# Appendix — Milliken v. Bradley > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0342%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1974 - **Citation:** 418 U.S. 717 ## Text i 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 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 1 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- he 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 ct 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 c or the t 1 the to for side moved : of s a 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 : | : : i ate atti fi gt 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 He & eet - s M 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 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 (C) polarization of black and white communities (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 t "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.” 26 ’ on as “ 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 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 __ 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 ; ~* -—-* 1a38 ie / REGION 1U (Cody - Mackenzic) Cody High School’ Constellation, and Mackenzie High School Constellction Ss (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 ee - - 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: 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, 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 * * } 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 S 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.” (c) The Detroit Board denies the allegations “eat the 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. (c) The conclusions of law constituting the balance of 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. . ee 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°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 (c) Resorrenation Pye foe Smal educations) = portunt- % 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 e, 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 a e j ° - m u4s0G5Q) Busqsaeg ° a aizha wy 9 (sie 5 1e* o _ c aid tprevevavele I psofpry “ a 5 I 4aj007) : I puofuny p4ed Co ying : [> «) - a) ‘ a “ I quite } ) pute “| ae ¢ MAqH4ON SD tN mozuayryy ‘ ~~. ‘ we 010 '| 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. ar 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: > 1. 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 4 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: 1. 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: I. 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 eR 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. ll 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 ~ ey 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 — =] a bad mT g rll : ; : g : 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 LE ! 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 Blark §. Sleek Corrales DISTRICT_Mecrott ba eee kt 672 3979 105789 288256 Allen Pork 15 ee. 74 6412 6522 Cherry Hill 2 1s nn 38 $061—Ss«8:27 Dearborn | 27 2 a > | 184 : 21378 21634 ; Dearborn Rts. 45 0 20 67 $494 «8626 Melvindale N 9 ° 30 176 $359 5574 Allen Park ‘ Gerden City 22 - * 19 108 13704 =: 13853 Grosse Pointe 2 1 uu 2313286 = 13323 Hamt ranck 12 905 9 66 «20723044 Highland Perk —S 8 6158 53 25. «1493.—s«7837 Inkster 1 3962 1 8 652 4624 Lincoln Park ~~ 29 6 21 325. 11836 = 12217 Livonia eS 8 sr 176, 37807-38105 Plymouth Com. 5 eo: eS 32-9247 —s«9300 Redford Union 5 2 "s 25 9636.~=Ss« 9677 River Rouge 15 1723 8 43 «-2069Sss«38SB Romulus 11 961 12 33 4433s S850 _ South Redford 1 e. 9 te 7852 7883 Taylor Township 39 303 We 249 19374 20004 Trenton ? 3 11 20 6877 6918 Wayne Corn. 49 21 40 179 22225 22514 Wyandotte 14 i rf) 418334803 Flat Rock $ 4 ce 16 2171-2200 Fairlane ; 0 0 } 0 1187 1188 ba 122 . Indian Black = Oriental ricyne Ett. DISTRICT North Dearhomn 4 0 23 11.273? 2765 Heights : Crestwood = (stiéi0 Si 0 20 $243 5282 Westwood 8 1862. 1s 220-3233 $120 Ecorse 3-268 noe 256° 1811 6341 Gibralter 3 0 2 9 2918 2932 Grosse fle 3 eS: 6 8 2332 2349 Barper Woods 3 r) os 0 1975 1981 Beintzen ? C1] 10 34 4100 4151 Buron 8 16 z 23-2245 2294 Wood Haven 11 4 s 28 ©1350 1398 Boriiwitic i 0 FY & .. 3203 3353 Riverview ae he ‘ 25 36253655 Southgate a oe 1 mae. ee $613 Van Buren 10 310 a. 40 6704 7087 . ree: Michigan School Racial Census, 1969-70 A)! o Chessy &.2 % Dearts: 0 Dearbera Itt.. 1 Melvind ° Five ot 2 RKe¢ie 1 River: 4 Rorulus 0 South Pecto-d 0 Tee Trent = C Wayne Ceo>. t 9 la 124 COUNTY Mayne _(Cnme)_ : . Teachers . Indian Black Oriental Chicano White DISTRICT_North meen 0 0 ry 0 113 3 ) Heights. ’ ; Crestwood 0 0° r) r) 169s Westwood 0 28 0 i 129 158 Ecorse r) 16 0 0 100% Cibralter t') 0 0 0 107 107 Grosse Tle ° t+) 0 1 103 104 Barper Woods 0 t ) C) t) 87 8) Beintzen 2 ° 0 0 1380 Buron 0 0 0 0 8? 