
problems. Board Report 68-569, July 10,
1968. As a result, the three black schools
proposed as sending schools under the
"Intra-Community Pilot Program" remained

seriously overcrowded, requiring a total of

86a

16 mobile units to accommodate their
students in 1968-69. Moreover, as the
following table shows, most of the white
schools proposed as receiving schools

remained highly segregated in 1968-69:

Racial Composition of
° ivi -69

Black White
Anthony 1.1% 88.9%
Buckingham 4.0 86.9
Burnham 6.7 88.3
Coles 25.5 62.9
Goldsmith 81.8
Hoyne 17.3 78.7
Luella 9.8 85.1
Sullivan 2.6 29.6"
Warren 18.4 Jaso

In summary, the establishment of Black
and Black Annex was not an alternative or
substitute for the Superintendent's
proposed "Intra-Community Pilot Program."
While these schools did provide an

integrated education for some _ students,

7

Sullivan enrolled 67.8% other minority
students in 1968-69.

87a

they did not significantly reduce the
overcrowding at black schools or contribute
to the integration of white schools in the
South Shore area. Thus, the Supplement
does not refute the basic allegations in
the Appendix.

Similarly, the Supplement fails to
justify the various limitations and
restrictions imposed on the district's
busing program for the Austin area in
administrative district 4. Identical in
all fundamental respects to the South Shore
proposal, this program was proposed in 1967
to relieve overcrowding and to stabilize
integration by transporting students from
two overcrowded black schools -- May and

Spencer -- to eight underutilized white

schools. Board Report 67-1271-6, December
27, 1967; Board Report 68-17-2, January 10,
1968. Following pressure from community

groups, however, the district adopted

88a

several limitations that severely reduced
the program's potential for relieving
overcrowding and promoting desegregation.
These limitations included the imposition
of a 15% ceiling on the number of transfer
students that a receiving school was
required to accept, regardless of the
school's capacity; the prohibition of white
student transfers; the refusal to reassign
some special education students from Nash
and Young to other schools with sufficient
capacity in administrative district 4; and
the authorization of parents to refuse
their child's transfer under the progran.
Board Report 68-17-2, January 10, 1968;
Board Report 68-213, March 4, 1968.

The Supplement gives no justification
whatsoever for several of these

limitations, including the 15% ceiling on

the number of transfer students in a

89a

receiving school. Moreover, the
justifications given for the other
restrictions are simply inadequate. For
example, the Supplement states that the
Nash and Young schools, both virtually all-
white, _— not included in the program
because they had no excess capacity due to
the location of 22 special education
classrooms at those schools. Supplement,
pa 1336-137. The Supplement explains
further that the alternative of
transferring these classrooms to other
underutilized schools in administrative
district 4 vee unavailable because the
Department's own regulations issued under
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 recognize the detrimental effects of
transporting special education students
further than necessary and prohibit such
transfers. u ement, p. 118-119, 137.

See 45 CFR 84.34.

eee

—————__SLrrstti‘isS

90a

This explanation is inadequate because
it suggests that the transfer of these
special education classrooms to other
schools in administrative district 4 would
have imposed a greater burden or hardship
on these students. The Supplement presents
absolutely no evidence to support this

proposition. Moreover, as early as 1966,

several white schools in administrative
district 4 -- Burbank, Sayre and Smyser--
had more than enough capacity to provide
all the necessary special education
classrooms. In all probability, since
these three schools had no_- special
education classrooms of their own, and
since Nash and Young contained most of the
special education classes in administrative
district 4, some of the students who were
enrolled in Nash and Young in 1966 resided
in the Burbank, Sayre and Smyser attendance

areas. Clearly, for these students, the

9la

proposed transfer of special classrooms
would not have increased the burden of
their transportation.
_ The Su ement also attacks’ the
suggestion in the Appendix that the
Ateteter could have contributed
substantially to racial stability in the
Austin area by implementing at an earlier
date a program like the Austin busing
program. The Supplement contends that if
the district had implemented such a program
in 1965, it would not have resulted in
desegregation because most of the students
in May and Spencer were white at that time.
The Supplement also claims that
"overcrowding at May and Spencer did not
becofmie severe until 1967, at which time the
Austin plan was implemented." Su ement,
Se. 297.

This explanation again misrepresents the

basic facts. The Austin busing program was

Reems

92a

initiated on March 11, 1948, but was not
fully implemented until the 1969-70 school
year. Supplement, p. 136. Moreover, as the
following table shows, May and Spencer
already were predominantly black and
seriously overcrowded in 1966, long before

the program was fully implemented:

May
Enrollment Black White Mobiles
1965 853 30.4 ee
1966 1035 57.7 35.6 5
1967 1559 88.9 13.8 .6°
1968 1586 95.9 >
1969 2080 98.9 1.0 5

* The district opened an addition at May

in 1967.

Spencer
Enrollment Black White Mobiles
1965 1022 10.1 85.1 2
1966 1304 53.2 45.4 9
1967 1325 82.3 4239 12
1968 1624 90.8 4.6 12
1969 2078 97.1 1.0 14

Thus, the Supplement does not refute the
basic allegation in the Appendix -- that
the implementation of such a program at an
earlier date would have contributed to the
racial stability of the Austin area by
spreading the burdens of overcrowding and
desegregation more equitably among all the
schools in the area.

