Appendix — Milliken v. Bradley

Supreme Court brief1974

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

2 MASTER INDEX

Page

Appendix to Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

: Girma 5s ox consi caves easier sso 2a

3 Ruling On Issue of Segregation, dated

: September 27,1971 ........ divicka bs cueaae 17a

‘ October 4, 1971, proceedings ..............0000: 40a

: Peapemiber 3, 1971 Otero. oa. we. Sumecenns 46a

Ruling On Propriety of Considering A Metropolitan

Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation of the Pub- .

lic Schools of the City of Detroit, March 24, 1972 . 48a

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law On Detroit-

Only Plans-of Desegregation, March 28,1972 .... 53a

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law In Support

of Ruling On Desegregation Area and Development

i Oy reat, Fae 16; T9FS ois ids te aes 59a

E Ruling On Desegregation Area and Order for Develop-

. ment of Plan of Desegregation, June 14, 1972 .... 97a

: Order of Acquisition for Transportation, July 11,

é EES rie eececrs ony eine Ee NO 106a

: Order, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth

7 RN a Valdis RN ERS AN SOAS is Baw as Deas Os 108a

a Cymaed; Poke 12: 1999 62S ois 110a

* Notice of Judgment, June 12,1973 ............. 24la

s Except from June 24, 1971, Proceedings ......... 242a

3 Judgment, June 12,1973... 2... eee eee eee 244a

Joint Appendix S

Volume I — Pleadings :

Table of Contents, VolumeI ................... © iv

3 Relevant Docket Entries .....................- lal

: POE shin an ck <Q ¥FS SENS RNDS) & WERE TONS OSS Ial0

Volume II — Transcript—Segregation Hearings

Roy L. Stephens, Jr... .. 1... 2. ee eee eee eee eee IIa l

Richard V. Marks ...........- eck eee eh ee ae la9

Allen E. Priestley ... 2.1... ccc ccc ccc ee cece cees Ila 19

OM OS RRR RS NE re Gere Se et . Wa22

Karl Taeuber ... 2... 2.0 see e cece e eee e eee eeees IIa 23

Martin Sloame cc. cc tec ccc cc cw ece sens. II a 28

a_— SS See eee wa wep riya ee Ia 45

John S. Humphrey .........----- ee eee eee enes fla 51

Charles S. Syphax ........---+es see eeeeeeeees Il a 60

ae Fic OD. cs 5 ns tn 8 oA on 8 a 0sk enone ene Il a 64

Donald J. Bauder. ...5c c ccc aneen cc ccces Il a 69

Robart E Twckee. co. ic kk ck vines cose wctee ese. Ila 72

Robiekt Gree cc cine ci aks 64s 5 heels eases II a 82

William Lamson... wo. cece eee ees IIa lll

Gordon Foster 26... occ ccc ec cece ewes eeces Ila 160

W. Dean Edmundson ............--ee seer eeeee Ill al

Be NN isa a ies CSS Ba ee 8 oe Ill a 18

Jessie Kennedy .... 1.2.2 cece e cece eee ee eens Ill a 53

Charles L. Wells Fe SUS a aN ots Bb eee ae Ill a 60

Darneau V. Stewart .... 2.2... 5. eee eee cece eens Ill a 72

Gordon Foster 0... on ccc sce ect e cee ene sesees Ill a 74

Alvin Skelly... 0. cic ec ct cette cee cw wees Ill a 82

Merle E. Henrickson ........--. eee eeeecceees Ill a 87

Delmo Della-Dora ......... 0 see eee eee ree eeeee Ill a 93

Merle E. Henrickson ........--5-s esse eeeeees Ill a 97

Harold R. Brown .... 2.2... ee ee cece eee e ee eees Ill a 154

James W. Guthrie... 2... 6.2 ee ee eee cee eens Ill a 209

Volume IV — Transcript—Intra-City Plan Hearings

and Metropolitan Hearings

oe, BE EE OS Se tee ee ee

5 5 io is oe won coke vk bbc,

MRI isa Si i ine oa a eg

UE Ge TIE oes So ios ocak senha kkcus

Transcript-Metropolitan Hearings ...............

WS We PON os et ctek cee

NONI ON eh aa

MNES ukow ks Chon Sudaa eS beh cs cckck coe

Norman Drachler, March 31,1971 ............

Norman Drachler, June 28,1971 .............

.Harold Wagner, March 22,1972 ..............

John W. Porter, March 23,1972 ..............

Ill a 232

Ill a 237

IVa 141

‘~e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I

Relevant Docket Entries ........................ lal

Exhibits to Original Complaint ................... Ial0

Answer to Complaint On Behalf of Defendants The

Board of Education of the City of Detroit; Patrick A.

McDonald; James A. Hathaway; Cornelius L. Golight-

ly and Norman Drachler ...................... Ia 46

Rulings On: Application for Preliminary Injunction; Mo-

tion to Intervene; Motion to Dismiss A« to Defen-

dants Milliken and Kelley ..................... Ia59

Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary

Injunction and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dis- :

miss As to Defendants Milliken and Kelley ........ Ila 62

Answer to Complaint On Behalf of Defendants William

G. Milliken, Governor of the State of Michigan, Frank

J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan,

Michigan State Board of Education and John W. Por-

ter, Acting Superintendent of Public Instruction .... 1a64

Order Granting Motion of Detroit Federation of Teach-

ers Local 231, AFT, AFL-CIO, to Intervene As Party

acs gers PTT oe OF SL ae Ia 68

Order of Judge Roth — Implementation ............ Ia69

Pre-Trial Statement of Intervening Defendant ........ Ia70

Pre-Trial Statement of State Defendants ............ la72

Pre-Trial Statement of Plaintiffs ............./.... la 75

Pre-Trial Statement [Detroit Board of Education] .... Ia 83

Ruling On School Plans Submitted seh Weke bck ss ee ae 1a 88

Order of Judge Roth — December 3,1970 .......... 1a 96

Class Action Order ......................... ... Tad

Supplemental Pre-Trial Order ............. eed pies Ia 101

Joint Pre-Trial Statement ..................--05-

Motion to Dismiss On Behalf of Defendants William G.

Milliken, Governor of the State of Michigan, and

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of

RU 6s nyc bean eee b 4k a MER Sew T ARO

Motion to Dismiss On Behalf of Defendants Michigan

State Board of Education and John W. Porter, Super-

intendent of Public Instruction .................

Motion to Join Additional Parties Defendant ........

Order [Denying Motion to Dismiss] ...............

Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ...

November 5, 1971 Letter (Judge Roth) ............

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Detroit Board’s Re-

port On the Magnet School Program .............

Motion to Intervene [Grosse Pointe Schools] ........

Notice of Hearing On Motions to Intervene ..........

Motion By Southfield-Public Schools to Intervene

Motion to Intervene as Parties Defendant [Allen Park

Public Schools, et al]... wc ccc cee ccc eees

Rule 24 Motion to Intervene [Royal Oak School Dis-

trict] ers rg een Se re rE OT ee ee eee EE Tee

Notice to Counsel [Intervention] and Proof of Mailing .

Letter to Court — The Grosse Pointe Public School Sys-

ik a a eis 65h 5 Ss BRS Ese Sa ee 8 EN

Notice to Counsel — March 6, 1972 ...............

Ruling and Order On Petitions for Intervention .......

Objections to Conditions Placed On Intervenors By the

Ruling and Order On Petitions for Intervention Dated

March 15, 1972 [Allen Park Public Schools, et al]

Objections of Grosse Pointe Schools to Conditions On

Intervention by Ruling and Order Dated March 15,

Ia 117

Objections of Southfield Public Schools to Conditions

Om Intervention: 5 ne. io a

Application for Leave to Intervene ................

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings, Conclusions and Order

On Detroit-Only Desegregation Plans ............

Offer of Proof [Southfield Public Bomeni... <5

Civil Subpoena to Charles Wells, dated April 10, 1972

A Survey and Evaluation of Existing School Transporta-

PO ie ia ee

Affidavit of Defendant-Intervenor Grosse Pointe

Schools Re: School District Boundary Lines and

Transportation Facilities ......................

Order Modifying Order for Development of Plan of De-

segregation, to Add Additional Panel Members .....

Recommendations of Desegregation Panel Regarding

Additional Transport&tion Equipment Needed for the

Implementation of An Interim Desegregation Plan . .

Order Adding Defendant Allison RR cee

Order — District Court [Certification] ..............

Recommendations Regarding the Financial; Administra-

tive and Governmental, and Contractual Arrange-

ments for Operating the Public Schools in the Dese-

gregation Area During the Period of Interim Desegre-

scsnnsrn-ah vlaanliag Been Petey aie eo ep

Recommendations of Desegregation Panel Regarding

Cluster Reorganization .......................

Recommendations Regarding the Financial, Administra-

tive and Governmental, and Contractual Arrange-

* ments for Operating the Public Schools in the Dese-

gregation Area During the Period of Final Desegre-

satatnlonieoitcis oe eee Te Oe

Progress in Preparing Recommendations for Appropriate

Interim and Final Arrangements for the (1) Financial,

(2) Administrative and School Governance, and (3)

Contractual Arrangements for the Operation of the

Schools Within the Dese tion Area, (Implications

for the Interim Period) .......................

Ia 254

Ia 259

Ia 261

la 263

Ia 265

I a 267

Ia 271

Ia 278

a 5

Motion to Join and Substitute Parties .............. la 287

Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of

rere e erry eer ey Ia 290

Amended Complaint to Conform to Evidence and

PE GER NE oo 6 sh 5a es ve dar ecerocesedons Ia 291

Cater Sho Daten Fertieed ook ha oc ce ire ees aes Ia 300

Order to Amend Nunc Pro Tunc ...... 2.6.66 ee cues la 302

No. 72-8002

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ;

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACH-

ERS, LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERA-

TION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor,

and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI., et al,

Defendants-Intervenors,

and

ALLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al,

Defendants-Intervenors.

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

1970

Aug. 19 Complaint

Aug. 26 Answer to Complaint on Behalf of Defendants The

Board of Education of the City of Detroit; Patrick A.

McDonald; James A. Hathaway; Cornelius L. Golight-

ly and Norman Drachler

Sept.3 Rulings on: Application for Preliminary Injunction; Mo-

tion to Intervene; Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants

Milliken and Kelley

Sept 9

Oct. 13

Nov. 4

Nov. 6

Nov. 9

Nov. 12

Nov. 16

Nov. 17

Dec. 3

1971

Feb. 16

la2

Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary

Injunction and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dis-

miss as to Defendants Milliken and Kelley

Answer to Complaint on Behalf of Defendants, William

G. Milliken, Governor of the State of Michigan, Frank

J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan,

Michigan State Board of Education and John W.

Porter, Acting Superintendent of Public Instruction

Order Granting Motion of Detroit Federation of Tea-

chers Local 231, AFT, AFL-CIO, to Intervene as

Party Defendant

Order of Judge Roth-Implementation

Pre-Triat Statement of Intervening Defendant

Pre-Trial Statement of State Defendants

Pre-Trial Statement of Plaintiffs

Pre-Trial Statement of Board of Education of City of

Detroit

Ruling on Motion for Continuance

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal

Ruling on School Plans Submitted

Order of December 3, 1970

Class Action Order

Ruling on Motion; Ruling on Standing of Plaintiffs

Ia3

Feb. 16 Supplemental Pre-Trial Order

Mar. 26 Joint Pre-Trial Statement

May 2! Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendants William G.

Milliken, Governor of the State of Michigan, and

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of

Michigan

May 2! Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendants Michigan

State Board of Education and John W. Porter, Super-

intendent of Public Instruction

Jurie 8 Ruling and Order on Motion for Construction Injunc-

tion Pendente Lite

Juhe 9 Aitiended Ruling atid Ordet on Motion fot Consttuction

Injunction Pendente Lite

June 17 Motion To Joifi Additional Parties Defendant

June 25 Order Denyitig Motion 3

July Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Sept. 27 Ruling on Issue of Segregation

Oct.4 Colloquy of Court and Counsel, October 4, 1971

Order of November 5, 1971

Magnet School Progress Report

Order and Letter to all Counsel — Submission of Plans

Plaintiffs Response to Defendant Detroit Board’s Report

on the Magnet School Program

1971

Nov. 15

Dec. 2

Dec. 3

la4

Motion of Counce! for Board of Education of School

District of the City of Detroit, for permission to

withdraw with supporting affidavit and brief, filed.

Hearing Noy. 22/71.

Motion to Intervene with proposed answers, counter-

claim and cross-complaint of defts. Intervenor Kerry

‘ and Colleen Green, et al., with brief and exhibits,

filed. Hearing Jan. 31/72.

Compliance of Detroit School Board with Court order

of Nov. 5/71 with proof of service and certification,

filed. (also request for hearing) i

Consent order for substitution of attorneys Robert E.

Manley and John S. Wirthlin of Beirne, Wirthlin &

Manley of Cincinnati, Ohio and George T. Roumell,

Jr. and Louis D. Beer of Riley and Roumell of De-

troit, Mich. for George E. Bushnell, Jr. etc. filed and

entered. (Detroit City Board of Education. Roth, J.)

Motion to Modify Construction Injunction Pendente

Lite — Detroit Board of Education

Metropolitan Desegregation Plans Submitted On Behalf

of the State Board of Education.

Order (for Modification of construction pendente lite)

Motion of Grosse Pointe Public School System to inter-

vene with brief, proposed answer and proof of service,

filed.

Notice of hearing on motions to intervene, Feb. 22/72,

filed.

Motion of Southfield Public Schools to intervene filed.

Hearing Feb. 22/72.

Feb.

Mar.

la5

Motion as to Allen Park Public Schools, et al. (40

School Districts) to intervene with brief and proposed

answer, filed. Hearing Feb. 22/72 (dated Feb. 16/72).

Motion of Royal Oak School District, etc. to intervene

(Rule 24) with affidavit, filed. Hearing Feb. 22/72.

Response of defts. Board of Education of City of

Detroit et al., to motions to intervene filed.

Motions to intervene heard and held in abeyance; hear-

ing on school board plan and N.A.A.C.P. Plan for

Detroit set for Mar. 14/72 at 9:30 a.m., ptfs motion

for defts. to fleshout plans held in abeyance, Roth, J.

Objections of Board of Education for City of Detroit

and other Defendants to Metropolitan Plan Submitted

by State of Michigan and by way of Alternative, a

Submission herein by said Board of a Metropolitan

Detroit Area Integration Plan

Notice to Counsel

Court’s notice of hearing on desegregation Mar. 14/72,

tentatively hearing on metropolitan remedy Mar.

28/72, filed (dated Mar. 6/72). Roth, J.

Court’s notice of rulings on applications for intervention

Mar. 15/72, filed. (dated Mar. 6/72)

Objections of Board of Education for City of Detroit

and other Defendants to the Alleged Plan of Desegre-

gation Filed by Plaintiffs

Letter of Southfield Public Schools re: intervention,

filed.

Letter of Grosse Pte Public School re: intervention,

filed.

Hearing held on desegregation intra-city plan — testi-

mony taken — adj. to Mar. 15/72, Roth, J.

Mar. 15

Mar. 16

Mar. 17

_ Mar. 21

Mar. 21

Mar. 22

la6

Ruling and order on ‘petitions for intervention (see

order) filed and entered. Roth J. (intervention granted

at to Allen Park Public Schools, et al. Grosse Pointe

Public Schools, School District of City of Royal Oak,

Southfield Public Schools, Kerry Green, et al., Tri-

County Citizens and denied as to City of Warren,

Nancy Bird, et al., & Professional Personnel of Van

Dyke) :

Hearing resumed on desegregation intra-city plan — tes-

timony taken — adj. to Mar. 16/72. Roth, J.

Hearing resumed on desegregation intra-city plan — tes-

timony taken — adj. to Mar. 17/72. Roth, J.

Hearing resumed on desegregation intra-city plan — tes-

timony taken — adj. to Mar. 21/72. Roth, J.

Hearing resumed on desegregation intra-city plan — tes-.

timony taken — matter taken under advisement.

Roth, J.

Objections to Conditions Placed on Intervenors by

Ruling and Order on Petitions for Intervention, March

15, 1972

Request by defts. Intervenor Tri-County Citizens for

’ concurrence of counsel to contemplated motion to

recall interlocutory order or, in the alternative to con-

templated application for leave to file such motion

with brief, filed. :

Objections of Grosse Pointe Schools to Conditions on

Intervention by Ruling and Order Dated March 15,

1972

Objections of Grosse Pointe Schools to conditions of in-

tervention by ruling and order dated Mar.15/72, with

exhibit, filed.

Apr. 10

Apr. | 1

Apr. |1

la7

Application for Leave to Intervene ;

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Finding, Conclusions and Order on

Detroit—Only Desegregation Plans

Ruling on Propriety of Considering a Metropolitan

Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation of the Public

Schools of the City 6f Detroit

Defendant Detroit Board of Education and Other De-

fendants Propose Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law Following Hearings on Detroit Only Remedy

Finding ‘of Fact and Cénclusions of Law on Detroit-

Only Plans of Desegregation

Objections of Southfield Public Schools to Conditions

on Intervention

Objections of Southfield Public Schools to conditions

on intervention, filed, (with exhibit)

Hearing on metropolitan remedy heard and cont’d to

Apr. 6/72. Roth, J.

Hearing on metropolitan remedy heard and adj. to Apr.

6/72. Roth, J.

Hearing on metropolitan remedy heard and adj. to Apr.

7/72. Roth, J.

_ Hearing on metropolitan remedy heard and adj. to Apr.

11/72. Roth, J.