8) Wood Haven 0 0 0 0 $3 $3 Borthville 0 1 0 0 122 13 Riverview _ © 0 ° , 0 166 166 Southgate a) 0 ' t) i 198 19 Wan Buren * 4 g. be g Vig ge oe Source: Michigan School Racial Census, 1969-70 ——— PISTRICA Mire gle Ferndsic Poatiac Royal Oak Berklicy Southfield Avondale Bloonfield Hills Clarenceville Novi Oxford Barei Park Madison Hts. Troy West Blocrfield Brandon Clarkston Paraington Holly Buron Valley Lake Orion South Lyors Oak Park Rochester w oewrwv 4 Inedtou --.' = DISTRICT Pir imehor Feradale : Pont Lac Royal Oak Berkley Southfield Avondale Bloomfield Hills + Clarenceville Novi Oxford” Bacei Fork Madison Hts ne Troy West Bloonfield “+ Brandon Clarkston « Farmington Bolly Buron Valley Lake Orion South Lyons Mak Park Rochester Clawson - «2 oe 2 46.6 2 2 22-6 8 6:2: 2 @:. 2-2: 2 7.8 Se >. oe 2 ee ee ce ‘tr ere = - o:.@- 2 6 @ 2 2 0.9 2.2 2.2... 8 POP ea. 8a 2S eR 791 309 698 789 352 la 127 county, © 3! 3 a Teaches: eT ie Intinn = =Bbvk = Oriental Chics, gestarci tether: 0 0 eo. 271 Walled Late 0 a 1 2 420 &2¢ Waterford hp 2 1 2 2 571 $73. Source: Michigan Schoo) Racial Census, 1969-70 COUNTY__ Macumb . Indian DISTRICT_Centerline ll East Detroit 13 Roseville 29 ‘ Anchor Bay 1 Armada 2 Clintendale 8 Chippewa Valley 0 Fitzgerald 3 Fraser 0 Lakeshore 1 Lakeview 6 Source: L'anse Creuse Mr. Clemens . New Raven Richmond Romeo South Lake Utica Van Dyke Warren Warren Woods la 128 Black Oriental Chicano White 3 22 4S 78S «GG 6 26 97 12689 1281 213 24 81 143877 $1 9 20 «2618 (2699 1 3 26 =—-:14868 —s1500 ~ 14 48 = 45514998 ‘ s s 272 0 14 22 «$330 Sm 1 8 25 7270 7300 48 19 16 9539s 0 13 12«7720—Sts7782 34 = eo i: oe 1421 a a 317 6 — 2 1 —— 7s 1 26 «= - 3698 —s(3798 0 9 1l 0 5276 8306 8 32 $4 19965 26073 2 1s eo mo; $2 eo ee ee ee 0 11 15 8921958 Michigcn School 2acial Census, 1969-70 Ia 129 couuty tee . : Teachers Indian = Black = Qriental Chicano DISTRICT Centerline : 0 | C) 0 East Detroit : t) 1 0 0 Roseville 2, 38 0 3 Anchor Bay 0 2 t) 0 " Awmada 0 0 0 0 Clintondale 0 “ 6 2 Chippewa Valley o. 0 0 te) Fitzgerald 0 0 0 0 Fraser 0 i) 1 0 Lakeshore i) 2 : 0 1 Dehkeview ty abit 6 0 L’ Anse Creuse 0 2 - 2 ae : Mt. Clerens ) 33 ‘i al - @ New Raven te) 4 By 1 "4. Richmond ') 0 0 r) Seane i) te) 0 0 South Lake 0 0 ce) i Utita © ° 0 1 > 1 Van Dyke 0 0 3 1 Warren t) 2 1 3 Warren Woods 0 1 CY) 1 Source: Michigan School Racial Census, 1969-70 1a 130 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RONALD BRADLEY and RICHARD BRADLEY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) -VS.~ ) WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor ) Civil Action of the State of Michigan, et al., ) No. 35257 Defendants. ) DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACH- ) ERS, LOCAL 231, et al., ) Intervening Defendants. ) ORDER The State Defendants, the Governor, Attorney General, State Superintendent of Education and State Board of Education at the close of Plaintiff's case in chief filed, pursuant to Rule 41 (b) FRCP, a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that upon the facts and the law Plaintiffs had shown no right torelief. The Court has heard arguments and received the briefs of the parties and upon due consideration, it is hereby ordered that as to each and all of the moving defendants the motion is denied. STEPHEN J. ROTH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: June 25, 1971 _ =e Ia 131 * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RONALD BRADLEY, et al., Plaintiffs vs. WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et. al., Defendants DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACH- Civil Action ERS, LOCAL NO. 231, AMERICAN FED- No. 35257 ERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, ll i i i i i a a Defendant- Intervenor and DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., Defendants- Intervenor FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This action was commenced August 18, 1970, by plaintiffs, the Detroit Branch of the National Association for the Advance- ment of Colored People and individual parents and students, on behalf of a class later defined by order of the Court dated February 16, 1971, to include all school children of the City of Detroit and all Detroit resident parents who have children of school age. Defendants are the Board of Education of the City of Detroit, its members and is former superintendent of schools, Dr. Norman A. Drachler, the Governor, Attorney General, State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Michigan. In their complaint, plaintiffs attacked a statute of the State of Michigan known as Act 48 of the 1970 Legislature on the ground that it put the State of Michigan in the position of unconstitutionally interfering with the execution and operation of a voluntary plan of partial high school desegregation (known as the April 7, 1970 Plan) which had been adopted by the Detroit Board of Education to be effective beginning with the fall 1970 semester. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Detroit Public SE oe ee la 132 | School System was and is segregated on the basis of race as a result of the official policies and actions of the defendants and their predecessors in office. Additional parties have intervened in the litigation since it was commenced. The Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT) which represents a majority of Detroit public school teachers in col- lective bargaining negotiations with the defendant Board of Educa- tion, has intervened as a defendant, and a group of f parents has intervened as defendants. Initially the matter was tried on plaintiffs’ motion for pre- liminary injuction to. restrain the enforcement of Act 48 so as to permit the April 7 Plan to.be implemented. On that issue, this Court initially ruled that plaintiffs were not entitled to a pre- liminary injuction since there had been no proof that Detroit was a segregated school system. The Court of Appeals held, however, that any such interference by the state with a determination ofa local school board to pursue the goals of racial equality was for- bidden and that, at a minimum, the state must pursue a course of scrupulous neutrality and avoid steps whose effect can only be to heighten or maintain racial segregation. 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970). The plaintiffs then sought to have this Court direct the de- fendant Detroit Board to implement the April 7 Plan by the start of the second semester in order to remedy the deprivation of constitutional rights wrought by the unconstitutional statute. In response to an order of the Court, defendants suggested two other plans in addition to the April 7 Plan which they contended would result in integration promised by the April 7 Plan. The Court, although concluding that in this context “nonaction is (or amounts to) prohibited action,” rejected the Plaintiffs’ arguments against the “magnet” plan at that time and approved it rather than ordering April 7 implemented. Again, plaintiffs appealed but the appellate court refused to pass on the merits of the plan. Instead, the case was remanded with instructions to proceed immediately to a trial on the merits of plaintiffs’ substantive .allegations about the Detroit School System. 438 F.2d 945 (6th Cir. 1971). | | f la 133 That trial began April 6, 1971 and concluded on July 22, 1971 consuming forty-one trial days along with several brief _re- cessed necessitated by demands upon the time of Court and counsel. Plaintiffs introduced substantial evidence in support of their contentions, including expert and factual testimony, de- monstrative exhibits and School Board documents. At the close of plaintiffs’ case in chief, the Court ruled that they had presented a prima facie case of state imposed segregation in the Detroit Public Schools; accordingly, the Court enjoined (with certain exceptions) all further school construction in Detroit pending the outcome of the litigation. The Court has also denied the motion to dismiss filed by state defendants at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case in chief. The proof adduced by the plaintiffs was not solely limited to the role played by the Detroit Board, its predecessors and employees, in bringing about the present highly segregated: condition of the public schools. It also demonstrated inescapably that the State of Mich- igan and its agencies have by acts and omissions seemingly viola- tive of its obligation under the Michigan Constitution, contributed toward bringing about this result. Furthermore, one of the inter- vening defendants has filed a motion to require 85 suburban school districts to participate in any school desegregation the Court might order. On the basis of the proofs presented at trial and at the pre- vious hearings in this cause, the Court makes the following find- ings of fact and conclusions of law.* FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During the 1970-71 school year defendant Detroit Board of Education operated 282 regular attendance-area schools, en- rolling 277,578 students of whom 177,079, or. 63.8%, were *“P.X.”’ and “D.X.” references are to plaintiffs’ exhibits and defendants’ exhibits, respectively. Citations to the trial transcript are in the form “Tr.” indicating the volume and page numbers (e.g., 20 Tr. 2000). Citations to transcripts of previous hearings are preceded by the hearing date (e.g., 11/4/70 Tr. 100). Citations to depositions which have been admitted into evidence are in similar form. la 134 | Negro.