The Supplement also fails to rebut the
essential facts regarding the segregative
busing programs discussed in the Appendix.
For example, the Supplement defends the
busing of black students from Brenan to Poe
in 1973 and 1974 on the theory that "the
use of the vacant Poe building was the only

available solution to the problem of

94a

overcrowding at Brenan." Supplement, p.
141. The Supplement specifically rejects
the less segregative alternatives proposed
in the Appendix because "[njone of the
alternative schools .. . had sufficient
available capacity to accommodate the
seventh and eighth grade students from
Brenan." Supplement, p. 141. In addition,
the Supplement claims that the Clissold
Schools “was much farther from Brenan than
Poe was", and that the Nansen and White
schools were too unstable racially to
receive black students from Brennan.
Supplement, p. 141.

The Supplement's defense of the Brenan-
Poe busing program fails to demonstrate .
that Poe was "the only available solution"
to relieve the overcrowding at Brenan.
Even assuming that Nansen and White were

not reasonable alternatives, the Appendix

suggests four other white schools--

95a

Clissold, Sheldon, Sutherland and Cassell
-- that could have accommodated all of the
black students from Brenan. According to
the data provided in the Supplement, these
four schools had sufficient permanent
sapenkin te accommodate over 260 additional
students in both 1973 and 1974.
Furthermore, even though Poe had three
mobiles in 1973 and seven mobiles in 1974,
the Supplement ignores the possibility of
placing mobiles at the four white schools
to accommodate even more students from
Brenan. Three of the four white schools
had no mobiles in 1973, and only one of the
schools had as many as four mobiles in
1974. Thus, these four white schools could
have accommodated all of the students, 423
in 1973 and 506 in 1974, who were bused
from Brenan to Poe under this program.

Additionally, Clissold was not "much

farther from Brenan than Poe was."

96a

Supplement, p. 141. On the contrary,
Clissold and Poe were roughly equidistant
from Brenan. Moreover, any minor
differences in the distances or travel
times between these schools are irrelevant
since the district provided transportation
to the students transferring under the
progran.

The Supplement's justification for the
Raster-Dyett busing program aiso is
unpersuasive. The Supplement states that
the district began busing students from
Raster to Dyett in January 1975 in order to
alleviate overcrowding at Raster. The
Supplement explains further that the Dyett
School was selected to receive students
from Raster because it was the closest
school that had sufficient capacity and was
operating under the district's 45-15 Plan.

The Su ement also dismisses the six

underutilized white schools proposed as

97a

alternatives to Dyett in the Appendix,
"since they all operated a nine-month
regular school year program not conducive
to the 45-15 Plan." Supplement, p. 146.

In short, the Supplement bases its
defense on the 45-15 Plan, another program
to alleviate the district's overcrowding
problems. The plan was first implemented
as a pilot program in 1971. Board Report
71-528-6, June 3, 1971. Under this plan,
students attended school for a 45-day
period and then had a 15-day vacation
before starting another 45-day period.
This served to relieve overcrowding since
only three-quarters of a school's
enrollment were -in attendance on a given
day. Board Report 71-287-7, March 24,
1971.

The Supplement argues, in essence, that
the busing of students from Raster to Dyett

to relieve overcrowding was justified

98a

because the students needed to continue
under the 45-15 Plan. The Supplement gives
no explanation, however, why students from
overcrowded Raster needed to continue under
the 45-15 Plan, particularly since that
program also was designed to alleviate
overcrowding. It may be that the first
students transferring from Raster in
January 1975 needed to attend Dyett in
order to avoid disruption of their
education at mid-year. By the beginning of
the 1975-76 school year, however, the need
to avoid mid-year disruption no longer
existed. Thus, the Supplement fails to
provide an udewsiten justification for
continuing the Raster-Dyett busing program
for 1975-76 through 1978-79

The final section in the Supplement
responds to the Appendix's allegations

regarding the assignment of faculty and

administrators to schools on the basis of

99a

race. The Supplement makes no effort to
explain or rebut the specific facts and
conclusions set forth in the Appendix.
Instead, the Supplement merely states that
these allegations are irrelevant because
the district's application for a waiver of
ineligibility for FY 1979 ESAA funds was
adequate with respect to the reassignment
of faculty. Supplement, p. 147-148.

This answer is not responsive to the
allegations. As was explained in the
Appendix, even though the district has made
considerable progress toward faculty
desegregation, evidence of past racial
discrimination in the assignment of faculty
and administrators is relevant to the issue
of unlawful student segregation. Federal
courts consider school policies and
practices for assigning faculty and staff

to be an important indicator of an

unlawfully segregated -~school system and

100a

highly probative of the segregative intent
of school officials in the system as a
whole. Appendix, p. 96, 98, 101-102. Thus
the supplement 's response again fails to
explain or justify the actions discussed in
the Appendix.