Offer of Proof by Southfield Public Schools

Civil Subpoena to Charles Wells, dated April 10, 1972

Motion to Require Purchase of Transportation Equip-

ment

Cont'd. hearing on desegregation — adj. to Apr. 12/72.

May 4

May 9

June 14

Cont’d hearing on desegregation — adj. to Apr. 13/72.

Roth, J.

Proof of Service, filed.

Notice of hearing for May 8/72, on govt’s application to

intervene, etc with proof of service, filed

Answer in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require

Purchase of Transportation Equipment

Memorandum in Opposition :to Motion to Require Pur-

chase of Transportation Equipment

Notice of hearing for May 9/72, on application for leave

to intervene and motion to defer further proceedings,

filed.

Survey and Evaluation of Existing School Transpor-

tation Facilities

Affidavit of Grosse Pointe Schools Re: School District

Boundary Lines and Transportation Facilities

Objections by Defendants—Intervenor Kerry Green, et

al, To Testimony and Exhibits Concerning Metropo-

litan Remedy

Hearing on govt’s motion to intervene and to defer pro-

ceedings heard and denied; gov’t may enter as Amicus

Curiae. Roth, J.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of

Ruling on. Desegregation Area and Development of

Plan

Rulings on Desegregation Area and Order for Develop-

ment of Plan of Desegregation

la9

June 23 Motion by Detroit Federation of Teachers for Injunc-

tion and/or for Supplement to Order for Development

| of Plan of enereertiog, Re Financing and Termi-

nations

June 29. Rulings and Order on Motions and Other Sesion

| Heard June 14, 1972

June 29 Motion of Detroit Board of Education for Partial Entry

of Judgment

June 30 Order Modifying Order for Development of Plan of

Desegregation, to Add Additional Panel Members

JulyS Recommendations of Desegregation Panel Regarding

Additional Transportation Equipment Needed for the

Implementation of an Interim Desegregation Plan

July 7 _— Preliminary Injunction

July 7 Order Denying Motion for Stay of Proceedings

July 11 Order for Acquisition of Transportation

July 11 Order Adding Defendant Allison Green

July 20 Petition for Permission to Appeal Certain Orders In-

volving Controlling Questions of Law as Certified by

the District Judge Pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b)

July 20 Order of District Court

July 20 Order of Court of Appeals

Supplemental Order of Court of Appeals

Ial0

EXHIBIT: A coexist dat

TEX! OF ACT 48-PUBLIC ACTOF 1970 = 35257

Approved by the Governor—July 7, 1970

State of Michigan-75th Legislature-Reguler Session of 1970

the title and sections 4, 5, 6 ami 7 of Act Mo, 244 of the

Public Acts of 1969, entitled "An act to require first class school districts to

be divided into regional districts

The ¢ of the State of Michigan enact:

Section 1. The title and sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Act Mo. 244 of the Public

Acts of 1969, being sections 388,174, 368.175, 388.176 and 388.177 of the Compiled

Laws of 1948, are amended ani sections la, 2a, 3 and & to 13 are added

resolution shall not be approved by three-fourths of such members within 7 days

of the effective date of this emendatory act or within 30 s of eny date on

which a school district becomes a first cliss school district a first class

Gistrict boundary commission consisting of 3 merbers appointed the governor

ah2ll determine the boundary lines of such regions within 21 days thereafter :

in 1970 or within 30 days thereafter if in any leter year. The menvers of tho

districts followirg cech federal decennial census tut in no event leter than

April 15 of the first of4d numbered yoar in which reg:onal board members are to be

elected folloving the federa) decennial census. in the evont, cf the failure of

such respective boar’s -f fu’ fiost class e“hool ¢istricts to redetermine such

regional boundary lines ty such April 15, tie rtate bonra of oducation shall

convene within 10 deys to take muct redcetes.' nvlon eit ouch redetermination of

tho st«he beard of education son)! be the reyior:i teundary lings urtil the re-

dotermination is made folucw'ry the nert suececding federi a ccnndei census as

provided {n this secticn, "%r'ons sha We es compact, eonticuous end nearly

Game? *- namlation as area’! ss,

Iall

Within enck rogion, there shell be a rerioral boerd eonsicting of % membors,

The mesbersa alt) be nominated end elected Ly th rerlatored and aun.if.ed olece

tors of each district na ty rrevided by law for the nomination en. Glect. cn. of

first. class school board mero except that sien: tures require? on. neninating

petitions shall be mot lesz ifan 800 nor more than 1,409. Any cantidate properly

filed for any education:1 position in any first class school district as of tho

offuctive dato of this act shell be considered as a qualificd candidate under

sections 2a and 3a for the 1970 oleection provided such candidate makes a request,

dosignation end selection ty the clection officer omy owored by law to accept

nominating petitions for such offico. Wo person shall be olected who is not a

rosident of the region from which ho 4s olectcd. The members shall be clected in

the general cloction to bo held in Hovomber, 2770 and November of 1973 end every

2 yours thoreaftor commencing in 1975,

a eed sr 2970 Fegioncl board members shall be clected in the Novombor

general cloction and candidates for such office shall not be subject to the prin-

ary clection. In 1970 a person may qualify cz o candidute for the election for

regional bocrd member by fil required mrmbcr of signatures on or prior to.

4 p.m, August 18, 1970, In 1970 signatures of rogisturcd electors of the first

class district shall be valid vithout regard to the place of residonce of such

registered cloctor. In any yer the candidate for regione board mombor receiving

thy highost number of yote: in cach region in th: Novcnbor general election shall

bo cheirman of tho regional beard and a mcmbor of the board of oducation of his

first class school district during his torm of office. In case @ Vacancy occurs

for any renson in the conbinod position of chairmen of the regional board and

menter of tho first class school district board of education, tho regional board

membor who reecived the next highest number of votes in the precoding | poabsy

election shell assumc such combined position. The number of members of cach

regional board members elected in each region shell commcnee their terms of office

on January 1 following tho election and the mezbern shall sorve until their suc-

' eessors ere Clocted and qualified. ‘

Sse. Ja. Effective Jemusry 1, 1971 there shall tx 5 members on the boards

of first class school districts olected at lizg:, “ozbers of such boards shall be

nominated and elected at the prinsry and generii elections of 1972 ami 1974 for 3-

year terns commencing on Jenuiry 1 of the subsugucnt odd manber year, 2 ecch to be

elected in 1972 and 1974. In the: yeer 1979] bear mumber sholl de clected in

the November ecrera] election for 2 3-yeer tern coracncirg Jenuary 1, 1971 and

cenitiates sh.l} not be subject to the pr’mesy electi:a, In i770 a porzen my

quclify as a candidate for the election for first closs school district board

veaber by filing nornaving petitions containing net less than 500 ror more th-n

1.000 valid signatures on or before Pem., Augeet 1%, 1970, Comnoncing in 1973

ard in all subsequent odd mumbered yoars, = mmber of board nembers eu. relent to

the mabcr of numbers whose torts expire cn ©: ai cr *) of such yeer vl

mcirated ond elected nt the primary end goneril ci tion. Such monbers sc elected

theil serve 2-year terms commencing on Januccy 1 of the suk sequent even ‘nuvt:ercd

yecr, To accomplish the crovisions of th:s smendotory cet the terts of office of

ar first close district --264 memb<rs whores (erer “Yrirs ¢ aloe to Derestner 32,

1%. shell expore Dec ube - Fe re Che roe fe. jee 9° such BocAl &. J:er* whsse

te.ms expire between summery J, (2 and o- wrbes tt, Y9°> Chay expire Decunber

31, 1972 and the terms cf aifl eof euch wor sem ors «hone terns expire between

Jemary 2, 2974 und Mere LIF eae re Leber Fy ee.

la 12

first class district

Jenuary of such

district that hereafter

board mombers then

Board menbers of first class schoo

rdance with Inw may be candidstes for tho scme

r such office at which the recolled member is other-

f any school district thet

ponding before this act bocomes effective,

its term of office,

first class district

ve in any school

f officers during tho month of

nt fcr the schools in the

within 10 days ofter this act becomes effective or

mm of office of each of the

nm the commnencenent of

thdrewn by the person or organization filing or spon-

of office on January 1 the bocrd of such

EE Her a2e i i

uth ‘lit bik patra

ii i alee iil

ie ate Til Uys Tise!

in which one or more bonrd members of a first clcss district are

naj

ord

the

t 1

the

for

side

moved

: of

the

to the regional boards by the

Effective upo

wale a subject to guidelines established by the first class district board,

Petitions to recall any membor or members of the board of education of c

have the

first class school district filed ond

In any year

commoncing a term

shall redetermino its solection o

or boconee oF oporative in o school district that heronfter.becomes a first ¢

to:

(1) Employ c

lists.of condicates sulmitted by the

ary such regional superintendent.

are delegated

. year.

Ial3

-L-

(2) Eeploy end dis:hi.re, assim o:4 promote cl) tercehors .43 ¢ther

sof the remicn crt scheols therein subject to r-view cy the first class

school district bo-ct, vhich nay overrule, m-dify or affirm the sutton of the

borrd,

(3) Determine the curriculum, uce of eduectional fneilities ant establish-

mont of educational and testirg proprits in the regi n at schools \.2redn.

, (4) Lotermine the budget for the region =m schoci: therein bercd upon the

allocation of funds received from the first class school district tu.:rd.

Sec. 7. The rights of retirezont, tanure, sonioraty ant of ony other bunefit

of ony employee transferrod to a region or schools therein from the first eless

district or transferred between regione shall not be abrogated, diminished or

Soc. 8. The first class school district board shal] perform the following

functions for tho regions rnd schcoly therein:

1) Central purchasing.

2) Payroll.

3) Contract negotistions for oll employees, subject to the provisions of

Act. No. 336 of the Public Acts of 1947, as cmended, being sections 423.201 to

423.216 of tho Compiled Luvs of 1948, and subject to any bargaining certification

= to the provisions of any collective bare: ining agreement pertrining to offect-

yoos.

: Son rty Iencagenent cnd Mnintenance

ing

6) Special education programs.

7) Allocdtion of funds for copital outlcy and operations for each region

ond schools therein.

(8) Esteblish or modify cuidelines for the inp.enentation of the provisions

of section 6, Such guidelines shall include but not be limited to the determina-

tion and specification of wach regional bo-rd's juried:ction and ney provide for

regional board's jurisdiction over schools not geogrephically located within their

respective regions.

Sec. 9. Facilitics ani accommodations provised by the first class school

district board for regional boards shzll be selected with due consideretion for

accessibility, oconomy and utiiizction of existing fecilities. Employees assigned

by the first class school district bocrd to regional dorrds at the tine of con-

mencement of their functions shall be drawn, to the extent foasible, from persons

employed at such time by the first elcss school district.

Soc. 10. Rogional boerd members shall te paid e per diem cllowence of $20.00

for each meeting of their bocrd attended ant first cless @istrict board members

shall be paid a per diem allowance of $30.0) for evch meeting of their board

attended, but in neither case shall such prynents be for ncetings in excess of 52

meetings per annum. The chaiman cf each regions) bond hall be paid for up tc

52 regional board meetings attended and up ‘co 52 first cl-ss district board meet

ings attended.

Sec. 11, First class school districts with 100,00C student membership or

more shall have the seme rights for initiative petition cnd refercndur. now grant~-:

by law to second and thimi cinss districts.

Sec. 12. The impléfcentetion of ony cvtondance provisions for the 1979-71

school yenr dctermined sy my, first ciass school district tuard shall be deleyed

pending the cate of somencem rt of S:rctions tyr the firot cless school district

boards established «umier the po ovisions of this anendr'y mr cit but euch provisicr

shell not impair tho rirht cf ary such bonrt to detersine a4 implenent prior to

suc date cuch chenrea in ottenicnes provisions 2 are nendated by practice]

necucuity. io reviewing, conl lms, ertobliehing or me.ts rong attendance

la l4

ate atti

This act is ordered to take immediate effect.

Glerk of the House of

‘Secretary of the Senute

Ia l5

EXHIBITS

EE ee

j it ah HI | i aed ig {i

Sn THT

Ue eat Ute UDA pi Lal il

Tig Grtaliaty sealant y ulti

SE ee rE aE

fea 1 he re HT ls oH

ih EL Hah i ue iil 1 Hil fll i

‘i lee i atin eerily relly ae soe i ile tif

& eet

la 16

EXAGEIT CO

Law Orerchn or

1k. CANMIELD, PARROCK axon STONE

esee Deteorrt Haxe & Teemt Brine

DaetTrort, MiciiGAN s8uve cach

OtO0SE . Coneuie

- ¥ © pewurecnt ete ©. 9648 HOT eee

~e TEAL CPrMOne e220 —

ph ee — vom : RAMBine ornc

Gane s Gresrese ‘ereu on 7 Sune © Stn

Sroeet * Breer ston eptname ow © han

sen 0 tewreee ——

enn © Btu ETeo — a

Cmened \ BURR, 2 <Oe-p

cae, = went Ot ———-

a. ee

Sawe © 98ers eauineun es

wuiae © -OC nesenee

seen manne . »-~

eamenns © cvans

March 2, 1970

A. L. Zwerdling, Esq.

President

Detroit Board of Education

5057 Woodward Avenue

Detroit, Michigan 48202

Dear Mr. Zwerdling:

The Board has asked that I formally exprees the legal limitations

imposed upon the Detroit Board of Education in establishing district bound-

aries as required by Act No. 244, Public Acts of 1969 (“the Act").

First, let me observe that the Board has been knowledgeable of

these limitations since the Act was first discussed, and its many hours and

days of deliberations involving "decentralization" have all been undertaken

within the parameters required by law. Nevertheless, this letter constitutes

the first written opinion submitted to you and to your colleagues.

The limitations which the law imposes on the right of the Board of

Education to exercise its discretion and judgment ere three:

1. The Act itself requires that each of the subsidiary

districts includes a public school population of not

lees than 25, 000 nor more than 50, 000 pupils.

The Constitution of the United States requires that

each of these districts be substantially equal in

total population so that the one-man-one-vote test

may be met.

3. Above all, there te the conctitutional requirement~--

both federal and state--that the districts to be

established will be racially desegregated and not

racially segregated.

lal7

Mie.nn, CANVIBLD. PADDOCK ann STONE

\ A. L. Zwerdling, Esq. -2-

March 2, 1970

As each Board \icmber well knows, these are the rules of law

within which the Board must operate in establishing district boundary

lines. Quite obviously, the hard demographic facte with which the Board

must deal do not permit either quick or easy solutions,

Cordially,

George E, Bushnell, Jr.

CEBjr ccg ‘

ec: All Board Members f

Dr. Norman Drachler /

Mr. Harold R. Brown

Mr. Lawrence P. Doss

Iai18

The Boundsry Plan

Exxwia,t D

Sy : for . ’ Seep : eal .

** ‘SCHOOL DECENTRALIZATION IN DETROIT - Rey ae a

«+A summary of action by the Board of Education

_ @t ite meeting on April 7, 1970. Prepared by

the Division of School-Community Relations.

ge sTHE. ROUR OF DECISION:

. 8 P.M. APRIL 7, 1970...

.+-Tm one “giant step” tonight the DETROIT BOAKD OF EDUCATION approved the new

seven-region decentralization plan - and endorsed a change in feeder patterns

from which twelve of Detroit's 22 senior high schools will draw students starting

in September of 1970.

-«.By @ vote of four to two - plus a letter of support for the move from hospi-

talised member DR. REMUS G. ROBINSON, the decision climaxed months of study and

Tesearch on PUBLIC ACT #244 (the state legislative act of August 1969 requiring

the division of the present Detroit School District).

«.-Mundreds of citizens packed the méeting facilities and the lobbies and halls

ef the Schools Center Building. Closed circuit television was set up for those

who could not get into the crowed meeting room. Representatives of the news-

pepers, radio and television stations stayed throughout the four end one-half

hour meeting. The BOARD invited comments by citizens - hearing nearly 30 - some

for and many against the proposal.

-+-Supporting the new plan were F. GRYLLS, REVEREND DARNEAU STEWART, ANDREW

W. PERDUE and President A. L. NG. Voting “no” were PATRICK A. McDONALD

and JAMES A. HATHAWAY. Each presented statements explaining his stand with the

exception of MEMBER GRYLLS who said his vote spoke for itself. He was also the

mover of the motion for endorsement. =<

«SUPERINTENDENT NORMAN DRACHLER reviewed the past seven months since PUBLIC

ACT #244 became law. He presented the new regional boundaries and detailed the

changes in fecder patterns. He emphasi e fact that all students now attend-

mn fenior fF school will not be affected by any of these chan s. & ll

ems n res schools until graduation. He also added th S de

ho i nrolled in the junior high hool today and has a b or siste

ho will still m_ attendance at a particular senior high s l in enber

70, may enroll in that same school. Students not yet in senior high schools

Ia 19

4-7-70

will enroll in accordance with newly designated junior high school feeder pat-

terns. The SUPERINTENDENT said that starting in September 1970 one grade per

year will enter senior high school in accordance with the tevised junior high

school feeder pattern.

-»-Eighteen junior high school feeder patterns and 12 senior high schools are

involved. The SUPERINTENDENT also recommended that the students of VANDENBERC

and VERNOR who attend the BEAUBIEN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, upon graduation from

BEAUBIEN, attend FORD HIGH SCHOOL instead of MUMFORD.