As the preceding analysis demonstrates,
the Response and Supplement submitted at
the show cause meeting do not refute the
essential facts and conclusions set forth
in the Appendix. I am in complete
agreement, therefore, with the conclusion
reached by the Department of Justice based
on its review of the two documents. On
page 4 of his recent letter to you, dated
April 21, 1980, Assistant Attorney General

Days wrote:

While the response sheds new light on
several areas of factual dispute, it
fails to dispel our general
conclusion, which is based on both
HEW's study and our own, that the
Board has intentionally segregated
students throughout ae substantial

10l1a

portion of the school system. Thus,
we believe that a systemwide remedy
is required.

Thus, I have no alternative but to sustain
the two principal bases for the
determination of ineligibility in my letter
of February 28, 1980.

Because I have not revoked the first
basis of ineligibility cited in my earlier
letter, the district's basic grant
application for FY 1980 may not be

considered for funding. The district has

not shown that Access to Excellence is one
of the alternative types of plans for which
ESAA basic grant funds may be awarded, and
a determination of plan ineligibility under
section 606(a) of the Act is not subject to
the waiver of ineligibility provisions set
out in section 606(c). 20 U.S.C. 3196(a),
(c).

I also understand, however, ‘that

representatives of the district and the

ee

102a

Department of Justice have begun
negotiations on this matter under Title IV
and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. If these negotiations are successful
in developing a legally sufficient school
desegregation plan, this plan may be
submitted in an application for a waiver of
ineligibility in accordance with the
procedures discussed in my earlier letter.
By obtaining a waiver of ineligibility on
this issue, as well as on the other hases
of ineligibility discussed in this letter
the district may become eligible for an
ESAA magnet grant, which does not require a
qualifying plan, or for other types of ESAA
assistance in the future. Thus, I urge you
to resolve this student assignment matter

voluntarily through the negotiations with

the Department of Justice.

103a

Other Bases of Ineligibility
1. Teacher Assignment

Section 185.45(b)(2) of the ESAA
regulations provides:

No education agency shall be eligible
for assistance under the Act if, after
June 23, 1972, it has had or maintained
in effect any other practice, policy, or
procedure which results in
discrimination on the basis of race,
color, or national origin in the
recruiting, hiring, promotion, payment,
demotion, dismissal, or assignment of
any of its employees (or other personnel
for which such agency has any
administrative responsibility),
including the assignment of full-time
classroom teachers to the schools of
such agency in such a manner as to
identify any of such schools as intended
for students of a particular race,
color, or national origin.

On October 12, 1977, OCR and the
district entered into an agreement to
remedy the violations of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d
et _seq., found by Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) Everett Hammarstrom on February 15,

1977, in the areas of faculty assignment

104a

and bilingual education. The agreement is

entitled Plan for the Implementation of the
Provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 Relating to Integration of
Faculties, Assignment Patterns of
Principals, and Bilingual Education
Programs (Plan).

To remedy the ALJ's findings with
respect to the assignment of teachers, the
Plan prescribes two compliance or remedial
standards, one applicable for September
1977 and one applicable after the September
1977 standard has been reached. These
standards establish goals for the racial/
ethnic composition, the experience and the
training of teaching staffs at each school
in the system. Specifically, the
compliance standard for September 1977

provides (Plan, p. 11):

105a

The racial/ethnic composition in
each school will be

no more than 65 percent
nonminority and no less than 40
percent nonminority

or

no more than 60 percent
minority and no less than 35
percent minority
The percentage of experienced
teachers in each school will be
between plus or minus 12 percent
of the systemwide percentage of
experienced teachers for each
school type.
The range of educational training
of each faculty will be
substantially the same as exists

in the system as a whole.

106a |
The compliance standard applicable
once the standard for September 1977 has

been met is contained in the following

provision (Plan, p. 11):

In implementing this Plan, the Chicago
Public School District will make every
good faith effort to follow
professional staff assignment and
transfer practices which, when taken
together as a whole on a frequently
reviewed periodic basis, will assure
that the racial composition, the
experience and the educational
background of individual school
faculties and administrative staff
more nearly approach* the city-wide
proportions of minority, experienced,
and more extensively trained
professional staff provided however
that nothing in this Plan. shall
require the assignment or transfer of
any person to a position for which he
or she is not professionally
qualified. The Chicago Public School
District will not adopt or follow
assignment and transfer practices
which will foreseeably result in the
racial identifiability of schools
based on faculty or administrative
staff composition or in unequal
distribution of experienced and more
extensively trained staff.

*Plus or minus ten percentage points
of city-wide averages for race,
experience, and training for each type
of school facility.

107a

During FY 1978 and FY 1979, the
district was found ineligible for ESAA
funds under 45 CFR 185.43(b)(2) based on
the ALJ's findings of noncompliance with
Title VI and the district's failure to meet
the prescribed racial/ethnic goals for
September 1977 at a substantial number of
schools. In FY 1979, after negotiating
with OCR several modifications in the Plan,
the district submitted information with its
application for a waiver of ineligibility
showing that, as of June 13, 1979, the
racial/ethnic composition of wank school's
faculty fell within the compliance range
prescribed for September 1977. Thus, ofi
September 15, 1979, the district was
notified that its waiver application was
adequate with respect to the assignment of
teachers.