++ Changes in feeder patterns at the elementary and junior high levels have cus-

‘tomarily been made at the administrative level every single year. The SUPERIN-

TENDENT said they were included tonight because of the changes in regional school

py boundaries. He said they would become effective with or without PUBLIC

Statements by

. Superintendent and Board President

Ia 20

oth

4-7-70

Statement in Behat f ‘of Proposed Plan Se:

Sopman Drachler, Superintendent cf Schools

April 7, 1970

Asan cduciior ; support tne proposed plan because I believe that it is

educationally, 2rs.!+ anc, according to our attoraey, legally sound. Most of

the research at.? scix larship, both by blacks and whites that I respect, supports

the view that i.:. gration, racial, religious, and economic, has a positive

effect on the lea ning of all children in a pluralistic society. —

As a student of American educational history, I recognize that the above

goal has been the dream of our sation for over a century.

Local, state, ana national polls assert that the majority of our people

concur with the desirability of integration and believe that eventually it will

be @ reality in our nation. Let us, therefore, have a plan for self-renewal

ef our schools and our community, rather than drift in a climate of uncertainty,

fear, and frustration. : .

I recognize that our primary objective as teachers is quality education,

but to repeat, the majority of accepted research and scholarship asserts that

quality education in a hcteroceneous society such as ours cannot be attained to

its fullest measure withcut integration. It is essential for white and black,

for poor and rich. i

This plan directly afiects only our high school students. Without it each

constellation will continue a growing pattern of segregated racial or economic

enclaves and be concerned only with the educational welfare of its own immediate

area. This proposal, however, encourages a broader community concern for educa-

tional improvement and assures greater interest and support for quality educa-

tien for tens of thousands of children wherever they attend school.

Since as a people we concur with the necessity for eliminating religious,

racial, and economic varsiers, let us, therefore, begin with a plan, however

limited it is. Let us begin where we are and aove forward. America has been

willing to depfrive itseif of billions of dollars co travel 250,000 miles in

space to reach the moon. I an confident Detroiters will be willing to accept

the ides of traveling one or two additional miles to school for the sake of a

better education for our young people and for a better future for our city.

la 21

4-2-7370

Nine pudsic wvarial: soy. bewa Comeneti a vy bis ars cu get publac reaction and

reconmendations. Tt is nit difiaeclt «vy undes trad tno feustration that has

gripped many in this com o..ty. Tne tensions obvious +: cur community end in our

schools tempt tuany to retreat Fres “he goal that ‘the les and our moral sense have

' eet for us, There have even been those who declare that democracy in this city

owon't work. Such talk is nonsense. Democracy - like this proposal - is @ tool,

~pothing more, If we don't use it properly and effectively, this system won't

work. But it won't be the system's fault - it will be ours - the Bosrd’s and

wey ‘citizen of this city together. .

So while we can understaad oF sympathize with what it is that compels some to

call for segregation, or for some plan cr other that insures black or white polit-

ical control of our schowl systems, we cannot yield to it. We have heard the

urgings, loud and cleac, fit a return to a @ivided soc rety, but we cannot in

conscience go aiong with it. Ase

The proposal made here today wiil not, unhappily, by itself end the segregation of

children that now exists in cur school systex because cf the housing pattern of

this city. Eut it will not serve to furtuer segregate the schools, nor to freeze

the pattern of segregation which already exists tc such a large extent. Instead,

it will make it possible for the school — to move in the direction of an

integrated education.

I have deta.led some of the things the new plan will do. Let me mention what it

will not dco

It will not automatically make the Detroit School System better. It will not

help solve the problem of a big city school SyStem which is provided with far

less money per child tc spend on educatio. than. other systems, which face a less

serious challenge.

But it will enhance the opportunity fer cus sentor hig... school siucenis to share

® common constructive s erience in Hviny ont letrn.: ; together. rt will keep

‘the doors open for «> tier tomcriow.

Let us offer che cii.evns of Detroit an eypertunity fo: @ beginning - not an

ending + for this city.

Ta 22

4-7-20

STATEMENT OF A. L. ZWERDLING : : &

President of the Detroit Board of Education

i April 7, 1970

The proposal before the Detroit Board of Education today is one which will con-

tinve to strengthen our commitment to quality education. It is one which provides

an opportunity for the citizens of this city together to solve the dileama of

racially isolated, segregated education - # malady which is gtipping every major

eity in this country today. This is an opportunity for all of us to help advance

the American Dream of an open society in which black and white together can learn

and grow and live in peace. : pe. .

This proposal ts iene to go {nto effect in September of 1970. Regardless of

the destiny of Public Act #244 (which is the state law requiring the carving of

the Detroit Public School District into regions, each to have an elected regional

board to be chosen in the November, 1970 elections and to take office January,

1971) today's proposal will set the pattern for the reorganisation of the school

district. :

By dividing the pind into these seven ; ceameen and changing the feeder patterns of

4 severe! of our senior high schools - we add to the total effectiveness of other

policies we have adopted for this purpose. Our racially integrated staff, our

measures for integrated textbooks and more relevant testing programs, our open

school policy, our course materials and workshops, all of these and many other

steps have brought us closer to our common goel. ee

Please note that this plan meets #11 legal requirements - and this is a very real

consideration faced by the Board. Each region of the seven in the plan will have

@ student population of between 25,000 and 50,000; each will be eS

; * equal in population - and each will be exer pid integrated.

t ;

But this plan is necessary not just because it meets legal requirements. It also

gives the people of this city a powerful instrument for good which, if effectively

used, can mean better schools’ for our children - schools more responsive to com-

munity need: and aspirations. It can mean improved personal relationships among

" glk of the citizens of Detroit.

Ia 23

4-7-70

EXCERPTS...

+ OBSERVATIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS...

WES A, BATEAWAY:

"We have becn discussing, studyirg, rescarching, consulting and data

gathering means of implementing Act 264 for approximately eight months. Today,

we are asked to approve the boundsries required under that act...

“act 244 addressed itself to the question of decentralization when its

actual purpose and present intent is community control...and yet our very first

* gtep in creating the boundaries will guarantee that there will be very 1itele

communi ty control...

“Where can we find community control in regions that have 186,000 to 238,000

population? Act 244 ignores the pleas of the man in the street for a voice in

the control of his elementary, intermediate and secondary school. It simply

provides him with one more form of governance that may effectively aud his child

an opportunity for quality education...

“Perhaps the most bitter medicine this board will be required to swallow

will be the rage and frustration of parents, students and educators when they

become aware that Act 244 is merely a subterfuge that denies eacagyr = 2 control..

“In actual fact Act 244 does only 4 things:

1. Ite arbitrarily mandates a division of Detroit District into regions.

-2. It provides for the election of regional boards that ere to all intent

* and purposes completely subservient to the present central board.

3. By-products of Act 244 are: *

(A) the expenditure of seven million dollars in increased administra-

tive and regional costs

_ B) duplication of authority

(D) ' creation of black minority regions

(®) creation of teacher assignment difficulties directly attributable —

to pay classification of ‘the teachers presently in regions where

they presumably might wish to remain. :

4. Creates additional financial problems for a board already beleagured by

an illegal operating deficit without providing additional operating

revenues to finance the unfortunate and ill-conceived venture in

decentralization...

"s “1 urge and caution this board to reconsider and re-evaluate the proposed

plan.

la 24

ee 4-7-70

“We may have a mandate from the Michigan Legislature, but the real mandate

is from the people for cormunity control not decentralization for the sake of

decentralization... ‘

“Therefore, I urge this board in the strongest possible terms to seek fron

the legislature a delay in its implementation in order that the legislature and

this board may have an opportunity to resolve together the complex legal, social

and economic problenas chat have plagued this board in attempting to implement an

act that makes smaller districts out of @ large district but fails to provide any

solution for the pertinest school problems of Detroit; and utterly ignores the

pleas of every man, wouan and child in this community for the answer to the

question, "How docs my child achieve a quality education?’” LAs as

PATRICK A, MeDOKALD:

“The action proposed by chis Board tonight threatens to destroy this City.

This hastily conceived move if adopted will deepen the credibility gap between

Detroiters and their schools, between what is said and what is done.”

During public hearings on decentralization thousands of Detroiters showed

up to tell members of the Board of Education that "1) They did not support the

Decentralization Act (Public Act 244); 2) If all else failed they wanted dis-

tricts that were compact and contained contiguous High School constellations and

contained a community of interest."

"apparently those who intend to adopt this plan either were not listening

or have deliberately ignored their constituents. There are indications that they

will adopt an obviously gerrymandered plan cuntaining districts that are 4 to 5

miles long and only 1/2 mile wide. It adopts a plan containing & non-contiguous

@istrict and even a non-contiguous High School constellation. I ask the question:

which Board members by their actions have supported che true community voice of

- involvement and control and which members have merely spouted rhetoric while

their actions seem to the contrary?...

“Has there been time to consider the fact that while our school system and

other agencies are attempting to obtein more lunches for children who are unable

to even pay for lunches, we are asking them to pay more than that emount for

their travel to and from school... ,

"This plan today does not increase the quality of education any place in

the City. It is divisive and discouraging. The fact that some frosting is put

on day-old pizza does not make. it a birthday cake and nobody is going to

celebrate. : : 5

"Even our legal counsel ad=its the enorrous legal di/iieulties inherent in

adopting any plan pursuant cto Public Act 244.

“It is our obligatioy to isform Detroiters cf theor facts and urge repeal

of Public Act 244. The proposed action of today cniy condurcs and does not

clerify matters. I urge consideration of this entire subject.”

la 25

4-7-1

AVOREY PiTDL: ,,."“altnoush this does noc give the black and the puor the maxi-

biuim amou..t of PRESS» saxinus integration for our schools is important. Let's

support th,.s measure - with its imperfections ~ can move along to develop the

kind of guidelines which will assure more Bean ingful involvement of our citizens

in their schcols."

LETTER FROM UR. RCPINON; ..."L have served on this BOARD for 15 years and 1

have tricd to represent all "children fairly...1 believe in quality, integrated

education...decply troubled by forces - both black and white - calling for

separation...in pluralism there is strength...in democracy there is hope.“

DARNEAU_ STEWART: "My ecnscience dictates that we must make progress in a

pluralistic society. No group ca. make it alone. I have been watching integia-

tion in many other comuvnitier iu this country where there has been no contro-

versy and it is succeeding. I feel integration is the wisest course for us to

follow if we are to offer both students and citizens the best opportunities.”

’

“< zZeo “or

“et ese‘ts

“st aa Ak 4

uosIeFAca o8

woTIeAeq 5°

Fe rrnirnes

Sams

Ae OO &)o Fa

‘Ob §8=—-: 08 ‘BIZ

“LE =—- ZL “BIZ

“st S6¥°SI2

‘bt 859°SIZ

“c€ = 949 °98T

620 ‘8£2

' = ~satiepunog TOoyuss Usty

Coto epune yg vor oy

___ SazesysnozrouL

la 27

4-7-70

Effece over three-ycar period of boundary changes On racial composition of

affected high schools

“io i ,

Racial compos.tion at We:tern and Southvestern resulting from enforcement of

Wilson-Southwestern feedex pattern .

All of Wilson graduates into Souchwestern eliminating former

option to Western ’

Western ‘ Southwestern

Percentage Black Students

With Change By With Change

1969 38.6 87.7

1970 39.2 71.3

1971 44.6 60.8

1972 $1.0 53.0

Region 2 :

Racial composition of Mackenzie and Cody vesulting from the following shifts:

Coolidge and Marsh elementary districts into Mackenzie

" Father than Cody ,

McFarlane, Parton, Ruthruff and portion of Sherrill elementary

district north of Tireman into Cody rather than Mackenzie

Cody Mackenzie

Percentage Black Students

Without Ci.ange With Change Without Change With Change

196) 2.1 2.1 “! 91.6 91.6

1970 3.3 atte 9.7 ° 90.7 83.8

1971 4.4 ; 20.9 90.6 78.9

1972 5.7 eo 89.3 69.9

la 28

Region >

Racial composition of Cooley and Redford resultang from the following shifts:

Winship, Newton, Cerveny, Crary, King and Fitzgerald elenen-

tary districts into Redford rather than Cooley

Vetal, Harding, Gonpers, Hubert and Healy elementary districts

into Cooley rather than Redford R

Redford Cooley

Percentage Black Students

Without Change With Change Without Change With Change

1969 2.2 2.2 57.5 $7? $3

1970 3.6 11.4 61.5 $3.0

1971 3.6 20.5 63.6 * 49.7

1972 4.5 29.2 62.6 42.6

Racial composition in Ford anc Mumford as a result of shifting the Vernor and

Vandenderg elementary districts from Mumford into Ford

Ford Munford

Percentage Black Students

Without Change With Change Without Change With Change

1969 12.4 12.4 % 6 94.6

1970 13.5 16.3 $5.8 94.9

1971 15.5 26.5 94.9 94.4

1972. 4? 31.3 4.6 93.8

la 29

Davisrn . Bo% imac Osbera Fat..c:

Percenteg. Diack

Without Ce |

All ¢! Barianw go

Kettcring

Goodale, Macoc® eal Robinson clemeatar-

then Penh»

With Cheage W .theut

aeate

re |

17.5

2i.?

._*

¥)

Pets ing

Osbor,

henge wiih Chanps

le.l

22.6

.?7

45.8

failewing shiftis:

"hs

1a 30

CAttth& tet [

Law Oneness ar Exuraiif

Minar Canrinin. Panpnock axe SrTronn

Whee Dewees Hawa AX Peete Me teens wee

Pe Be kd Stee OF eon

teesees Gene Soaeee © sets nee Darveorr, Micmtcan anave Goan 4 sccm’

.owre aOR See ree 4 & OE tees, @ =. ee

seorert st bee some tee f 20S © Pel bows

en & eonee oy wet, 6 eee ° © -cnease COGN © \ te ay

enree © Genre eo. ee & Om, ttm? * Suita ae

< Qeen? Hennes Ou. Oe & Pew REe eT vows © fh ee hen

ee ee! Pe ea .

Wag oer} Srach o aaeew Waeenent (ey @6)- e420 canoe

Oe ORL F He He He come Ste OF feo ton

Se een & ounee Peer | oe ree wnmer etal

pera ree ar ge ee rn Oo emnm tran

eee © hee nmee oe= OMe eenecen. haan

ewee eek 8 ee Om Ne weenree + ae

eemeere weenie CARES eB Eee, oe Boh Cte tip

~~) eerreee © weet

~ere Of . “. BIR eNO maw

sonme eee 8s Oe ROS ne

| teen * cent & chens

* eer eee 6 my Heewen es .

ere wee whe ee sees 6 wenere en penal)

eneser ennnees © eeees

July 28, 1970

Dr. Norman Drachler

Superintendent

Detroit Public Schools

$057 Woodward Avenue

Detroit, Michigan 48202

Re: Act 48, Public Acts of 1970

Dear Dr. Drachler:

You have asked for our opinion as to certain features of Act

48, Public Acts of 1970, which was given immediate effect on July 7,

1970. Simply for the record, I would note that P.A. 48 is an amend-

ment to Act 244, Public Acts of 1969 (§§ 388.171 et seq., C. L. 1948;

M.S.A. §§ 15.2298(1) ct seq.). The questions you have raised and our

answers to them are as follows:

First, does Act 48 add to or detract from the provisions of

Act 244 with respect to the role of the central board of educa-

tien?

In our opinion, Act 48 in no way changes or affects

the role of the central board of education (referred

to in Act 48 as the “first class district board") as

that role was exemplified in Act 244, Which is to

say, ultimate responsibility and liability for the

administration of the Detroit Public School System

and for “the proper establishment, maintenance,

' management and carrying on of the public schools”

is, under the provisions of Act 48 as it has always

been, the sole and exclusive responsibility of the

Dr. Norman Drachler

la3l

Mini. CAasrinin, Panpocn axe Sroxn

first class district board of education. Obviously,

Act 48, as did Act 244, docs contemplate that the

central board may delegate certain functions to the

regional boards established by the act. llowever,

this delegation of functions is “subject to guidelines

established by the first class district board of

education," And we repeat for the sake of emphasis

that any such delegation docs not insulate the central

board from ultimate responsibility for the acts of

the regional board under its delegated powers,

By the same token, dutics Assigned the Superintendent

by the central board through its several policy

directives, actions of the board, and by its by-laws

are in no way affected by the provisions of Act 48

but may be changed only by action formally taken by

the central board of education.

Second, when should guidelines be adopted under Act 48?

As has already been specifically noted, Section 8 of

Act 48 repeats the language of Section 7 of Act 244

with one exception. Section 7 of Act 244 required that

the central board establish guidelines for the imple-

mentation of that act "on or before November 3, 1970..*

In Act 48 of 1970 the November Ist date was eliminated

and, indeed, no date was sect by which the Board must

act with respect to guidelines. In our opinion, the

elimination of this deadline has the effect of giving

more latitucle to the central board than previously

did exist as to the time limitations within which it

may cor.sider and act on the guidelines. But it is

also our opinion that Act 48 must be reasonably

interpreted as contemplating that the central board

woule issue such guidelines before Janua ry 1, 197),

Your attention is directed te the langue: © of Section é

a Act ds which says that, “Effer tive noon the

Comunence me nt of i

tern of offiee, the reutonal

board, subject to guidelines established by the Cent

é +2- July 28, 1970

Ia 32

Marie Cantininp. Paxnneocn axe Stone

Dr. Norman Drachler . -3- July 28, 1970

class district beard, shall have the power to:

**%," Your attention is further diri cted to the

language of Section’ 8(8) of the act which requires

that the first class school district board shall

. "Establish or modify guidclincs for the tmplementa -

tion of the provisions of section 6." We respectfully

submit that these quoted portions of Section 6 and

Section 8 of Act 48 clearly indicate the Legislature's

intent-to have guidclines established and the plan

ready to function by January 1, 1971, on which date

the regional boards of education are to take office

under the act.