In connection with its applications

for FY 1980 ESAA funding, the district now

108a

has submitted to OCR information on the
racial/ethnic composition of each school's
faculty as of October 31, 1979, and April
28, 1980. In addition, the district has
provided information on the experience and
training levels of each school's teaching
staff as of April 28, 1980. This
information was specifically requested by
OCR in order to monitor the district's
continued compliance with the Plan and to
ensure that the recent reduction in and
reassignment of teaching staff caused by
the district's budgetary problems did not
adversely affect its faculty desegregation
efforts.

An analysis of this information shows
that since June 13, 1979, the district's
assignment of teachers to schools. has
caused a substantial number of schools to

fall out of compliance with the racial/

ethnic remedial standards prescribed in the

109a

Plan. The information also shows that
between October 1979 and April 1980, there
was a significant increase in the number of
schools that do not meet these compliance
standards, presumably as a result of the
faculty reassignments necessitated by the
district's financial difficulties. And
finally, the information shows that many
schools fall outside the compliance ranges
for experience and training in the Plan.

More specifically, according to the
"Racial/Ethnic Survey-Staff" conducted on
October 31, 1979, the faculties at 106
schools, including 79 regular schools and
27 special schools, did not meet the 35-60
percent minority standard prescribed in the
Plan for September 1977. Moreover, 35 of
the 79 regular schools and 17 of the 27
special schools required the reassignment

of two or more teachers in order to reach

the standard. In fact, several schools--

110a

including Taft and Bogan high schools and
four special schools -- were out of
compliance by ten or more teachers.

Based on this same data, an even
greater number of schools failed to meet
the Plan's "more nearly approach" standard
(i.e., plus or minus ten percentage points
of the system-wide average for each
facility type). Specifically, the
racial/ethnic composition of the faculties
at 183 schools =-- 141 regular schools and
42 special schools -- fell outside this
compliance range. This included 38 regular
schools and 30 special schools’ that
deviated by more than 15 percentage points
from the system-wide average for each
facility type.

An analysis of the staff racial/ethnic
survey conducted on April 28, 1980, shows
even more schools outside the racial/ethnic

compliance ranges prescribed in the Plan.

lila

According to this survey, 172. schools
failed to meet the 35-60 minority standard
prescribed in the Plan, including 142
regular schools and 15 special schools that
required the assignment of two or more
teachers in order to achieve compliance
with the standard. Moreover, there were
two additional schools -- Hope Middle
School and Bell Special Education School--
that were out of compliance by ten or more
teachers.

Once again, a larger number of schools
also fell outside the "more nearly
approach" standard in the Plan. Based on
the April 1980 survey, the racial/ethnic
composition of the faculties at 200 regular
schools and 41 special schools did not
comply with this standard, including 67
regular schools and 37 special schools that

deviated by more than 15 percentage points

112a
from the system-wide average for each
facility type.

The survey conducted on April 28,
1980, also shows that the district has not
complied with Plan's requirements regarding
the experience and Te levels of
individual schools' teaching staffs.
Specifically, the survey shows that the
“percentage of experienced teachers at 52
regular schools and 35 special schools
deviated by more than 12 percentage points
from the system-wide percentage of
experienced teachers for each facility
type. In addition, 151 regular schools and
31 special schools have faculties with
educational backgrounds that were not
"substantially the eana* as exists in the
system as a whole (i.e., deviated by more
than 12 percentage points from the systen-
wide percentage of teachers with B.A.

degrees).

113a

In short, the district has not
complied fully with the faculty
desegregation requirements in the Plan.
Although the district did demonstrate
compliance with the 35-60 percent minority
standard for September 1977 in its
application for a waiver of ineligibility
for FY 1979 ESAA funds, the information
subsequently provided shows that the
district has not continued to assign
teachers so that the racial/ethnic
composition of each school's faculty "more
nearly approaches" the system-wide average
for each facility type. In fact, many
schools are no longer in compliance with
the 35-60 percent minority standard.
Moreover, he information shows a
significant number of schools do not meet
the compliance ranges for experience and

training in the Plan.

ll4a

Because the district has not complied
with the Plan, it has not completely
eliminated the racial discrimination in the
assignment of faculty found by the ALJ.
Thus, the district is ineligible for ESAA
funding under section 606(c)(1)(B) of the
Act, as interpreted by section 185.43(b) (2)
of the regulations, based on its continued
failure to comply with Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2. Classroom Segregation
Section 185.43(c) of the ESAA

regulations provides:

No educational agency shall be
eligible for assistance under the
Act if, after June 23, 1972, it
has had or maintained in effect
any procedure for the assignment
of children to or within classes
which results in any segregation
of minority group’ from
nonminority group children for
more than 25 percent of the
school day classroom periods, in
conjunction with desegregation or
the conduct of any activity
described in Section 706 of the
Act. This paragraph shall not be
construed to prohibit bona fide

115a

ability grouping as a standard
pedagogical practice. Such
grouping is that which is:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Based up oe a
nondiscriminatory, objective
standards of measurement
which are educationally
relevant to the purposes of
such grouping and which, in
the case of national origin
minority group children, do
not essentia'’*y measure
Enclish language skills;

Determined by the
nondiscriminatory
application of the standards
described in subparagraph
(1) of this paragraph, and
maintained for only such
portion of the school day
classroom periods as is
necessary to achieve the
purposes of such grouping;

Designed to meet the special
needs of the students in
each group determined by the
application of the standard
described in subparagraph
(1) of this paragraph and to
improve the academic
performance and achievement
of students determined to be
in the less academically
advanced groups, by means of
specially developed
curricula, specially trained
or certified instructional
personnel, and periodic
retesting to determine

: 116a

academic progress’ and
eligibility for promotion;
and

(4) Validated by test scores or
other reliable objective
evidence indicating the
educational benefits of such
grouping.

In addition, section 185.43(d)(5) of the
ESAA regulations provides:

No educational agency shall be
eligible for assistance under the Act
if, after June 23, 1972, it has had or
maintained in effect any practice,
policy or procedure which results or
has resulted in discrimination against
children on the bases of race, color
or national origin, including but no
{sic] limited to:

* ~ 7 *

(5) Assigning students’ to
ability groups, tracks,
special education classes,
Classes for the mentally
retarded, or other
C.8.-@ 2:44:60 €.i:a:2 or
extracurricular activities
on the basis of race, color
or national origin.
Racially or ethnically
identifiable groups, tracks,
or classes which cannot be
justified educationally
under the criteria set out
in paragraph (c) of this
section shall be presumed to

117a
be assigned on the basis of
race, color or national
origin.

During FY 1978 and FY 1979, the
district was found ineligible for ESAA
funding under sections 185.43(c) and (d) (5)
of the regulations because it assigned
students to racially/ethnically isolated
and identifiable classes that could not be
justified educationally under the criteria
set out in section 185.43(c)(1)-(4). These
determinations were based on analyses of
classes in schools and programs enrolling
between 20 and 80 percent minority
students. Moreover, the analyses excluded
classrooms used for bilingual, special
education, pre-school and kindergraten
[sic] programs.

In its application for a waiver of

ineligibility for FY 1979 ESAA funding, the

district made several commitments to ensure

that no student is assigned to a racially/

118a

ethnically identifiable or isolated
classroom except when the assignment can be
justified educationally under the criteria
in section 185.43 (c)(1)-(4) of the
regulations. These commitments satisfied
the requirements for obtaining a waiver of
ineligibility on this issue. 45 CFR
185.44(e), (£)(3). On the basis of these
commitments, the district was notified in a
letter dated September 15, 1979, that its
waiver application was adequate to remedy
the discrimination found in assigning
students to classes in the district's
regular education progran.

The school district now admits,
however, that it has not implemented the
remedial actions described in last year's
application for a waiver of ineligibility.
In a letter dated May 5, 1980, the district
stated:

Due to the Department's failure last
year to provide the District with a

ee es

119a

waiver of ineligibility on all issues,
thereby furnishing the District with
1979 ESAA funds, the District did not
implement the terms of the waiver
agreement reached last year on this
issue.
Because the district has not implemented
the agreed upon remedy, its discriminatory
classroom assignment practices have not
ceased to exist. Thus, the district
remains ineligible for FY 1980 ESAA funds
under sections 606(c)(1)(C) and (D) of the
Act, as interpreted by sections 185.43(c)
and (d)(5) of the regulations, based on its
assignment of students to racially/
ethnically identifiable and isolated
classrooms without adequate educational
justification.
3. Bilingual Education
Section 185.43(d)(2) of the ESAA
regulations provides:
No educational agency shall be
eligible for assistance under the
Act if, after June 23, 1972, it

has had or maintained in effect
any practice, policy, or

120a
procedure which results or has
resulted in discrimination
against children on the basis of

race, color, or national origin,
including but not limited to:

7 * * a *

(2) Denying equality of
educational opportunity or
otherwise discriminating
against national origin
minority children on the
basis of language or
cultural background.

During FY 1979, the district was found
ineligible for ESAA funding under section
185.43(d)(2) of the regulations because it
had failed to implement certain provisions
of the Plan relating to the delivery of
instructional services to non=- and limited
English speaking students. These included
provisions on staffing for bilingual
programs and developing a program of
linguistically appropriate special
education services.

Subsequently, in its application for a
waiver of ineligibility, the district made

121a
additional commitments in each of these
areas. The district stated that by
September 15, 1979, it would hire, assign,
and/or reassign adequate numbers of
bilingual and TESL teachers to meet minimum
staffing requirement [sic] in all Group I
and Group II bilingual programs. These
minimum staffing requirements were to be
determined on the basis of agreed upon
staffing formulas for Group I and Group II
programs. Additionally, under the Model
Vv ° inguistic

ucati ervices
(Model) submitted with its waiver
application, the district is obligated to
employ the number of bilingual endorsed and
special education certified teachers needed
to meet the special education needs of
handicapped non-and limited English
speaking students. The number of such

teachers to be employed was to be

122a

determined on the basis of the criteria
contained in the Model and the number of
students requiring such services as
determined by the district's annual needs
assessment. The Model provided further
that if the district could demonstrate that
it had exhausted all recruitment and hiring
possibilities without obtaining the
requisite number of bilingual special
education teachers, it could utilize
bilingual paraprofessionals as an interim
measure while it continued its efforts to
recruit and hire professional staff. Since
these commitments satisfied the
requirements for obtaining a waiver of
ineligibility on these issues, the district
was notified on September 15, 1979, that
its waiver application was adequate with
respect to these matters.