Third, what is your present posture with resort to the

diréction civén you by the Boird on April T, 1870, to organize

the district an acesrdance with a seven district plan now that

Act 48 mandates an cight district plan? ;

As Superintendent, obviously, you must follow the

direction of the lioard of Education. Equally ob-

viously you must also follow those statutes that are

applicable to the Detroit School District. We

recognize that some problems moy arise as a result

of the flat direction of Act 46 that the District be

‘divided into eight-regions and the cirection given you

by the Biard to administratively organize the

District on e seven region basis. In order that any

possible ambiguity be avoided, it would be our

suggestion ane recommendation that the Board

formally rescind its action of April 7, 1970,

dividing the District into seven regions, and by the

samt tesolution authorize and direct you. 3s

Superinie ent of Scl.eols, to proceed to organi

the Mister. ceandter the ytce tsions: of Ac? 4: And in

ei he Se Pe ee ee Pee SES wk:

Bevis ’ a) ae Pew s EY waa fost as» s

eur"

1a33°

Mi.nen Caxrieioe. Pappock axe Stone

Dr. Norman Drachler . -4- July 28, 1970

Fourth, what is the effect of Act 48 on the action taken by

the Board of Education on April 7, 1970, in establishing

new high school attendance areas?

The answer to this question is found in Section

12 of Act 48. Section 12 says:

“The implementation of any attendance

provisions for the 1970-71 school ycar

determined by any first class school district

board shall be delayed pending the date of

commencement of functions by the first class

school district boards established under the

provisions of this amendatory act * * =,"

This quoted portion of Section 12 obviou: ly, albeit

indirectly, addresses itself to the actio. taken by

the Boarc on April 7, 1970, with respect to

establishing new high school attendance areas. In

our opinion, the effect of this provisions is to

rescind--for at least one year--the attempt made

by the Board of Education on April 7, 197C, to

achicve integration in its high schools. While

Act 48 itself purports only to delay implementation

until January 1, 1971, it is well known that no “cata,

implementation begun even on January 1, 1971, could >

be placed into operation earlier than the bcginning

of the Fall semester in September, 1971. For these

reasons we decm it unnecessary to reconimend that

the Board's action on April 7, 1970, establishing

high school attendance areas be rescinded.

Quite apart from the matter of high school attendance

arcas and the action taken by the Board on April 7,

1970, Section 12 of Act 48 does recopnive the ripht

of the Board to determine and implement for this

coming school year such changes in attendance

: provisions as are mandated by practical necessity.

It is our opinion that where there are instances of

la 34

Minar. Caxrinen, Panpock asp STONE,

Dr. Norman Drachter . -5- July 28, 1970

overcrowding or where other compelling educational

reasons cxist, the Board and its Superintendent may

continue to observe established policy with respect

to changes in attendance arcas or feeder patterns,

and that such policies and patterns are well within

the language of Section 12, Act 48, Public Acts of

1970.

We would be happy to address ourselves to any further questions

which you or any of the Board Memb, rs might have in connection with the

act.

Very truly yours,

Miller, Canficld, Paddock and Stone

By :

George E. Bushnell, Jr.

GEBjr ccg

‘ec: All Board Menibers

I1a35

Koy FNS @ nic anced OA LIGTTO &

ADOT AGUS. 4, 1970 PY DSO? BOUND.LY LINN cCo:rnssion

Pas

hoe “are awe- .

. e . g=

dik o> Cn alnallingstes - e,. PRE ee te MD Serge: Anh SS eaUAR Y. +93. 2c ee. 2 en ee eS

RS An ee eT e ve Pace Bon Oe. +dch+.' 5-2 so ec8 __< otras eg erreetres So Bae Fy

199,000 32,659 87.6

Lhoeri.accstern ? rite

hurrey 1/590 470,7°

(Plus Goldberg aad Estabrook 1,545

: it 199,400 43,025 62.9

WW, GE ~

Gole€berg and Esiabsoo!) ee

Ii 183,500 35, 302 53.6

ty :

xackenzic 17%e, $20

iBGTON IV "196,620 30,927 9.6

hedford I9s, 9; “ff

Coolcy

(iiinus Post and Cofficy Consie)laiionas)

178,160 37,092 92.3

/%b a2!

(Plus Post anc Coffey Consicllations 7,244

189,600 "33,076 50.6

yof, 756

1,440

166,200 23,063 32.2

/)v,év9 .

168,600 33,578 85.7

191,¥79

fFucn IVs cl RNettering

la 36

fp V4 :

‘061 ‘'y 4SNONY NO - ey y

NOISSINNOD AE YCNF-OE TOOHOS H ywonesia ‘

LioN4zC ZHL AS CEAS:TSVLS2 SV eed! Luchos

'SNO!DDY NOILOBIS TOOHDS LIOusL=0 mf

7 \

Jk \ .

* SssCcVvH> Higa

a) ee Va aidien “é

“8 7 ‘. —*

“4 N¥3sLSam 4 i

vy fy ; / Sess

‘ Fe pte :

A y) waasenm , .

-HLUON Dic i Sat

; \ es a

f -“KHLYON eee 4

Faas}

NUBHLYON Me

23 A

“ar1znzyovn |!

; (Sere ssrat

; ~* -—-* <- =

¢ Corieses ses Fost

! -_-_-_

ru ~

' “

x _——

‘ , *

. Spt - a

ns . \ w1e99 enosca

; \ Nee poles

\\ ey en

ONINSYSd X\ cxyoannn gis

Co I See SST SSS aS Se. , we By ne ep he a ee

la37

DETROMS SCHOOL BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Detroit, Michigen

“DECISION :

The Detreit School Boundary Cason i-sion, appointed

by Governor Witheon G. Milliken, on Tuly 22, 3970, to diaw

regional election boundary lines for the Cily of Detroit public

school system, pursurnt to Public Act 48 of 1970, establishes

the following cight (&) public schoo). cleetion regions, besed on

the school consteNestion: deseribed Lelow, adjusted to the

nearest cleetion precinct, as mare folly set forth in Appendix I

. ? Pi

hereto:

(Northern - Northcastern - Murray)

Northern High Schoo) Conetell tien;

Northoactirn High Sehee? Co octelintion;

Mus ecsy Bich Sctlaal Cont teihtlony

GoltDecs pn Beaneatasy Selool vittendance Arca, and

Betabrast Pleme: tary Sloe! Atientanece Area

RECON I

(Southwestern - Western + Chadsey - Nes icostera

Southwestern Hrch Seiioo? Const Mt ony

Wester: starch Sse LEA ee is

1a38

/ REGION 1U

(Cody - Mackenzic)

Cody High School’ Constellation, and

Mackenzie High School Constellction

(Redford - Cooley - Ford)

Red@ferd High School Constellation;

Cooley High School Constellation,

except Post Junior High Schoo) Constellation;

and ‘ ‘

Foré High Schoo! Constellation,

; except Coffey Tunior High School Constellation ‘

REGION V

(Mumfore - Central)

4Aumfore Mish School Constellation;

’ Central High School Conste Nation,

Post Junior High School Gonstetl: Cea, an:

Coffey Junior High School Gonstelic tic:

REGION V)

(Pershing « Osborn)

Pershing Nigh Sclool Conniclisation;

Osborn High Schow!l Constellation, and

Kettering High School Constclation

north of the Edsel Ford Expressway

Ia 39

REGION Vitt

Southeastern - King - Kettering)

Southeastern High School Constells ‘tion;

King Nigh Scheel Cons {cllation, and

Kettering High School Constellation

south of the Edsel Ford Expressway

Inasmuch as the Commission has discovered that

there exists some misunderstanding with respect to its function,

the Conmirsion wishes to empharize that the regions which it

has established are for election naivguies only and do nat affeet

attendance lines, Such lines shell'be established pursucnt to the

guidelines fet forth in Public Act 48 of 1970. In establishing

the cigh:t (8) election regions, the Commission Les Cevinted from

existing high schoo) consi ations in four (4) instances. i has

done s0 reluctintly for the purpose of establishing uniformity of °

popels tien inveng the regions, which it believes amd is advised by 4

the State Atuorney General is required by the Act and the United

Deaied: August 4, 1970

Detroit, Michigan Nhn EDR

LON FE. NOG Ks roe

‘ Commission Ob:

QM LE pp

it as oes tf ie PPO? oc2

Bes CASAS BOS Ng aes

Gomnnissie:

ee Hee Mb

re ANT: vi

District &:.

Distvict 10.

District 1):

Disivict 12:

1a40

_ APPENDIX J.

Regien 1.

. Peecinets:.

Peeciacis?

Precincts:

Precirecis:

Precincts:

Precincis:

Region i,

rn + Western

(Nortteen + Northeaster 2 + Moo ‘3

39, 40, 4).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9, 10, 11, 32,

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2), 22,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 2&, 29, 30, 3), 32,

34, 35, 3¢.

13, M1, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,25,

24, 23, 26, 27, 2%, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

34, 35, 36.

$3 & & 6.7. 8.9,

34, 35,36, 17, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,

14. 8, 8G, Mio Fi, Be DDE Bide 3,

33, 3:, 85, 3%, 3°. 3a, 39, 49, 21, 42,

SE as Bee

14, 27, 48, 19, 25,22, 2%, 25, 24.25

26, 27, 2&, ry eee 37.

’ - t

Oiti fic on Neat tere)

A 2s, Sy. a0 $e ’ 26, 32,

$6. 29,.40, 31, 42, 48, 4), 2. 8 5

la 4l

Region MW. (eucnesl)

: 5 ‘ Dasivict 23: Precincts: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 312, 43, 44, 15,

2 5 0G, TF, 88, 49, 20, 25, 2%, 23, 24, 28,

36, 37, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 43, 4

District 24: Precincts: 72, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, & 9, 16, 1, 12,

13, 35, 3G, 31, 3%, 33, 31,.35, 36.

Districi 25: Precincts: .3 34-3 6% 8 Se,

13, 34, 25, 16, 17, 16, 19, 20, 23, 22,

23, 24, 25, 26,°27, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32,

33, +34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42.

Districi 26: Precinci:-: 4, 2. 3,3; 3 6 2, By FID IER,

$4, 35, 36, 47, 16, 19, 21, 22,23, 4,

25.

Region II.

(Cody = Mackenzie)

Disirici J&: Precincts: 1 $38. 8 42. So 4. 78 2

eS RY 8S, 8h, 37, 98, 19, 90,38. 3,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,

33, 34.

Dis; oct. V9: Precincts: 1; 3A, 2 ye Pa er Be Sas [ae be

26, : A2, 28, 34, 3A,

Dist fei 2e Precincis:

Batic hs bro tes

9% ,

District 15:

District 16;

District 17:

District 1&8:

Disirict 1%

District 20:

District }2:

District 1!:

Dist vied 15:

Distrivi 1G

yn Soe ahs

1a42

Region IV,

Mewtlord + Covtey > Ford)

Preeingts: 2A, 24, 40, 41, 42, 43, 42, 45, 46,

* 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 82,

Precincis: eyes. oe

: 23, 24, 2S, 26, 27, IK, BY, 20, 2), 22,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 32,

33, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 40\, 41, 42, 48.

Trecinets: 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6 7, 8 8A, 9, 10,

31, 32, 33, 14, 28, 16, 17,98, 19, 20,

2); 22, 22A, 23, 24, 2S, 25A, 26, 27,

28, 29, 30, 3), 32, 33, 31, 35, 36, 37,

38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,

48, 49, 50, 5), 52.

Precincts: 38, 24, 37, 38, 39, 20, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45.

Precincts: 4, 8, 6, 7, & 9, 20, 22, 14, 8, 04, 15,

36, 37, 18.

Precinets: 2, 2, 3, 4, S, 7, 26, 27, 28,29, 30,

Region V.

Qiunford - Cenral)

Precinets: }, 2A, 10.

Precincts: 6, 7, 8 9, 20, 22, 29, 20, 22, 22, 23,

24, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 3}, 43a, 42,

43, 44, 45, 46, 57, 18, 49, 50, 5), 32.

Precincts: 2, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6 7, 8 9, 20, 21,

2, 25, 26, B¥gedS, 39, 20, 21, 22, 23,

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 3), 32, 33,

34, 35, 36, 361, 37, 35, 39, 26A.

» Precincts: 38, 29, 43, 44, 45, 44, 4°.

Meeiteta: 6 BO IG DM, 1 BH, BUS 14,

&, 19, 2A 2, BB, BWW 7, PH.

—

i © Kegien V, Qed)

District 22: Peeetoets; 2, 2, 3, 19, 29, 21, 92, 2A, M4, 95, 26,

BY, 28, 29, MM, 21, 9%, 33, 34, 33, <3,

ere eo mf

District 23: Preeinet: 1.

Region V1,

(lershing = Osborn)

District §: Precincis: 26, 44,

Disirict 6: Precinct 1, JA, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20,

2), DIA, 32, 33, 34, 1S, 16, 37, 2S, 19,

20, 23, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 2S, 29,

$2, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42.

Disipict 7: Peechicts: 2, 3,°3, 4, 8, 6 7. 8, 9 BH, 12,

23, 14, 95, 16, 97, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, &,

$3, 31, 35, 34, 37, 38, 39, <0, 22, 32,

43, 44, 45.

Pastriet 8: | Precincts: ie

Disioict 5: Krecincic: ER Ae Se 8 2 & & 20.2), 3 fA

| 34, 35, 26, Be, TS, DEA, 29, 20, 91, 22,

23, 22,.25, 25, 2%, 28, 25, 30, 33, 22,

: 3A, 31, 35, 34, 37, 38, 29, <0, 42, 42,

42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47.

banivict 24: Teoctucta: . 2, 8.3, @, 3, 22, 20,24, 395.06, 97, BB:

Region VI:

(Douy > Finney)

: - "

District 4: Precincts: 2, 2, 8, SA, 4 8, G, 7, 8. OF Bt, 23, 22,

53, 14, 1, 16, 17, 28, 89, 20, 2, >

Bd, 24, 25, 25, 2°. 26, 39, 30.31, Se

; =. & | ee eee Eee eo

Dini rict $: Preceinets: 2. 2; 3.4, Bes, BOS,

3 32. 4 8K. YS VE

2A 24. SE BY. Me Se cs Ba

$4, SA BOA SL Gee es,

; 4a, 26, 49, 38, 34, ©n

wn--

1a45

pesoramens 7" abtindins eats Tee Pa SAS cen eee

United States District Court

FOR THE

. SOUTUERN DIVISION

ROWALD BRAMLEY and NICKARD RRADLEY, ETC.

VERDA BRADL"Y; JEANU® GOTMCS, FTC., SLANcERoIve. Acrwon Fue No.._35257

OOTNGS: PEVLRLY LOVE, JIMNY LOVE and

DAR LL LOVT, ETC., CLARISSA LOVE:

CAMILLE 3URNIM, PILRRS BURDEM, AVA DUPDSN,

MYRA BURNS’, MARC BURDEN and STEVEN

BURNGN, ETC., MARCUS SURNTM: KAREN

WILLIAMS and KRISTY VILLIANS, ETC.,

C. WILLIA“S; RAY LITT and YRS. WILBUR BLAKE, '

ETC. : NATIOIAL ASSOCIATION TOR THe ADVALICR- Ts 2

TOP COLORSD PEOPLE, DicT ROIT bRANCIE, : gt: > ee &

a et +2 ™ ; ; i‘

0S te :

z Praintit | 3 : |

} ¥ . > os aw 5 > .

se * * } < eter 9s

Ss > br

nase 3. wELureey” ETC. PRANK 3. fuer, E

ETC} HICHKIGAN STATS : BOARD OF NDUCATICH, oe

ETe:k JC iY. PORTER, ETC. (Lansine, “deh.) r mp

BOARD OF MDUCATIC! OF THE CITY OF NETPOIT, & +

ENC.2 PATRICK "ePONALD, JAISS UATHAWAY and cera.

CORMELIUS GOLIGITLY, £TC.: end BORMAN ee

DRACILER — Yr. Georre Bushnesi,i Attorney) Batre P

i as ae 2

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon...+s onte}) Jones, 1799 Rroadyay,

HOS PO aR eH RTS” PA RULES 2S Correpee Title :suildingy Merphis,

Tennessee: and Siruce Miller an¢ Lucille Watts, 3426 Cadillac Tevers,

{aeyPetroit, ‘ichiran mmmnds sclera

; 7%,’ i ottne es are shown above

GApomIpey SUE CRELN FO PRLS IES © or

ss ss ; DebeA Qrryeq Bares peaeyey

we. “Te PT n si eg ca

Lan answerto the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 1. Says. after service.of this

oUDGAT Gipka Jou, enctustve of the day of carvies. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be

taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

FREDERICK W. JOHNSON

CUBRYL My ius“ *

Deputy Clerk.

Date: AUG 1S BF (Seal of Court)

675.9% peapy > 04" ES eo

. ee * :* Bb gg “eee! yer ma? teak

Siuthceesdhibaieniaiubeens qungientatnge agujan pean ion ob Gola Hanes,

1a 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALDBRADLEY and R ARD

BRADLEY, by their Mother Next

Friend, VERDA BRADLEY; NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED

PEOPLE, DETROIT BRANCH; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-vS-

WILLIAM J. MILLIKEN, Governor of the

State of Michigan and ex officio member of

Michigan State Board of Education; THE

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY

_OF DETROIT, a school district of the first

class; et al., :

Civil Action

No. 35257

~—wwewwewwewwwewowwwowww

Defendants.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF DETROIT;

PARTRICK A. McDONALD; JAMES A. HATHAWAY;

CORNELIUS L. GOLIGHTLY and NORMAN DRACHLER

Now come THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY

OF DETROIT, a school district of the first class; PATRICK A.

McDONALD, JAMES A. HATHAWAY and CORNELIUS L.

GOLIGHTLY, members of The Board of Education of the City of

Detroit; and NORMAN DRACHLER, Superintendent of the

Detroit Public Schools (hereinafter collectively called the “Detroit

Board”), named as defendants herein, by their attorneys Miller,

Canfield, Paddock and Stone, and make answer to the Complaint

of Ronald Bradley and Richard Bradley, by their Mother and Next

Friend, Verda Bradley; National Association for the Advancement

of Colored People, Detroit Branch, et al., Plaintiffs herein (herein-

after collectively called “Plaintiffs”), by saying:

1. Not having sufficient information upon which to found a

la 47

belief, the Detroit Board neither admits nor denies the allegations

contained in Paragraphs I, II and III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, but

leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.

2. The Detroit Board admits the allegations contained in

Paragraph IV of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

3. The Detroit Board is unable to make responsive pleading

to the statement set forth in Paragraph V of Plaintiffs’ Complaint,

but Detroit Board does admit the verity of the quoted portions of

Act No. 48, Michigan Public Acts of 1970.

4. The Detroit Board categorically and unequivocally denies

the allegations contained in Paragraph VI of Plaintiffs’ Complaint

and avers and alleges that the said allegations are conclusions of

law without truth or substantiation in fact.

5. The Detroit Board admits the allegations contained in

Paragraph VII of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and admits Exhibits B and

C referenced in said Paragraph VII. By way of further answer to

said Paragraph VII, the Detroit Board states that Section 1, 2 and .

3 of Act No. 244, Michigan Public Acts of 1969, were specifically

repealed by Section 2[sic] of Act No. 48, Michigan Public Acts of

1970.

'6. Not having sufficient information upon which to found a

belief, the Detroit Board neither admits nor denies the allegations

contained in Paragraph VIII, but leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.

Further answering said Paragraph VIII, the Detroit Board states

that it is unable to admit or deny those allegations going to pupil

numbers and percentages of white or Negro students, since they

do not conform to the published “Racial-Ethnic Distribution of

Students and Employees in the Detroit Public Schools” dated

October 1969, which report was prepared and distributed by the

Detroit Board’s Department of Intergroup Relations, Division of

School-Community Relations. Nevertheless, it is recognized that

Plaintiffs’ allegations contained in Paragraph VIII may have been

based on information that they obtained directly or indirectly

from sources in the Detroit Public School System other than the

reference report. The Detroit Board is unable to reply affirma-

1a48

tively or negatively to the allegations contained in Paragraph VIII

as to identifiable “Negro schools” or “white schools,” since no-

where in Plaintiffs’ Complaint is there any definition given as to

what is meant by this conclusionary allegation.

7. The Detroit Board makes answer to the allegations con-

tained in Paragraph IX of Plaintiffs’ Complaint by saying:

(a) Not having sufficient information upon which to

found a belief, the Detroit Board neither admits nor denies

the allegation that “The plan was designed so that by the year

1972, only three (as compared to the present 17) of Detroit’s

21 senior high schools would be racially identifiable as ‘Negro’

or ‘white’ high schools.” but leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.

(b) The Detroit Board denies the allegations that “The

plan also provided that a student presently enrolled in a junior

high school and who has a brother or sister presently enrolled

in a senior high school would continue in senior high school at

the school his brother or sister was presently attending.”

segregated senior high school***” and “***the existing racial-

ly segregated pattern of pupil assignments in the elementary

and junior high schools.”

(d) The Detroit Board admits the balance of the allega-

tions contained in Paragraph IX of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

(e) The Detroit Board asserts that the best evidence of

the action taken by the Detroit Board on April 7, 1970, is the

minutes of the Detroit Board of Education meeting held on

April 7, 1970, and not Exhibit D attached to Plaintiffs’ Com-

plaint.

8. The Detroit Board admits the allegations contained in

Paragraph X of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Further answering said

Paragraph X the Detroit Board states that the action taken on

April 7, 1970, was under the provisions of Section 1 of Act No.

244, Michigan Public Acts of 1969, which section was specifically

Ia 49

repealed by the provisions of Section 2 [sic] of Act No. 48, Mich-

igan Public Acts of 1970.

9. Not having sufficient information upon which to found a

belief, the Detroit Board neither admits nor denies the allegations

contained in Paragraph XI of Plaintiffs’ Complaint but leaves

Plaintiffs to their proofs.

10. The Detroit Board makes answer to Paragraph XII of

Plaintiffs’ Complaint by saying:

(a) Exhibit E is admitted and said Exhibit speaks for

» itself.

(b) Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Exhibit E is categorically

denied.

said Paragraph XII are categorically denied.

11. The Detroit Board admits the allegations contained in

Paragraph XIII of Plaintiffs’ Complaint going to the appointment

on July 22, 1970, by the Governor of a commission to draw

boundary lines “mandated by Act 48,” and the allegation that the

commission’s plan was presented on August 4, 1970. Not having

sufficient information upon which to found a belief, the Detroit

Board neither admits nor denies the conclusionary allegations con-

stituting the balance of said Paragraph XIII of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

12. Not having sufficient information upon which to found a

belief, the Detroit Board neither admits nor denies the conclusion-

ary allegations contained in Paragraph XIV of Plaintiffs’ Com-

plaint, but leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. A complete copy of

Judge Kaess’ opinion in Civil Action No. 22092, U.S.D.C., E.D.

Mich., which is alluded to in said Paragraph XIV is herewith at-

tached as Detroit Board’s “Exhibit 1.”

13. Not having sufficient information upon which to found a

belief, the Detroit Board neither admits nor denies the allegations

contained in Paragraphs XV and XVI of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and

1a50

leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.

14. The Detroit Board makes answer to Paragraph XVII of

Plaintiffs’ Complaint by admitting and acknowledging its constitu-

tional duties and avers and asserts that it has at all times fulfilled

the same. Further answering said Paragraph XVII, the Detroit

Board states that any reference to a unitary public school system

in the City of Detroit is irrelevant and immaterial, since the

Detroit Public School System has been a “unitary” school system

at all times from and after, at the latest, 1869.

15. The Detroit Board emphatically, categorically and une-

quivocally denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs XVIII,

XIX, XX, XXI, XXII and XXIII of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

16. The Detroit Board emphatically, categorically and un -

equivocally denies Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief in its entirety.

Further responding to Plaintiffs’ said prayer and more particularly

to Paragraph 2g thereof, the Detroit Board states that as recently

as April 14, 1970, in furtherance of the long-standing policy and

practice of the Detroit Board of Education, Member Patrick A.

McDonald formally introduced a “magnet” plan to the Detroit

Board of Education, a copy of that plan is attached hereto and

made a part hereof as the Detroit Board's “Exhibit 2”; said Ex-

hibit 2 on its face stating that it was introduced in furtherance of

Detroit Board’s policy of achieving “quality, integrated educa-

tion.”

WHEREFORE, Defendants THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a schoo! district of the first class;

PATRICK A. McDONALD, JAMES A. HATHAWAY and CORNE-

LIUS L. GOLIGHTLY, members of the Board of Education of the

City of Detroit; and NORMAN DRACHLER, Superintendent of

the Detroit Public Schools (hereinafter collectively called the

“Detroit Board’’), respectfully pray and move:

A. That this Honorable Court under the provisions of Rule

12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter its summary judg-

ment in favor of the Detroit Board and against Plaintiffs for

Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Yer

la5l

B. That this Honorable Court under the provisions of Rule

12(c) and Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter its judg-

ment on the pleadings in favor of the Detroit Board and as against

Plaintiffs.

C. That costs so wrongfully sustained by the Detroit Board

be assessed as against Plaintiffs.

Respectfully submitted,

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone

By_/s/

George E. Bushnell, Jr.

And_/s/

Carl H. von Ende

Attorneys for Defendants The Board of

Education of the City of Detroit,

Patrick A. McDonald, James A.

Hathaway, Cornelius L. Golightly

and Norman Drachler

2500 Detroit Bank and Trust Building

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 963-6420

Date: August 26, 1970.

Ia52

apes 1

Rak Woe 8S Or alhnica

Til Tia: pisvnice COURT OF TL UNITED STATTS

FOR TUB UAGVIN EL rere? Or BICAICAY .

SOUTIINET DIVISIO!

SUCRRILL SCiCOL PARENTS COMMUTTEE,

an Unincory orated Voluntary Association,

WILFROD CEUTLEY, SR., BORIS OURLIGHT,

ROOSEVELT LACWN, FRANK CANPBCLL, ‘

SALLY TURNS: and SAMUCL LERMAN, on behalf '

of themsclves and others einilarky |

situatcd,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action

vs.

No. 22092

THE BOARD OF LDUCATION OF TIE SC:IO0L

DISTRICT OF Till CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

A School District of tho First Class, being

a Statutory Body Corporate, .

Defondant.

por

The above-entitled natter having been heard from time to

time in cancra since the inception of the suit; discov-ry having

proceeded; the Court having appointee an Amicus Curiae consisting

of six (5) citizens of the City of Detroit; the report of the

Anicus Curiae having been filed with the Court; a certain Progra:

for an Integrated School System having been presented to the Court

by defendants counsel for plaintiffs haviny posed certain questions

relative co the said Program and made certain objections thercto;

counsol for defendant laving resporded to those questions; a.“ tis

Court having been fully advised in the pronises,

It is the Interin Vindinss of this Court thats

ola

t) EXMUMT 1

a 39 Ph Se Pa tess Oe Oey 2 Pie Tae

enecurage* to: preceel fertivedth with the irplenontaticn of its

* bre, ose) F 2° ~sam for an Inteurnted Gehsol System. The Court,

whithout :rsj:Jice to tne rignta of either rarty, recomsends the

illowing :.. osaln »ade by plaintiff's ccunrel sor incorroratien

by tae Beor i in ite preposed Pra ram for an Intograted School

Gysteras re

(a) Te Moard should comvit itsel£ to tho dmeedizte

end gubstential rocuction of the number of schoole

in which thore ore no Negro teachers and other pro-

fausional ;ersonne\. Substantial integration of

faculty asd perofensicrol perascnnel should be achieve?

in all oclicols by th: beginning of the February,

1°<5 tern;

(b) Toe presen: “Cren Schon" precra Jces net appear

too be achie ring cubs*-atial stutert upeydetion in

tie Detroit Scheel oyatem presently ce withia tho

“ceceendhie futuce. ceerdinctiv, the Board r>oule

commit ite. Lf te Jericc anS pre: ese cther nethccn

ez sreeding we t:4 ri.cial interuration of stetents.

236 Qoul adel Le t's antifievenent cf su’ ttartial

student ip’ acsattien in all Uda: Sc'ivels and Jenior

Wign Gouce'a by ta iecinning ¢£ tue Felruary, ics

terns

% thes C#ereitre cemnl’ a bp le cated fertonttts ty

ti") EMU IT

SS ee a ee

1a 54

fey Wt ent alt taaaioctcd sect te ours

Hast ea et ion we ay “

Projeaa whieh is not ca iatojreted

pro ran by tie eo yinman;, Gf th:

February 1965 term,

2. In ccder that the Court-my be apprised at all

tines of tae pro rcss beiny nade by the Board in the implenen-

tation of its above Proyjram and the suyjested additions thereto.

IT IS DIRECTED that Defendant, The Board of Education of

the &chool District of the City of Detroit, Michigan, shall

form this Court on or before November 30, 1964, Pebruary 28,

1964 and May 31, 1955 of the then status of caid Program.

3. Both parties may, at their discretion, continue

Pre-Trial Discovery in accordance with the Peceral Rules of

Civil Procedure ond Notice this matter for further Pre-Trial

Conte rence with th: Court.

4. Nothin; herein c.ntained is to be construed as any

pre-jud cut of this case or vyderinj compulsory movement of

students cr assiynnent or proxotion of perscanel on other than

equitable cr acrat ricus Senki, 30 that the basic elexcnt of

ecval opportunity is preserved for all.

FRED-W, KALSS

ited “tetcs te ene De e

aii TRUE COP

oe oy aii Clerk

bateds Sepie.fder Lo, 1954 FRED! iad _

aw ‘ a m t AK ‘ sf i

Verveo.t, “261.3 san uy 7h BM bury CLE

I am proposing a plan whereby true and permanent ouality,

integrated education, as opposed to temorary integration, can

be achieved. With the exception of Cass Technical High School,

there are 21 high school constellations in Detroit. I prejose

five geocraohic areas “ithin the city, with four such areas con-

-taining four high school Constellations and one area containing

cfive high schools. Aq} ma schools within each seogranhic

,area would have a general curriculum. In addition to this gen-

eral curriculum, one of those hich schools ‘ould excel and con-—

,centrate in business education and cormerctal skills. Yet

another high school within each area would concentrate on a

“ectonce curriculum including strong doses of chemistry, biology,

and mathematics. A third hich school within each area would

concentrate on an arts curriculum includine cormmication arts,

: television, radio, graphic arts, and performing arts. The

fourth high schoo; in each area “ould concentrate on pre-

engineering and vocational education.

Our best teachers in a given subject would be transferred

to and qrouped in the high school emphasizing that subject area.

Supporting materials would likewise be concentrated in each of

the hich schools mentioned. As a result, if a student wishes to

concentrate on a science curriculum, for exarmle, he and his

parents would know exactly which school in his general geographic

(t) i XHIBIT 2

ro Nigary

1a 56

area offers Tio mrehast quality cducat.e teat subject. As at

Cats Tech, each of thers aena geheste net) © chaste & ity

education in their designated si jocts. "> would fn this way de

putting quality education inte the ann torst. Integration,

as at Cass Tech, would sinultaneously occun.

Allow me to stress that Cass Tech would continue at its

present high quality level and that 9.5." succies would only

occur, as with Cass, on a voluntary basis. I would hope that

these plans be considered, be nade avatlabl= to Detroiters for

discussion and conments , so that this city micht be wified and,

‘at the same time, we can achieve the goal of a quality, inte-

grated education.

. ne Patrick A. McDonald,

Member,

Detroit Poarc :f Educativn

hi Rx N

la57

? —_=-_

Y Te

| S

e% O1

@ injom

j °

- m u4s0G5Q) Busqsaeg °

aizha wy 9

(sie 5 1e*

c aid tprevevavele

psofpry

“

4aj007)

: I

puofuny

p4ed

Co ying :

[> «) -

a) ‘ a

“ I

quite } ) pute “|

ae ¢ MAqH4ON SD tN mozuayryy

‘ ~~.

‘ we 010 '<, % = :

, a~ -

Fd ‘ % Syigsotl | rT ko , P

’ =-o18

™ ‘ "a : cj ~ A3j00>| paofpry |

‘ pi $ B

; é 4 © !

f , u40g5Q 5 Busgsag \ psofuny %. paso

la 59

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

Plaintiffs

v. ) CIVIL ACTION

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY ) No. 35257

OF DETROIT, et al., )

Defendants )

RULINGS ON: APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION; MOTION TO INTERVENE; MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO

DEFENDANTS MILLIKEN AND KELLEY.

This is a desegration action brought against the Board of Ed-

ucation of the City of Detroit, Michigan, and others, and the mat-

ter is presently before the Court on the application of the plain-

tiffs for preliminary relief in the form of a mandatory interlocu-

tory injunction to put into effect (1) a plan adopted by the

erstwhile Board (four members of which have been recalled in the

August 4, 1970 primary election); such plan, however, to be order-

ed modified by deleting from it its “stair-step” feature and its

“brother or sister” feature; (2) enjoining the implementation of

Act 48 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1970 so faras they might

negate or modify (1); (3) enjoining the implementation of Act 48

as to regions so far as they would impinge upon (1); (4) restrain-

ing further school construction; and, (5) ordering defendants to as-

sign, by the beginning of the current school year, principals,

faculty, and other school personnel in each school in the system in

accordance with the ratio of white and black principals, faculty,

and other school personnel throughout the system.

Certain events should be noted chronologically: The act of

the legislature in question became immediately effective July 7,

1970. This action was filed August 18, 1970. A conference with

counsel for the parties was held in the Court’s chambers in Flint,

Michigan on August 19, 1970, and a show cause order was issued

the same day, with hearing scheduled for August 27, 1970. The

1a60

hearing on August 27 was conducted on a combined basis, i.e. on

the application for preliminary relief and on the merits. On August

28, at the continuation of the hearing, the Court, and, it believes,

counsel, concluded that, with the schools involved scheduled to

open on September 8, and the Labor Day Holiday intervening, it

appeared a better course to proceed on the application for pre-

liminary relief, and that the hearing on the merits be set for Nov-

ember 2, 1970 when, by rearrangement of the other commitments

of the Court, two five-day work weeks would be set aside for this

case.. The hearing on the application for preliminary relief then

was concluded on September 1, 1970. Because of the need for a

prompt decision by the Court and quick notice to the parties, the

Court stated that it would announce its decision on the applica-

tion for preliminary relief as soon as the Court made its decision,

and that its memorandum opinion would follow as soon as it

could be prepared.

The request for preliminary relief, if framed in its pleaded

form, is in the most sweeping of terms, and even if reduced to a

form consistent with what appears to have been the posture of the

plaintiffs’ request at the hearing, relief which would in effect pre-

liminarily decide the basic issues which will be involved in the

Without cataloging and reviewing the cases cited by plaintiffs,

we note that many of the cases advanced in support of their posi-

tion are cases involving extended litigation over de jure segregated

schodisy or de facto segregated schools where there was either a

showing of affirmative acts to retain such segregation, or acts of

eee

laél

omission designed with the obvious objective of maintaining segre-

gation. We find no such situation here.