It is now evident that the district

has not fully implemented the _ staffing

123a

commitments contained in last year's

application for a waiver of ineligibility.

The information provided by the district

during and after the show cause meeting on

March 27, 1980, shows the following:

1.

Group I Staffing - In its "Status
Report of Bilingual Education
Programs" submitted at the show
cause meeting, the district
states that "[ajs of March 25,
1980, of 218 bilingual programs,
164 met the minimum staffing
requirements described in the
waiver. In the remaining 54
programs a total of 81 bilingual
teachers were needed."

Grou ta - Similarly,
the "Status Report of Bilingual
Education Programs" shows that as

of March 25, 1980, 8.5 bilingual

teachers and 7 TESL teachers were

124a

still needed to staff Group II

programs.
+ fe} iate
Special Education Services - In

its “Report on the District
Special Education Staffing Needs
for the 1979-80 School Year"
submitted to OCR on May 6, 1980,
the district also acknowledged
that it has not employed
sufficient numbers of teachers or
paraprofessionals to meet the
special education needs of
handicapped non- and limited
English speaking students. The
report states that 34.5 Spanish
endorsed special education
teachers in 15 handicapping
conditions are needed to serve

Hispanic students in broad

incidence programs. To date,

125a

however, the district has
employed only 20 teacher aides.
Thus, even though the district
has made significant progress
during the first year of its
formal bilingual special
education program, it is not
fully meeting the educational
needs of these students.

In conclusion, because the district
has not satisfied the staffing commitments
for Group I, Group II and bilingual special
education programs in last year's waiver
agreement, it is ineligible for ESAA
funding under section 606(c)(1)(D) of the
Act, as interpreted by section 185.43(d) (2)

of the regulations.

Reestablishing Eligibility for ESAA Funds
The district may remove the three

additional bases of ineligibility for ESAA

126a

funds in one of two ways. It may request
an opportunity to show cause why these
ineligibility determinations should be
revoked and its.applications considered for
funding; or it may correct the violations
and apply for a waiver of ineligibility. A
request for a show cause cause _ [sic]
conference should be directed to:

Dr. Shirley McCune

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary

Equal Educational Opportunity Programs

Department of Education

Room 2001, FOB #6

400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20202
The request must be received, not merely
sent, within 14 days of the date of this
letter.

If the district requests the show
cause opportunity, an informal conference
with representatives of the district will
he [sic] held within seven days of the

receipt of the request. The purpose of

this conference is to give the district an

127a

opportunity to demonstrate that the facts
supporting our determinations are
‘inaccurate and to provide additional
information which may alter those
determinations. The conference is not a
forum for working out the terms of an
application for a waiver of ineligibility.

If the district chooses to take action
to correct the violations cited, it may
apply for a waiver of ineligibility
pursuant to section 606(d) of the Act (20
U.S.C. 3196(d)) and section 185.44 of the
implementing regulations (45 CFR 185.44).
An application for a waiver of
ineligibility must include information and
assurances which show that any activity
resulting in ineligibility has "ceased to
exist" and will not reoccur after the

submission of the waiver application (20

U.S.C. 3196(d) (1); 45 CFR 185.44(b)).

128a
Specifically, an application for a
waiver of ineligibility for the three

additional bases of ineligibility cited in

this letter must contain the information

and materials required by the following

provisions of the ESAA regulations:

1. Teacher Assignment

45 CFR 185.44(da)(3): In the case
of ineligibility resulting from
discriminatory assignment of
teachers as prohibited by
185.43(b) (2), such applications
for waiver shall contain evidence
that such agency has assigned its
full-time classroom teachers to
its schools so that no school is
identified as intended for
students of a particular race,
color, or national origin. Such

non-discriminatory assignments

shall, in the case of a local

129a

educational agency implementing a

plan described in 185.11(a),

conform to the requirements of

such plan with respect to the
assignment of faculty....
2. Classroom Segregation

45 CFR 184.44(e): In the case of

ineligibility under Section

185.43(c), an application for

waiver shall contain:

(1) Evidence that minority group
children are not separated
from nonminority group
children by or within
Classes for more than 25
percent of the school day
classroom periods, except in
instances of bona fide
ability grouping which meet
the requirements of section

185.43(c), where such agency

130a
has demonstrated by clear
and convincing evidence that
such separation is
educationally necessary and
is the only available method
of achieving a specific
educational objective; and
(2) A statement of steps taken
by such agency to insure
that separation of minority
and nonminority group
Children as prohibited by
section 185.43(c) will not
reoccur in the future.
45 CFR 185.44(f£)(3): (i) In the
case of the assignment of
students to racially or
ethnically identifiable groups,

tracks, or classes which cannot

be justified educationally, as

described in Section

131a

185.43(da)(5), an educational

agency shall submit the following

information...