We believe the best interests of the children, their parents, the

school administration and faculty, and the general public will best

be served at this point in these proceedings if the preliminary in-

junction prayed for is not issued. Accordingly, the application, for

preliminary relief is denied. So that the hearing on the merits may

proceed with dispatch the Court shall require that trial briefs be

submitted not later than October 27, 1970, and that proposed ex-

hibits be cleared between counsel by the same day.

Upon consideration of the motions to intervene and for dis-

missal as to the Governor and Attorney General, it is ordered that

the motion to intervene is denied, and the motion to dismiss as to

the Governor and the Attorney General is granted. Appropriate

orders may be submitted.

ls} _

STEPHEN J. ROTH

United States District Judge

Dated: September 3, 1970.

A TRUE COPY

FREDERICK W. JOHNSON, CLERK

BY:_/s/

Deputy Clerk

1a62

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

OF DETROIT, et al,

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al, )

Plaintiffs )

v. . ) CIVIL ACTION

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY ) No. 35257

)

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR PRE-

LIMINARY INJUNCTION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO DEFENDANTS MILLIKEN AND

KELLEY.

AT A SESSION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC

COURT, held at the Federal Building in the City of Flint, on the

day of September, in the year one thousand nine hundred

and seventy.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE STEPHEN J. ROTH, United

States District Judge.

In this cause plaintiffs having made application for pre-

liminary injunction, this Court having issued its order to show

cause, defendants having made a motion to dismiss as to defend-

ants, William G. Milliken, Governor of the State of Michigan and

ex-officio member of the Michigan State Board of Education, and

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, a

hearing having been held on plaintiffs’ application for a pre-

liminary injunction, the parties having filed briefs and oral argu-

ment having been had on both plaintiffs’ application for a pre-

liminary injunction and defendants’ motion to dismiss, this Court

having issued its written opinion thereon on September 3, 1970,

and this Court being fully advised in the premises;

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the written opinion

of this Court dated September 3, 1970 is incorporated herein by

reference and made a part of this Order as though set forth in its

entirety and verbatim.

la 63

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appli-

cation of plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction should be and here-

by is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the de-

fendants’ motion to dismiss as to William G. Milliken, Governor of

the State of Michigan and ex-officio member of the Michigan State

Board of Education, and Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the

State of Michigan, should be and hereby is GRANTED.

Stephen J. Roth

United States District Judge

Approved as to form:

Louis R. Lucas

Ratner, Sugarmon and Lucas

$25 Commerce Title Building

Memphis, Tennessee

Attorney for Plaintiffs

George E. Bushnell, Jr.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone

2500 Detroit Bank & Trust Bidg.

Detroit, Michigan

Attorney for Defendants

Detroit Board of Education,

its members and officers

ls/_

Eugene Krasicky Frank J. Kelley, Michigan

Assistant Attorney General State Board of Education, and

525 West Ottawa Street John W. Porter, Acting

Lansing, Michigan Superintendent of Public

Attorney for Defendants Instruction

William G. Milliken,

1a 64

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et all, )

Plaintiffs, )

vs. ) Civil Action

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor of the ) No. 35257

State of Michigan, et al, )

Defendants. )

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS,

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF

MICHIGAN, FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF

EDUCATION AND JOHN W. PORTER, ACTING —

INTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

Now come defendants, William G. Milliken, Governor of the

State of Michigan and ex-officio member of Michigan State Board

of Education, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of

Michigan, Michigan State Board of Education and John W. Porter,

Acting Superintendent of Public Instruction (hereafter collectively

referred to as the State Defendants), by their attorneys, Frank J.

Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, and Eugene

Krasicky, Assistant Attorney General, and make their answer to

plaintiffs’ complaint in the above captioned cause by respectfully

representing to this Court as follows:

I. The allegations in paragraph I of plaintiffs’ complaint are

conclusions of law requiring no answer.

Il. The State Defendants lack sufficient information to form

a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph II

of plaintiffs’ complaint and leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

Ill. The State Defendants lack sufficient information to form

a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph III

of plaintiffs’ complaint and leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

—eaerainens

1a65

IV. The State Defendants admit the allegations contained in

paragraph IV of plaintiffs’ complaint except insofar as such allega-

tions are conclusions of law requiring no answer concerning the

legal responsibilities of the defendants.

V. The allegations contained in paragraph V of plaintiffs’

complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer.

VI. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained in

paragraph VI of plaintiffs’ complaint.

VII. The State Defendants admit the allegations contained in

paragraph VII of plaintiffs’ complaint.

VIII. The State Defendants lack sufficient information to form

a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph

VIII of plaintiffs’ complaint and leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

IX. The State Defendants admit that on April 7, 1970 the

Detroit Board of Education made certain attendance area changes

affecting 12 senior high schools and as to the balance of the allega-

tions con nh paragraph IX of plaintiffs’ complaint the State

Defendants sufficient information to form a belief as to the

truth of such allegations and leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

X. The State Defendants admit the allegations contained in

paragraph X of plaintiffs’ complaint.

XI. The State Defendants admit that four members of the

Detroit School Board were recalled at an election held on August

4, 1970, admit that Public Act 48 was approved by the Governor

on July 7, 1970, deny that Public Act 48 voided any desegregation

plan, and, lacking sufficient information to form a belief as to the

truth of the remainder of the allegations in paragraph XI of plain-

tiffs’ complaint, leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

XII. The State Defendants admit Exhibit E, which speaks for

itself, deny plaintiffs’ interpretation of Exhibit E, and deny the

conclusions of law constituting the remainder of paragraph XII of

plaintiffs’ complaint.

eee

la 66

XIII. The State Defendants admit the allegations contained in

the first two sentences of paragraph XIII of plaintiffs’ complaint,

admit Exhibit F, which speaks for itself as to the composition of

the regions, and deny the last sentence of paragraph aa of plain-

tiffs’ complaint.

XIV. The allegations contained in paragraph XIV of plain-

tiffs’ complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer.

XV. The allegations contained in paragraph XV of plaintiffs’

complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer.

XVI. The allegations contained in paragraph XVI of plain-

tiffs’ complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer.

XVII. The State Defendants admit that there is a constitu-

tional duty to operate a unitary public school system and affirma-

tively state that the Detroit Public Schools are under the opera-

tional control of the Detroit Board of Education.

XVIII. The State defendants deny the allegations contained

in paragraph XVIII of plaintiffs’ complaint.

XIX. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained in

paragraph XIX of plaintiffs’ complaint.

XX. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained in

_ paragraph XX of plaintiffs’ complaint.

XXI. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained in

paragraph XXI of plaintiffs’ complaint.

XXII. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained in

paragraph XXII of plaintiffs’ complaint.

XXIII. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained

in paragraph XXIII of plaintiffs’ complaint.

1a67

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

I. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege that any of the plain-

tiffs would have attended a different senior high school pursuant

to the attendance area changes affecting twelve high schools made

by the Detroit Board of Education on April 7, 1970. Further,

plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege that any of the plaintiffs attend

any of the twelve senior high schools affected by the same April 7,

1970 attendance area changes. Thus, plaintiffs have failed to de-

monstrate the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of

the first sentence of Section 12 of Act 48, PA 1970, which delay-

ed implementation of the April 7, 1970 attendance area changes

until the commencement of functions by the newly established

first class school district board on January 1, 1971.

WHEREFORE, theState Defendants respectfully pray and

move:

A. That this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 12 (b) (6),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as

to the State Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted.

B. That this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 12 (c),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter its judgment on the

pleadings in favor of the State Defendants as against plaintiffs.

FRANK J. KELLEY

Attorney General

/s/

Eugene Krasicky

Assistant Attorney General

Gerald F. Young

Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Business Address:

Seven Story Office Building

525 West Ottawa Street

Lansing, Michigan 48913

1a 68

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., ) No. 35257

Plaintiffs, ) ORDER GRANT-

a ) ING MOTION OF

DETROIT FEDER-

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., +) ATION OF TEACH-

Defendants. ) ERS LOCAL 231,

AFT, AFL-CIO,

TO INTER-

VENE AS PARTY

DEFENDANT

AT A SESSION OF SAID COURT HELD IN THE FEDERAL

BUILDING IN THE CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN ON NOV-

EMBER 4, 1970. ;

PRESENT: HONORABLE STEPHEN J. ROTH, U.S. DISTRICT

JUDGE.

This matter having come on to be heard on the motion of

Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231, American Federation

of Teachers, AFL—CIO, to intervene as a party defendant herein;

and the defendants having consented thereto and the plaintiffs

having objected thereto; and briefs for and in opposition to said

motion having been filed and arguments having been heard there-

on; and the Court being fully advised in the premises, now, there-

fore,

IT IS ORDERED that said motion of Detroit Federation of

Teachers, Local 231, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-

CIO, to intervene as party defendant be and the same is hereby

granted.

STEPHEN J. ROTH

U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Ia 69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs, )

-vs- ) » Civil Action

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., ) No. 35257

Defendants. _ )

ORDER

THE ABOVE-—ENTITLED MATTER having regularly come

on to be heard upon Plaintiffs’ Motion “to implement plan”; all

parties having been present by counsel; evidence having been

taken; argument having been heard, and the Court having been

fully advised in the premises, now therefore,

IT IS DECREED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that said mat-

ter be, and the same hereby is taken under advisement; and

IT Is FURTHER DECREED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED

that no later than November 16, 1970, Defendant Detroit Board

of Education submit a high school attendance area plan to this

Court consisting of that portion of the action taken by Defendant

Detroit Board of Education on April 7, 1970, going to the chang-

ing of attendance areas of certain named high schools in the City

of Detroit, or an updated version thereof which achieves no less

pupil integration; the said plan to be submitted to this Court is to

become effective and shall be implemented on the first day of the

Spring Semester of the school year 1970-1971, being February 1,

1971.

ls/

District Judge

Dated at Flint, Michigan

Nov. 6th, 1970.

la 70

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA —

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

— ) No. 35257

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )

Defendants, ) PRE-TRIAL

and . ) STATEMENT

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACH- ). OF INTER-

ERS, LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERA- ) VENING DE-

TION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, ) FENDANT

)

Intervening Defendant

Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231, AFT,AFL—CIO,

intervening defendant, submits the following as its pre-trial state-

ment herein: >

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Intervenor submits that the following matters are in issue, re-

lative to faculty, based upon plaintiffs’ claims:

(1) Whether the Detroit Board of Education has been guilty

of state-compelled segregation of faculty and/or pupils which re-

quires a remedy of desegregation and/or integration of faculty;

(2) Whether, in the event a remedy of desegregation and/or

integration of faculty is required, a remedy of assignment and/or

reassignment of faculty is required and/or appropriate that :

faculty be assigned and/or reassigned in each school of the Detroit

school system in direct ratio to the over-all ratio of white and

black teachers in the system, and without regard to teacher skills,

certification, amount of experience, tenure and seniority, or other-

wise.

_— :

la7l

(3) [Intervenor reserves the right to state further issues as

perceived ] .

Il.

STATEMENT OF THEORY AND DEFENSE

Intervenor submits, on information and belief, that the

Detroit Board of Education has not been guilty of State-compelled

se ion of faculty and/or students and, therefore, a judicial

remedy of desegregation and/or intergration of faculty is not re-

quired or appropriate.

In the event, such a remedy were required, plaintiffs’ pro-

posed remedy, namely, that faculty be assigned and/or reassigned

in each school of the Detroit system in direct ratio to the overall

ratio of white and black teachers in the system, and without re-

gard to teacher skills, certification, amount of experience, ‘tenure

and seniority, or otherwise, is neither required nor appropriate.

ll.

WITNESSES

lutervanee may. call Mary Ellen Riordan, John Elliott, aniver

others, dependent upon plaintiffs’ proofs.

Respectfully submitted,

ROTHE, MARSTON, MAZEY, SACHS,

O’CONNELL, NUNN & FREID

by /s/

Theodore Sachs

Attorneys for Intervenor |

1000 Farmer Street

Detroit, Michigan 48226

965-3464

DATED: November 9, 1970.

la72

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. No. 35257

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,

Defendants,

and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACH-

ERS, LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERA-

TION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Intervening Defendant.

— ee ee eee eee ee

PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT OF STATE DEFEND/.NTS

Now come the state defendants, William G. Milliken, Gover-

nor of the State of Michigan, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of

the State of Michigan, Michigan State Board of Ediication and

John W. Porter, Superintendent of Public Instructicn, by their

attorneys, Eugene Krasicky and Gerald F. Young, /.ssistant At-

torneys General, and respectfully submit the follc wing as their

pre-trial statement herein:

Statement of Issues

The state defendants respectfully submit thit, based upon

plaintiffs’ complaint, the following are the issues raised herein

against the state defendants:

1. Whether the last sentence of the first paray raph of Sec-

tion 2a, either:6n-its face or as applied, is violative of the Federal

Equal Protection Clause as constituting invidior. racial discrimina-

tion?

2. Whether the state defendan'(s have engaged in any

‘ la 73

_ affirmative conduct constituting state compelled de jure segrega-

tion concerning the establishment of attendance areas, the assign-

ment of school personnel or the location and construction of

school buildings or facilities in the Detroit schools?

Il.

Statement of defenses and legal theories

1. That plaintiffs lack standing to attack the constitution-

ality of Sections 2a and 12 of Act 48, PA 1970.

2. That the school administrative regions established under

the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section2a, which are

also election regions for the purpose of electing members to the

first class district school board, were established to conform to the

requirements of both the Federal Equal Protection Clause and

Section 2a and to implement administrative decentralization of

the Detroit schools for the purpose of fostering greater com-

munity control therein.

3. That the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2a

and the regions established thereunder are in conformity with the

Federal Equal Protection Clause.

4. That the state defendants have not engaged in any affirm-

ative conduct constituting state compelled de jure segregation con-

cerning the establishment of attendance areas, the assignment of

school personnel or the location and construction of school build-

ings or facilities in the Detroit schools for the reason that opera-

tional control over such matters is reposed by state statute in the

Detroit Board of Education.

1a74

Ill.

Witnesses

Whether the state defendants will call any witnesses is depend-

ent upon plaintiffs’ proofs.

The state defendants reserve the right to state additional

issues, defenses or legal theories.

Respectfully submitted.

FRANK J. KELLEY

Attorney General

Eugene Krasicky

Assistant Attorney General

/s/

Gerald F. Young

Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for State Defendants

Business Address:

Seven Story Office Building

525 West Ottawa Street

Lansing, Michigan 48913

Dated: November 12, 1970

la 75

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACH- °

ERS, LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERA-

DION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

)

Defendants, ) No. 35257

)

Intervening Defendant. )

PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs submit the following as their pre-trial statement

herein:

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND THEORIES OF PLAINTIFFS

The Detroit public schools are being operated in a manner

which violates the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Constitution of the United States.

The Detroit School System operates schools which are racially

identifiable as “Negro” and “White” schools, which schools are

inherently unequal, and which deny plaintiffs equal educational

opportunities.

A school system which operates schools as set out in the

preceding paragraph is under an affirmative duty imposed by the

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to remove the racial

identifiability of the schools in its system by desegregating the

student bodies of the individual schools and by assigning and/or

reassigning faculty members to each school in accordance with the

system-wide ratio of black and white faculty members, and by

planning and making facility additions in a manner which will

la 76

promote and maintain racially non-identifiable schools.

Il.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has complied with

its admitted affirmative Constitutional duty to operate a public

school system without “Negro” and “White” schools, but just

schools?

> Whether_the defendant Detroit Board maintains a public

school system which denies equality of educational opportunity to

Detroit’s public school children on the basis of race?

3. Whether the pupil and faculty assignment policies of the

defendant Detroit Board have failed and do fail to provide all

persons with the same right to the full and equal benefit of all laws

and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is

enjoyed by white citizens, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments?

4. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has instituted and/or

utilized pupil assignment and transfer policies which have aided

the creation and maintenance of racially identifiable schools?

5. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has established, per-

petuated and/or maintained pupil attendance zones and pupil

feeder patterns which result in the existence of racially identifiable

schools?

6. Whether the defendant Detroit Board’s open enrollment

policies, optional attendance zones, transportation and/or other

administrative policies have had the effect of aiding the creation

and/or maintenance of racially identifiable schools? ;

7. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has constructed new

schools and made additions to existing schools in a manner that

has resulted in the establishment, existence and/or maintenance of

racially identifiable schools?

la77

8. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has purchased and/

or placed additional school facilities of any type, including, but

not limited to, transportables, mobile units, and rented relief space

in a manner which has aided in the creation, existence and/or

maintenance of racially identifiable schools?

9. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has and does assign

racially identifiable faculties to correspondingly racially identifi-

able student bodies, thereby aiding in the creation and/or mainte-

nance of racially identifiable schools?

10. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has instituted

teacher assignment and/or transfer policies which have aided in the

creation and/or maintenance of racially identifiable schools?

11. Whether teacher contracts, collective bargaining agree-

ments or any other employment custom or practice may be

relied on or utilized to delay, impede or otherwise restrict the

total desegregation of the faculty and staff of the Detroit School

System?

12. Whether the Detroit Board has by act or omission failed

to avail itself of opportunities to eliminate or diminish the racial

identifiability of the schools in its system, or to prevent the in-

crease or creation of racially identifiable schools?

13. Whether a policy of neutrality as to any facet of school

administration, including pupil and teacher assignments, satisfies

the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment obligations of the de-

fendant Detroit Board to provide equal educational opportunities

to the school children in its system?

14. Whether the defendant Detroit Board’s student and fac-

ulty assignment practices have impermissibly segregated students

and faculty by race, by reason of the underlying racially segre-

gated residential patterns?

15. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has built upon or

- does build upon racially segregated residential patterns in the as-

~ Signment of students and faculty?

1a78

16. Whether the policies and practices of public officials with

respect to location, building or expansion of public housing units,

and tenant admission and assignment thereto, have aided and/or

contributed to the creation or existence of racially segregated resi-

dential patterns within the City of Detroit?

17. Whether the policies and practices of public officials with

respect to the sponsorship, insurance, guarantee or subsidy of

private housing has aided and/or contributed to racially segregated

residential patterns?

18. Whether any other policies and practices of public

officials have contributed to the racially segregated residential pat-

terns in Detroit?

19. Whether the opportunities of blacks and whites for pri-

vate housing have been restricted on the basis of race by the

practices and policies of various public, quasi-public and private

persons and organizations?

20. Whether such restrictions on housing opportunities, and

their persisting effects, have contributed to racially segregated resi-

dential patterns?

21. Whether the racially segregated residential patterns in the

City of Detroit have had any effect upon pupil attendance and

faculty assignment patterns in the Detroit public schools?

22. Whether the Detroit Board is and has been under an obli-

gation to select from the available alternatives that method of

operation which minimizes the effect of such residential segrega-

tion?

23. Whether there is any relationship between residential

segregation and school segregation in Detroit, including whether

Detroit Board policies and their persisting effects such as location

and size of schools, pupil assignment policies, teacher assignment

policies, feeder patterns, transportation, open school policies and

pupil and teacher transfer policies, have caused, aided or contri-

buted to racially segregated residential patterns or have failed to

1a 79

counteract the effect thereof; and, conversely, whether racial re-

strictions upon residential choices, and their persisting effects,

have caused, aided or contributed to racial identifiability of the

Detroit Public Schools?

24. Whether or not there exist or have ever existed in the

Detroit School System patterns of school, classroom or course

assignment to “tracks,” “levels” or so-called “ability groups”

which have the effect of denying equal educational opportunities

to Detroit school children?

25. Whether the Detroit Board, having initiated a partial plan

(i.e., April 7th plan) for providing equal educational opportunities

to some of the high school students in the Detroit system, is under

a duty to provide complete equality of educational opportunity to

all Detroit Public School children by instituting a complete plan of

school desegregation?

26. Whether the obligation to remove the ‘racial identity of

the schools in its system requires the Detroit Board to immedi-

ately modify an existing partial plan of desegregation, such as the

April 7th plan, so as to achieve as much desegregation as possible

pending preparation and implementation of a complete plan of

desegregation?

27. Whether the three-year Stair-step approach of the April

7th plan complies with the Detroit Board’s Thirteenth and Four-

teenth Amendment obligations to eliminate the racial identifi-

ability of its schools at once?

28. Whether a provision in a school desegregation plan (such —

as the April 7th plan), which exempts from the attendance re-

quirements thereof any student who has a brother or sister enrol-

led in some school other than that school which such student

would otherwise attend under the plan, complies with the Detroit

Board’s Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment obligations to re-

move the racial identifiability of its schools, where the effect of

such plan is the continued enrollment of such students at racially

identifiable schools?

Ia 80

29. Whether the Detroit Board should be required to immedi-

ately reassign and/or assign individual school instructional person-

nel in accordance with the system-wide ratio of black and white

instructional personnel?

30. Whether the construction or purchase of additional

school facilities should be enjoined pending the adoption of a

complete plan of desegregation by the Detroit Board?

31. Whether Section 2A of Act 48 is unconstitutional as ap-

plied in that it established school administrative regions, which as

implemented, have the effect of impeding racial integration of the

schools?

32. Whether the requirements of compact and contiguous

regions and the drawing of racially separate regions of school ad-

ministration by a state agency (and the adoption of guidelines by

the defendant Detroit Board) have the effect of making more

difficult the desegregation of the Detroit schools?

33. Whether, because of the state-established eight racially

separate administrative regions, the Detroit Board is prohibited

from any delegation of authority to regional boards which dimin-

ishes the authority and responsibility of the Detroit Board of

Education to desegregate its public shcools, including, if necessary,

actions which cross regional boundaries?

34. Whether or not the state defendants have met their

admitted constitutional duty with respect to the creation and

operation of racially desegregated schools in the City of Detroit? _

35. [Pursuant to agreement of all parties and subject to ap-

proval of the court, plaintiffs reserve the right to state further

issues as perceived. ]

Il.

STIPULATION OF FACTS

Plaintiffs stipulate and agree to the following:

la8l

1. This court has jurisdiction over all parties hereto and

issues presented herein.

2. The pupil and faculty ratio counts testified to by the

Superintendent on November 4, subject to errors in compilation

or computation.

3. All past published racial courits of the defendant Detroit

Board.

4. Pupil attendance areas for all years as set forth in the

published boundary guidebooks.

5. All published achievement data reports of the Detroit

Board.

6. [As discovery approaches completion, plaintiffs expect to

stipulate other facts and will state the issues of fact remaining to

be litigated at that time.]

IV.

WITNESSES

Plaintiffs will call the following named or designated wit-

nesses:

Dr. Gordon Foster

Dr. Robert Green

Dr. Karl Taeuber

Various School Board Officials and Personnel (to be de-

signated after completion of discovery)

Various Persons Familiar With Housing Patterns and the Hous-

ing Market in Detroit

[Upon completion of discovery, plaintiffs may desire to call

other witnesses not hereinabove named or designated but will pro-

vide reasonable notice to all opposing counsel. ]

- Attorneys for Plaintiffs

la 82

Respectfully submitted,

Louis R. Lucas

William E. Caldwell

_ Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas

525 Commerce Title Building

Memphis, Tennessee

Nathaniel Jones, General Counsel

N.A.A.C.P.

1790 Broadway

New York, New York 10019

E. Winther McCroom

3245 Woodburn

Cincinnati, Ohio 45207

Bruce Miller and Lucille Watts,

Attorneys for Legal Redress Committee-

N.A.A.C.P., Detroit Branch

3426 Cadillac Towers

Detroit, Michigan, and

la 83

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

; . Plaintiffs, )

-vs- ) Civil Action

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., ) No. 35257

Defendants. )

PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT

Now come Defendants THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF

THE CITY OF DETROIT, a school district of the first class:

PATRICK McDONALD, JAMES HATHAWAY and CORNELIUS

GOLIGHTLY, Members of The Board of Education of the City of

Detroit; and NORMAN DRACHLER, Superintendent of the

Detroit Public Schools (hereinafter collectively called “Detroit

Board of Education”), and submits its Pre-Trial Order. This order

is submitted to the Court without being presented to either plain-

tiffs’ counsel, counsel for co-defendants or counsel for intervening

defendant for reasons previously reported to the Court. It is re-

spectfully requested that should other issues, defenses or claims

arise during the course of the trial of this matter that the Detroit

Board of Education be permitted to amend this pre-trial statement

to conform to the proofs.

. I

STATEMENT OF DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT

BOARD OF EDUCATION

In response to Plaintiffs’ broad Statement of Legal Theory, as

Defendant Detroit Board of Education comprehends that theory,

the following is submitted as “Statement of Defenses”’:

A. The Detroit Board of Education has not intentionally

acted to separate pupils on the basis of their race. Therefore, the

Detroit School System is neither a dual nor a de jure segregated

school system as Plaintiffs contend.

on oe

B. The Detroit Board of Education is under no constitu-

tional duty to overcome residential racial separation. Nevertheless,

the Detroit Board of Education recognizes an educational respon-

sibility to integrate its pupils and staff—racially, culturally,

economically and religiously—and has voluntarily acted in numer-

ous and substantial ways to fulfill that educational responsibility.

C. The allegation that the school system contains)some

schools where the student body is predominately Negro and other

schools where the student body is predominately white, in and of

itself, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is stipulated to, and

the authenticity of all records obtained from the Detroit Board of

Education is likewise stipulated. Further, any statistical data

which have been used by the Detroit Board of Education are

stipulated without further proof. All questions of relevancy,

materiality and other questions of admissibility are reserved as to

any evidence submitted by Plaintiffs.

ISSUES OF FACT

A. The Detroit Board of Education has not intentionally

acted to separate pupils on the basis of their race. Therefore, the

Detroit School System is neither a dual nor a de jure segregated

school system as Plaintiffs contend.

1. Has the Detroit Board of Education intentionally

assigned pupils to separate educational facilities on the basis

of their race?

B. The Detroit Board of Education is under no constitution-

al duty to overcome residential racial separation. Nevertheless, the

Detroit Board of Education recognizes an educational responsi-

bility to integrate its pupils and staff—racially, culturally, econom-

ically and religiously—and has voluntarily acted in numerous and

. : 1a85

substantial ways to fulfill that educational responsibility.

1. Has the Detroit Board of Education used sound

educational techniques in determining attendance boundaries;

or has the Board intentionally employed racially segregated

residential patterns for the express purpose of creating or per-

petuating racially segregated schools?

2. Has the Board’s selection of school sites and con-

Struction of new school facilities been on the basis of

(a) safety of pupils, (b) accessibility to pupils, (c) access to

parks or other recreational facilities, (d) cost economy, (e)

replacement of antiquated facilities and (f) mobile population

needs; or, has the Board made its selection of sites and

decisions to construct new school facilities with the intent to

separate pupils on the basis of race?

C. The allegation that the school system contains some

schools where the student body is predominately Negro and other

schools where the student body is predominately white, in and of

itself, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

1. No factual issue presented.

_IV

ISSUES OF LAW ~°

A. The Detroit Board of Education has not intentionally

acted to separate ipupils on the basis of their race. Therefore the

Detroit School System is neither a dual nor a de jure segregated

school system as Plaintiffs contend.

1. Is the Detroit School System a biracial, dual or de

jure school system?

B. The Detroit Board of Education is under no constitution-

al duty to overcome residential racial separation. Nevertheless, the

Detroit Board of Education recognizes an educational responsi-

bility to integrate its pupils and staff —racially, culturally, econom-

ically and religiously—and has voluntarily acted in numerous and

1a 87

Assistant Superintendent Coker

Divisional Director Lankton

and other possible employees and administrators of the Detroit

Public -School System who have as yet to be identified. In addition

to these administrators, tentatively it is contemplated that

defendant Detroit Board of Education will also call Dr. James

Guthrie of the University of California at Berkeley and Dr. Henry

Levin of Stanford University. Should other expert witnesses be

called, Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants will be notified.

Respectfully submitted,

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone

By/s/

George E. Bushnell, Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant Detroit Board

of Education

2500 Detroit Bank and Trust Building

. Detroit, Michigan 48226

: (313) 963-6420 ~

Dated: November 17, 1970

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs :

CIVIL ACTION

NO: 35257

Vv.

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,

- Defendants

ee ee ee ee

RULING ON SCHOOL PLANS SUBMITTED

The purpose back of the Court’s order of November 6, 1970

was to impress upon the current Board of Education that it had a

duty to act; that it could not sit out its period of service. That, in

view of the October 13, 1970 action of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declaring Section 12 of Act No. 48,

of the Michigan Public Acts of 1970 unconstitutional, it was under

a legal. obligation to proceed as if no obstruction had been placed

in the path of the implementation of the April 7, 1970 plan of

integration. Additionally, our order provided an opportunity for

the Board, whose membership composition was different from

that of the April 1970 Board, to reassess policy and to submit

such other plan or plans as to it appeared proper. | 1}

[1]

Following the adoption of the April Plan, Detroit School officials began

preparing procedures to carry the plan into effect at the beginning of the

1970-71 school year. These preparations were contemporaneous with

activities in the Michigan legislature which culminated in the passage of Act

No. 48, Public Acts of 1970, signed by the Governor into law on July 7,

One of the effects of the Act was to delay the implementation of the

April Plan for at least a year. Meanwhile, a recall movement was initiated

against the four members of the Board who had voted in favor of the April

Plan; ment which, on August 4, 1970, resulted in the removal of the

of the Board. These four seats on the Board were vacant at the

—

bad

rll

;

Governor on August 31, 1970 (terms expiring December 31,

will cease to exist at the end of this year, and a

will come into existence on January 1, 1971. Only

of the present Board members will continue on the new Board. The new

will be composed of five members at large and the eight chairmen of

the regional boards

| 1a 89

The Board complied with the timetable set by the Court and

submitted two plans differing from the April Plan, and indicated

its “priorities” or preferences with respect to the three plans. For

the sake of brevity we shall refer to the three plans as the

McDonald, the Campbell and the April Plans.{2]

Procedurally the Court has before it. for disposition the

motion of plaintiffs to order immediate, that is, February 1, 1971

(the beginning of the next semester), implementation of the April

Plan, and the defendant Board’s alternates in the form of the

McDonald and Campbell Plans.

We begin our consideration of the three plans with some

generalizations and basic concepts. Society is but a group of beings

organized to meet common needs. Child-raising, that is, education,

is the first and largest industry of every species, including man. If a

given society is to survive it must discharge its responsibility to its

young. Fortunately for us, there is something in the nature of man

which drives him to develop his peculiar endowments, and it is

through learning that we make the best or worst of those endow-

ments. A school system is but one, and perhaps the most-impor-

tant, way in which the human society discharges its responsibility

to its young, to itself and to its survival. When we do this well the

educator calls it “quality education.” In a heterogenous society

such as ours we are satisfied that such an education cannot be

attained without integration. Our objective then, as the Court sees

it, is not integration in itself — which, if achieved in the wrong

way, can be counter-productive — but the best education possible,

with its sine qua non: integration. Integration for integration’s

sake alone is self-defeating; it does not advance the cause of in-

tegration, except in the short haul, nor does it necessarily improve

the quality of education. To put it simply, a good education, to

say nothing of the best education, cannot be achieved without

integration.

[2]

tributions from other persons, including, in no small way, those of school

staff people.

1a90

To place us in our particularized situation, we have in Detroit

a community (society) generally divided by racial lines. To make it

an effective society in discharging its most important function it is

necessary that the people of the city recognize their true goal and

take such steps as will assure its attainment. A society best fulfills

its educational function when it presents its members, and partic-

ularly its young, with equal opportunities to achieve identity,

experience stimulation, and attain a decent measure of security.

There is within each child an innate force pressing. upon him to

fulfill whatever potentials he possesses, and an educational system

which recognizes this and programs its efforts in this direction is

the one most likely to succeed in attaining its goal.

Keeping these basic truths in mind, we turn to a consideration

of the plans before the Court. We shall not here recite in detail the

features of the three plans which, however, are before us as part of

the record. Oa

For the purposes of our present ruling we consider the

Campbell, or “Magnet Curriculum” Plan, albeit perhaps art “‘excit-

ing concept of secondary education,” as one which does not lend

itself to early implementation because of the programming and

operational difficulties which attend it. It is a distinctive departure

from past and present practices, and lacks a background of ex-

perience. The most obvious question mark concerning it is its

impact upon the achievement of identity. It is best viewed as an

educational concept meriting study by our educators.

Laying aside the Campbell Plan, we turn to the remaining

plans: the April Plan and the McDonald or “Magnet School”’ Plat.

It is the plaintiffs’ view, as we understand it, that the Court is

limited to considering only the April Plan at this time. This view

we do not share. The defendent Board takes the position that,

absent a finding that the Detroit school system is a segregated one

— an issue necessarily relegated by us to the hearing on the merits

— the Court lacks authority to order any plan into effect. It will

become plain in the course of our ruling that the Court does not

believe this to be so.

The McDonald Plan is intended to achieve integration by pro-

ee:

1a 91

viding a specialized curriculum at certain high schools. Each of

such specializing schools would serve two of the eight regions of

the school system, with the expectation of drawing students from

a wider area, thus bringing about a built-in and, hopefully, a

greater degree of integration. The categories of specialization

would be Vocational, Business, Arts and Science. The plan is

voluntary, and all high schools, including the so-called magnet

schools, would offer a regular high school curriculum for students

living in the present high school attendance areas.

_ The April Plan would redraw the school feeder patterns for 11

of the city’s 21 high schools (not counting Cass Technical High

School) so as to improve integration in the affected schools. It is

designed to be progressive in application, affecting some 3,000

students graduating from junior high schools in each of three suc-

cessive years.

Both the McDonald and April Plans have other features which

we do not here detail, but which we take into account in our

appraisals.

Comparing the McDonald and April Plans, it appears to us

that the April Plan’s principal aim is to improve integration by the

“numbers,” as several witnesses described it. Whether in the long

run it will do even that is a serious question. It is a plan which

does not take into account the basics which we have heretofore

mentioned, and it does not offer incentive to or provide motiva-

tion for the student himself. Instead of offering a change of diet, it

offers forced-feeding. The McDonald Plan on the other hand, we

believe, offers the student an opportunity to advance in his search

for identity, provides stimulation through choice of direction, and

tends to establish security. That it will promote integration to the

extent projected remains to be seen, but based on the experience

in this same school system, i.e., Cass Technical High School, it

holds out the best promise of effective, long-term integration. It

appears to us the most likely of the three plans to provide the

children of the City of Detroit with quality education as we have

defined it. The McDonald Plan has been characterized ‘by the

plaintiffs as an experiment. The short answer to this is that all

plans are experiments, just as is life itself. To sum up, in our view

la 92

the McDonald Plan is the best of the plans before the Court.

We pass now to considering the role of the Court so far as

implementation is concerned. Whether we view the present situa-

tion from Court-side or Board-side, it appears to us that the Board

is required to proceed with the implementation of the plan. It has

on its own shown a preference for the McDonald plan — we

believe justifiably so. The question remaining is when to put the

plan into effect. There have been expressions by some of the

witnesses that any of the three plans could be implemented by’

February 1, 1971. It appears to us that the McDonald Plan, calling

as it does for rather radical and comprehensive changes, cannot be:

properly implemented until September 1971 — the beginning of

the next school year. (We do not mean to imply that any less time

would be need for implementation of the other plans.)