(B) If the assignment was to
other groupings, evidence
that the students so
assigned have been
nondiscriminatorily
reassigned to groupings that
are not racially or
ethnically identifiable, or
evidence that the students
so assigned have been
reassigned to groupings in
accordance with the criteria
in Section 185.43(c)(1)-
(3).

(ii) If the educational
agency reassigns any
student to new grouping

under paragraph

132a
(f£)(3) (i) of this
section, it shall also
submit evidence that it
has made provision for
such transitional
services as are
necessary to enable the
student to participate
meaningfully in the
educational program of
the new grouping.
Bilingual Education
45 CFR 185.44(f)(1): In the case
of a denial of equal educational
opportunity to national origin
minority group children as
described in section
185.43(d) (2), such agency shall
submit an educational plan of
sufficient comprehensiveness to

remedy or eliminate the effects

e————————

133a

of such denial and to meet the
special educational needs of all
national origin minority group
children for whose education such
agency is responsible. Such a
plan, if required and approved
under this subparagraph, shall be
implemented regardless of whether
funds for such purposes are made
available under the Act.

Waiver applications are reviewed by
the Office for Civil Rights, Department of
Education, and decisions as to whether a
waiver should be granted are made by the
Secretary to the Department. The waiver
application should be directed to:

Ms. Cynthia G. Brown

Acting Assistant Secretary

Office for Civil Rights

Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue,. S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20202

If the district intends to apply for a

waiver, the request must be received with

134a

the [{sic) 21 days of the date of this
letter or, if the district requests a show
cause conference, within 21 days of the
date of the letter notifying you of the
results of the conference. In the absence
of such a request, we will not feel
constrained to reserve funds for an
application that is approvable in other
respects.

This letter relates solely to your
district's eligibility for ESAA assistance.
The establishment of eligibility does not,
by itself, ensure that an application will
be funded. An application also must
satisfy other requirements applicable to
the ESAA program, and its application must
compete successfully with those of other

school districts.

cc

135a

Sincerely,

Thomas K. Minter

Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary
Education

Chief State School Officer

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Regional Director, Region V, Office
for Civil Rights

Frank Cicero, Kirkland and Ellis

136a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
Vs. NO.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO,

(Filed September
24, 1980)

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) co N
)

The United States, by its attorneys,
alleges:

i. This is an action brought by the
Attorney General on behalf of the United
States to enforce the provisions of Title IV
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000c-6; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seg.; the regulations
of the United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare (now the Department of
Education and hereinafter "HEW" with reference

to all times before the change) which

137a

implement Title VI, 45 C.F.R. Parts 80 and 81;
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and the contractual assurances
made by defendant Board of Education of the
city > of Chicago (hereinafter "Board of
Education") in consideration of its continuing
receipt of federal financial assistance.

2. This Court has jurisdiction of this
action under 28 U.S.C. 1345, under 42 U.S.C.
2000c-6 and under 42 U.S.C. 2000d=-1.

3. The Attorney General of the United
States has received written complaints signed
by parents of children attending schools
operated by the Board of Education alleging
that their minor children are members of a
similarly-situated class which is being denied
the equal protection of the laws by the Board
of Education. The Attorney General believes
these complaints to be meritorious and has

certified that said parents are unable to

138a 2

initiate and maintain appropriate legal
proceedings to afford their children and the
similarly-situated class appropriate legal
redress. Further, the Attorney General has
certified that the institution of this action
will materially further the orderly
achievement of desegregation in the public
schools operated by the defendant. Finally,
the Attorney General has notified the Board of
Education of the complaint and of his
determination that the Board of Education is
operating in non-compliance with the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and with Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, and he has certified that the
Board of Education and its agents have had a
reasonable time to adjust the conditions
alleged in the complaint. The certificate of
the Attorney General is attached hereto and

incorporated herein.

139a

—

4. The Board of Education is a public
body created by the State of [Illinois to
administer and supervise the public schools
within its statutorily-defined area and, under
the laws on the State of Illinois, may sue and
be sued. Si ReA«c, Ch. 222, $3442. Its
principal offices are at 228 North LaSalle
Street, Chicago, Illinois.

S. The Board of Education is receiving
and at all times material has received federal
financial assistance.

6. To qualify for federal financial
assistance, the Board of Education submitted
Assurances of Compliance with the provisions
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the HEW regulations promulgated
theireqniar .

7. On April 9, 1979, HEW notified the
Board of Education that under 45 C.F.R.

185.43(d), it was ineligible to receive

140a

federal funds distributed under the Emergency
School Aid Act, 20 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.
(hereinafter "ESAA") because its racial
segregation of students violated Title VI.

8. On September 17, 1979, HEW informed
the Board of Education that HEW would initiate
the referral of this matter to the United
States Department of Justice in one month if,
by then, the Board of Education had not
rebutted or explained HEW's findings that the
Board of Education was in violation of Title
VI and had not developed a plan to remedy its
unlawful discrimination.

9. On October 17, 1979, HEW received a
letter from the Board of Education's General
Superintendent, Dr. Joseph P. Hannon, who,
writing on behalf of the Board of Education,

specifically denied that it had violated the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the

14la

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or
decisions of courts interpreting the same.