If to integrate is “to combine to form a more complete, har-

monious or coordinated entity,”!3] then the plan we have chosen

is, of the three, most likely to be productive. It places the

emphasis not on “desegregation” (representing the legal rights of

Blacks),(4] but on “integration” (an ideal of social accept-

ability). [5]

. Added to the already serious problems of administering the

affairs of their offices, the members of the Detroit Board of

Education, past, present and future, the Superintendent, the

administrative staff and the faculty, are beset by a decentralization

decree which cannot but involve every aspect of school administra-

tion and school programming. The ordered decentralization has

been characterized by the Superintendent as a novel one — one

never before attempted in any other school district in the United

States regardless of size. It introduces confusion over the proper

roles of the regional and central boards. That it will lead to

(8 <

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. *

[4]

A Dictionary of American Social Reform.

[5]

Ibid.

i 1a93

controversies between them appears evident; that it aggravates, not

lessens, the problems besetting the administrators is plain; and that

it may fan the fires of discontent among the citizenry is likely. If a

unified school system for the City of Detroit is the aim, then the

combination of centralization and decentralization, with their

attendant questions of jurisdiction, control and responsibility,

appears to have missed the mark. At the least it will require time

and call for much effort on the part of all involved in their several

official stations, working cooperatively, to stabilize the Detroit

school ei into a smoothly working framework of manage-

ment.[6

We turn next to the legal posture of the case. Plaintiffs have

cited Alexander v Holmes County Board of Education, 369 U.S.

19, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969), and Keyes v. School District No. One,

Denver, Colorado, 313 F. Supp. 61 (D. Colo. 1970). We consider

neither to be in point so far as our present issue is concerned. We

cannot at this point proceed on the asstimption that plaintiffs will

succeed in proving their claim, in the hearing on the merits, that

the Detroit school is a segregated school system, de jure or de

facto.

While the question of whether the United States Consitution,

as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States,. not

only prohibits discriminatory segregation according to races, but

also requires integration, has not yet been decided by that Court, [7]

[6]

What further and additional problems will result from the passage of the

so-called Parochiaid Amendment to the Constitution of the State of

Michigan, we cannot say. What is obvious is that the proposed closing of some

or all Catholic parochial schools in the Detroit diocese will put further strains

on the school system of the city.

{7}

There are school cases now pending before the Supreme Court in which

it may well have an opportunity to answer that question and respond to the

call of Chief Justice Burger to “clear up any confusion concerning the Court’s

Prior mandates in school desegregation cases, and to resolve some of the basic

Practical problems * * * including whether, as a constitutional matter, any

particular racial balance must be achieved in the schools, to what extent

school districts and zones may and must be altered as a constitutional matter,

and to what extent transportation may or must be provided to achieve the

ends sought by prior holdings of the court.” See Northcross v. Bd. of Ed. of

Memphis, 397 U.S. 232, 25 L.Ed.2d 246 (March 9, 1970).

1a 94

we believe that consistent with that Court’s rulings, {8} where a

school district has taken steps enhancing integration in its schools

it may not reverse direction. In the setting of our case nonaction is

(or amounts to) prohibited action. This is also our reading of the

opinion of our court of appeals in ruling upon the appeal taken

from our former decisions in this case. The court said:

“*** In the present case of the Detroit Board of Education

in the exercise of its discretion took affirmative steps on its

own initiative to effect an improved racial balance in twelve

senior high schools. This action was thwarted or at least de-

layed, by an act of the State legislature.”

It also pointed out that “State action cannot be interposed to

delay, obstruct or nullify steps lawfully taken for the purpose of

protecting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” It

follows from this that any action or failure to act by the Board of

Education designed in effect to “delay, obstruct or nullify” the

previous (April 7th) step toward improving racial balance in the

Detroit schools is prohibited State action.

It is our judgment that the McDonald Plan is superior to the

other two plans before the Court in advancing the cause of integra-

tion, and that preparations should be started immediately for its

institution at the beginning of the next full school year in

September 1971. The administrative work involved in a trans-

formation to the McDonald Plan requires, and the staff deserves,

lead time in which to program and prepare for its establishment.

The course of action taken by the Court will provide the

present and incoming Boards a sense of direction, give the admin-

istrative staff both direction and time for an orderly transition,

and allow students an opportunity to anticipate the changes in

educational offerings so that they may exercise the choices which

See cases cited in the opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in

the prior appeal in this cause, pages 10 and 11 of the slip sheet.

1a95

will open to them. It is our belief that in this way the students, in

their quest for identity and in their inherited drive for realizing

their potentials, will bring about such integration as no coercive

method could possibly achieve.

The foregoing constitutes our findings of fact and conclusions

of law.

An appropriate order may be submitted.

/s/

STEPHEN J. ROTH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: December 3, 1970

at Detroit, Michigan.

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

Plaintiffs ) CIVIL ACTION

v ) NO. 35257

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )

Defendants )

ORDER

This matter being before the Court upon the motion of plain-

tiffs for immediate implementation of the April 7 Plan, and upon

the motion of the Detroit Board of Education Defendants for con-

tinuance of the trial of this cause, and

In accordance with the Court’s “‘Ruling on School Plans Sub-

mitted” entered this 3rd day of December, 1970, and in accor-

dance with the Court’s “Ruling on Motion for Continuance”

entered this 3rd day of December, 1970,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED

that the defendant School Board and its agents, servants and em-

ployees shall immediately begin preparations to implement and

shall implement at the beginning of the next full school year in

September 1971 the plan submitted by defendant School Board

designated “Plan A” and also referred to as the “McDonald” Plan;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial of this cause here-

tofore scheduled to commence December 8, 1970 is hereby con-

tinued to a date to be fixed by the Court after a review of its

calendar and its readjustment.

DATED: December 3, 1970

at Detroit, Michigan.

/s/

STEPHEN J. ROTH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/s/

la 97

Louis R. Lucas

William E. Caldwell

Nathaniel Jones

Jack Greenberg

James M. Nabrit, ITI

Norman J. Chachkin

Bruce Miller

Lucille Watts

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

for Miller, Canfield, Paddock

and Stone

Attorneys for Detroit Board of

Education Defendants

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General

Eugene Krasicky, Assistant Attorney General

Gerald F. Young, Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for State Defendants

for Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs,

O'Connell, Nunn & Freid

Attorneys for Intervenor

1a 98

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY and RICHARD

BRADLEY, by their Mother and Next

Friend, VERDA BRADLEY ; JEANNE GO-

BURDEN, by their Father and Next

Friend, MARCUS BURDEN; KAREN WIL-

)

parents; all parents having children attend- )

ing the public schools of the City of )

’ Detroit, Michigan, on their own behalf and )

on behalf of their minor children, allon be- )

half of any persons similarly situated; and )

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE )

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEO- )

PLE, DETROIT BRANCH, eS

Plaintiffs )

)

Ve. -

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor of the

State of Michigan and ex officio member of

Michigan State Board of Education;

FRANK J. KELLEY, Attorney General of

the State of Michigan; MICHIGAN STATE

BOARD OF EDUCATION, a constitutional

body corporate; JOHN W. PORTER, Act-

ing Superintendent of Public Instruction,

Department of Education and ex officio

Chairman of Michigan State Board of Edu-

cation; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

CITY OF DETROIT, a school district of

the first class; PATRICK McDONALD,

JAMES HATHAWAY and CORNELIUS

| GOLIGHTLY, members of the Board of

Education of the City of Detroit; and

NORMAN DRACHLER, Superintendent of

the Detroit Public Schools,

1a99

er ee ee eee ee ee ee”

Defendants

CLASS ACTION ORDER

At a session of said Court held in the Federal Building, City of

Detroit, on the 16th day of February, A.D. 1971.

PRESENT: HONORABLE STEPHEN J. ROTH, United States

District Judge

The Court having heard counsel for the parties on the ques-

tion of whether this action can be maintained as a class action,

after due deliberation

THE COURT FINDS that this cause of action meets the pre-

requisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and that it comes within the provisions of Rule 23(b) (2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 23(c) (1) that the plain-

tiffs action may be maintained and hereby is recognized as a class

action, Rule 23(b) (2), on behalf of two classes:

1. All school children in the City of Detroit, Michigan;

2. All Detroit resident parents who have children of school

age.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that this lawsuit

has received widespread, pervasive publicity through the mass

news media, and that the ordinary news coverage in such mass

news media of this order will effectively and adequately place all

Ia 100

interested members of the classes on notice of the pendency of the

action, and its nature and purpose;

such belief. Such appearances must be filed with the Clerk of the

Court not later than March 8, 1971. In the event appearances or

interventions are filed on or before said March 8, 1971, the Court

will conduct, a hearing on March 15, 1971 at ten o’clock in the

forenoon in its Courtroom, 257 Federal Building and Courthouse,

Detroit, Michigan, to consider such appearances and/or inter-

ventions and to outline procedures to be followed in these pro-

ceedings. .

/s/

Stephen J. Roth

United States District Judge

DATED: FEBRUARY 16TH, 1971.

Ia 101

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

Plaintiffs ) CIVIL ACTION

vs. ) NO: 35257

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )

Defendants )

SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-TRIAL ORDER

The Court having ruled on the standing of parties and having

determined that this cause may be maintained as a class action,

and the Court having defined the classes involved, the Court has

ordered, in accordance with Rule 23(d) (2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, that notice be given to members of the classes, so

that they may move to intervene in this action; and

The Court having conducted a joint hearing and conference

on certain pre-trial matters on February 11, 1971, the Preliminary

Pre-trial Order heretofore issued in this cause is supplemented and

modified as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that any person seeking intervention in this

cause file his application on or before March 8, 1971, with the

Clerk of the Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applications for inter-

vention shall be considered at a hearing to be held at 10:00 a.m.

on March 15, 1971;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a joint Final

Pre-trial Order in compliance with the terms of the original Preli-

minary Pre-trial Order issued in this cause not later than March 22,

1971;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall

mark and clear, if possible, all proposed exhibits on April 5, 1971;

Ta 102

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter shall come on

for hearing on the merits at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 6, 1971.

/s/

STEPHEN J. ROTH

United States District Judge

DATED: February 16, 1971.

la 103

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,

Defendants,

* and

)

) CIVIL ACTION

)

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACH- )

)

NO. 35257

ERS, LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERA-

TION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Intervening Defendant,

and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,

Intervening Defendants.

JOINT PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT

GENERAL STATEMENTS OF CLAIMS

THEORIES, AND DEFENSES

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT

The Detroit public schools are being operated in a manner

which violates the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Constitution of the United States.

The Detroit School System operates schools which are racially

identifiable as “‘Negro” and “White” schools, which schools are

inherently unequal, and which deny plaintiffs equal educational

opportunities.

A school system which operates schools as set out in the pre-

ceding paragraph is under an affirmative duty imposed by the

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to remove the racial

identifiability of the schools in its system by desegregating the

la 104

student bodies @f the individual schools and by assigning and/or

reassigning bers to each school in accordance with the

system-wide ratio of black and white faculty members, and by

planning and making facility additions in a manner which will pro-

mote and maintain racially non-identifiable schools.

BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT

The Board of Education Defendants assert the following three

defenses: —

A. The Detroit Board of Education has not intentionally

acted to separate pupils on the basis of their race. Acts of the

Detroit Board of Education which are neutral and do not have as

their intent the separation of pupils on the basis of race do not

violate its constitutional duty, even if the unintentional and unan-

ticipated effect thereof is to permit schools to exist whose student

bodies are predominantly Negro or predominantly white. There-

fore, the Detroit School System is neither a dual nor a de jure

segregated school system as Plaintiffs contend.

B. The Detroit Board of Education is under no constitu-

tional duty to overcome residential racial separation. Nevertheless,

the Detroit Board of Education recognizes an educational respon-

sibility to integrate its pupils and staff — racially, culturally,

economically and religiously — and thas voluntarily acted in

numerous and substantial ways to fulfill that educational responsi-

bility.

C. The allegation that the school system contains some

schools where the student body is predominately Negro and other

schools where the student body is predominately white, in and of

itself, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

STATE DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT

A. That the school administrative regions established under

the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2a, which are

also election regions for the purpose of electing members to the

first class district school board, were established to conform to the

wr - ————

Ia 105

requirements of both the Federal Equal Protection Clause and

Section 2a and to implement administrative decentralization of

the Detroit schools for the purpose of fostering greater com-

munity control therein.

B. That the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2a

and the regions established thereunder are in conformity with the

Federal Equal Protection Clause.

C. That the state defendants have not engaged in any affir-

mative conduct constituting state compelled de jure segregation

concerning the establishment of atténdance areas, the assignment

of school personnel or the location and construction of school

buildings and control over such matters is reposed by state statute

in the Detroit Board of Education.

INTERVENING DEFENDANT DETROIT FEDERATION

OF TEACHERS’ STATEMENT

Intervenor submits, on information and belief, that the

Detroit Board of Education has not been guilty of state-compelled

segregation of faculty and/or students and, therefore, a judicial

remedy of desegregation and/or integration of faculty is not

required or appropriate.

In the event such a remedy were required, plaintiffs’ proposed

remedy, namely, that faculty be assigned and/or reassigned in each

school of the Detroit system in direct ratio to the over-all ratio of

white and black teachers in the system, and without regard to

teacher skills, certification, amount of experience, tenure and

seniority, or otherwise, is neither required nor appropriate.

STATEMENT OF INTERVENING DEFENDANTS

MAGDOWSKI, ET AL.

intervening Defendants Magdowski, et al. join in the defenses

and issues of the Board of Education Defendants.

Ia 106

il.

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES

A. ISSUES RELATING TO BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFEN-

DANTS’ DEFENSE A.

Plaintiffs’ Issues Relating to Board’s Defense A

1. Whether the Detroit Board of Education has acted

with the intention or with the result that schools have been

established or maintained as racially identifiable units.

a. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has insti-

tuted and/or utilized such pupil assignment and transfer

policies.

b. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has estab-

lished, perpetuated and/or maintained such pupil atten-

dance zones and pupil feeder patterns.

c. Whether the defendant Detroit Board’s open

enroliment policies, optional attendance zones, trans-

portation and/or other administrative policies have had

the effect of aiding the creation and/or maintenance of

racially identifiable schools?

d. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has con-

structed new schools and made additions to existing

schools in a manner that has resulted in the establish-

ment, existence and/or maintenance of racially identifi-

able schools?

e. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has pur-

chased and/or placed additional school facilities of any

type, including, but not limited to, transportables, mobile

units, and rented relief space in a manner which has aided

in the creation, existence and/or maintenance of racially

identifiable schools?

1a 107

f. Whether the Detroit Board has by act or omis-

sion failed to avail itself of opportunities to eliminate or

diminish the racial identifiability of the schools in its

system, or to prevent the increase or creation of racially

identifiable schools?

g- Whether a policy of neutrality as to any facet of

school administration, including pupil and teacher assign-

ments, satisfies the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amend-

ment obligations of the defendant Detroit Board to pro-

vide equal educational opportunities to the school chil-

dren in its system?

2. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has complied

with its affirmative Constitutional duty to operate a public

school system without “Negro” and “White” schools, but just

schools?

3. Whether the defendant Detroit Board maintains a

public school system which denies equality of educational

opportunity to Detroit’s public school children on the basis of

race? ;

a. Whether or not there exist or have ever existed

in the Detroit School System patterns of school, class-

room or course assignments to “tracks”, “levels” or so-

called “‘ability groups” which have the effect of denying

equal educational opportunities to Detroit school

children?

b. Whether the Detroit Board, having initiated a

partial plan (i.e., April 7th plan) for providing equal

educational opportunities to some of the high school

students in the Detroit system, is under a duty to provide

complete equality of educational opportunity to all

Detroit Public School children by instituting a complete

plan of school desegregation?

Ia 108

Board of Education Defendants’ Issues Relating to

Defense A

1. Has the Detroit Board of Education intentionally

assigned pupils to separate educational facilities on the basis

of their race?

2. Is the Detroit School System a biracial dual, or de

jure school system?

3, Has the Detroit Board of Education adopted any

policies which, although neutral or benign in intent, have had

the unintentional and unanticipated effect of creating schools

whose student bodies are predominantly Negro or predomi-

nantly white?

B. ISSUES RELATING TO BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFEN-

DANTS’ DEFENSE B.

Plaintiffs’ Issues Relating to Board’s Defense B

1. Whether the defendant Detroit Board’s student and

faculty assignment practices have impermissibly segregated

students and faculty by race, by reason of the underlying

racially segregated residential patterns?

2. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has built upon

or does build upon racially segregated residential patterns in

the assignment of students and faculty?

3. Whether the policies and practices of public officials

with respect to location, building or expansion of public

housing units, and tenant admission and assignment thereto,

have aided and/or contributed to the creation or existence of

racially segregated residential patterns within the City of

Detroit?

4. Whether the policies and practices of public officials

with respect to the sponsorship, insurance, guarantee or sub-

sidy of private housing has aided and/or contributed to

racially segregated residential patterns?

ae za

Ia 109

5. Whether any other policies and practices of public

officials have contributed to the racially segregated residential

patterns in Detroit?

6. Whether the opportunities of blacks and whites for

private housing have been restricted on the basis of race by

the practices and policies of various public, quasi-public and

private persons and organizations?

. 7, Whether such restrictions on housing opportunities,

and their persisting.effects, have contributed to racially segre-

gated residential patterns?

8. Whether the racially segregated residential patterns in

the City of Detroit have had any effect upon pupil attendance

and faculty assignment pa

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.