10. On October 18, 1979, the Director of
HEW's Office for Civil Rights notified the
Board of Education that HEW would refer the
case against it to the Department of Justice
unless the Board of Education submitted an
acceptable desegregation plan within ten (10)
days.

ll. The Secretary of HEW received no
acceptable plan from the Board of Education by
October 28, 1979, and determined that the
Board of Education would not comply
voluntarily with the provisions of Title VI
and the Assurances referred to in paragraph 6,
above.

12. On October 29, 1979, the Secretary
of HEW referred this matter to the Department

of Justice, requesting that the Department

take appropriate legal action to secure

142a

compliance by the Board of Education with
Title VI and said Assurances.

13. The Board of Education applied for
ESAA funding for the 1980-81 school term. HEW
again found the Board of Education ineligible
for funding because the Board of Education had
unlawfully segregated students on the basis of
race. Following a presentation of facts by
the Board of Education in defense of its
actions, these HEW determinations were
reaffirmed by the Department of Education on
June 12, 1980.

14. Current racial segregation of
students in the public schools operated by the
Board of Education has been caused, in
substantial part, by the actions and omissions
of the defendant.

15. Specific practices of the Board of

Education which have unlawfully segregated

students on the basis of race and ethnic

143a

origin (Hispanic) include, but are not limited
to, the following:

(a) The drawing and alteration of
school attendance area boundaries in such
a way as to create, maintain or increase
racial or ethnic segregation of students;

(b) The adjustment of grade
structures among schools so as to create
or maintain racial or ethnic segregation;

(c) The maintenance of racially and
ethnically segregated branches of
schools;

(dad) The placement of permanent and
temporary facilities to relieve student
overcrowding and the failure to use
alternative, educationally sound measures
to relieve student overcrowding so that,
by action and omission, racial and ethnic

segregation of students was created and

maintained;

144a

(e) The maintenance of a racially-
disproportionate number of severely
overcrowded and thereby educationally
inferior schools in such a way as to
identify, in conjunction with the
practices described in the next two
subparagraphs, those schools as intended
for black students and less crowded
schools as intended for white students;

(f) The assignment of teachers and
staff to schools in such a way as to
match the race of the faculties with the
race of the students attending the
schools;

(g) The employment of a permissive
transfer policy which allowed white
students to avoid attending their schools

of assignment when their race was in the

minority in favor of attendance at other

145a

schools where their race constituted the
majority of student enrollment; and

(h) The association of segregated
schools with segregated housing projects.

16. The practices listed in paragraph
15, above, occurred over a substantial period
of time and in a substantial portion of the
Chicago public schools, and constitute a
system-wide violation of the Constitution and
the laws of the United States.

17. Unless restrained by order of this
Court, the Board of Education will continue to
maintain and operate the Chicago public
schools in violation of the Constitution and
laws of the United States, resulting in
immediate, severe and irreparable harn. No
adequate remedy is available at law.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, United States of
America, prays that this Court enjoin

defendant, its agents, employees and all

146a

persons in active concert or participation
with it from discriminating against pupils on
the basis of race and ethnic origin and from
failing to operate said school system
lawfully, by implementing such plan of
desegregation as this Court may order.
Plaintiff further prays. this Court to
grant such additional relief as the interests
of justice may require, together with the

costs and disbursements of this action.

BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI
Attorney General

THOMAS P. SULLIVAN DREW S. DAYS III

United States Assistant Attorney
Attorney General
CANELLA E. JAMES P. TURNER
HENDRICHS Deputy Assistant
Assistant United Attorney General

States Attorney
219 S. Dearborn
Street
Room 1500 South
Chicago, Illinois
60604
(312) 353-5342

147a

ALEXANDER C. ROSS

MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN

Attorneys

Civil Rights Division

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.
20530

(202) 633-4755

148a

CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Attorney
General of the United States, hereby certify
that I have received complaints in writing
signed by parents of minor children in
Chicago, Illinois, alleging in effect that
said children are being deprived by the Board
of Education of the City of Chicago of the
equal protection of the laws; that I believe
the complaints to be meritorious; that the
signers of the complaints are unable, in my
judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate
legal proceedings for relief; that the Board
of Education was notified of the complaint;
that I am satisfied that said Board of
Education has had a reasonable time to adjust
the conditions alleged in the complaint; and
that in my judgment the institution of this
action, United States v. Board of Education of
the City of Chicago, will materially further

149a

the orderly achievement of desegregation in
public education.

This certificate is made pursuant to the
provisions of Section 407(a) of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c-6, in
support of the complaint to which it is

attached.

Signed this 23rd day of September, 1980.

BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI
Attorney General

150a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 80 C
Plaintiff,
(Entered
vs. September 24,
1980)

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO,

Defendant.

CONSENT DECREE

1. The United States has filed a
complaint alleging that the Board of
Education of the City of Chicago (the
"Board") has engaged in acts of
discrimination in the assignment of students
and otherwise, in violation of federal law.
The United States alleges further that such

acts have had a continuing system-wide

eff

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0533%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.