{1][P.X. 128B, 152A]. 2. These figures compare with 251 attendance-area [herein- after, “regular’”’} schools in operation in 1960-61 with an enroll- ment of 275,021 of whom 126,278, or 45.9%, were black. [P.X. 128A, 152A]. 3. Of the 251 regular schools in operation in 1960-61, 171 or 68% were 90% or more one race (71 black, 100 white). [P.X. 150, 128A]. Of the 282 regular schools in current operation, 202 or 71.6% serve student enrollments which are 90% or more one race (133 are black, 69 are white). [P.X. 150, 128B]. 4. In 1960-61, 65.8% of the total number of black students in regular schools were in schools 90% or more black. In 1970-71 the percentage of black students in schools 90% or more black had increased to 74.9%. [P.X. 129; 32 Tr. 3382-83]. 5. Every school which was 90% or more black in 1960, and which is still in use today, remains 90% or more black. [P.X. 150; 32Tr. 3381-82}. 6. In 1960-61 there were 9,884 teachers, of whom 2,366 or 23.9% were black, assigned to regular schools. In 1970-71, 11,616 teachers, of whom 4,853 or 41.8% were black, were assigned to regular schools. [P.X. 152B; cf. P.X. 100J at p. 2 showing all faculties 1960-61 to 1970-71.] 7. In 1963 there were 99 schools with instructional staffs less than 10% black (of which 41 had no black staff members) and 72 schools with instructional staffs 50% or more black. By 1970-71 the Board had reduced to 12 the number of schools with less than 10% black faculties, but the number of schools with 50% or more black faculties had increased to 124. [P.X. 100J at p. 3}. (1] In addition the Board operated 23 various non-attendance area schools enrolling 8,130 students of whom 5,386 were black (P.X. 100J at p. 127). The Board also had 4,146 students, of whom 1,798 were black, enrolled in special adult programs. (P.X. 100J at p. 6). la 135 8. The public schools operated by defendant Board are thus segregated on a racial basis. This racial segregation is the result of the discriminatory acts and omissions of defendant Board, which include the following: A. Faculty 9. Prior to 1962 the Board operated an admittedly discrimin- atory policy and practice of faculty assignment. [38 Tr. 4340}. Until 1955 the Board assigned black teachers to schools which were predominantly black, but never assigned black teachers to schools which were 50% or more white. [20Tr. 2185]. Until 1964 no black person was ever made Principal of a high school. [20 Tr. 2185-86]. 10. In 1962 the Board-appointed Citizens Advisory Committee on Equal Educational Opportunities found: As to placement of teachers, the subcommittee finds that, with only a few exceptions, Negro teachers are placed only where there are Negro children in attendance at school. [P.X. 3 at p. 75; see also 20 Tr. 2182]. The EEO Committee further found, and the evidence demonstrates, “that there is a tendency for the proportion of Negro teachers in a school to increase as the proportion of Negro pupils increases.”’ [P.X. 3 at 75]. For example, in 1955 Central High School was 70% white but incurred faculty integration for the first time with the assign- ment of a black counselor and a black teacher. But by 1970 Central was 100% black and its faculty was 55.9% black [20 Tr. 2180; P.X. 130], whereas the system-wide faculty was only 41.8% black. [P.X. 152B] See generally P.X. 3 at 76. 11. The 1962 EEO finding (P.X. 3 at 73) that the Board of Education has followed a practice of (1) assigning Negro teachers predominantly within certain districts where there are large numbers of Negro pupils, and (2) assigning Negro teachers chiefly to racially mixed schools, in many cases on a proportional basis. If there are no Negro — la 136 children in a school, no Negro teachers are assigned there; this rule has few exceptions to date, is clearly demonstrated by the testimony and exhibits. [P.X. 3 at 72-79 (esp. map facing p. 78), 92-134 (appendices-esp. graphs on pp. 98-106); P.X. 154A]. 12. The EEO Committee further found “that placement of teachers by the Detroit Board of Education follows in general, and with some departures, a definite racial pattern. . . .[and that] Data also show that Negro administrators are placed only where Negro children and Negro teachers are in the majority.” [P.X. 3 at 79]. The Court finds that the discriminatory assignment of administrators persists, as is shown by the following table taken from the October 1970 racial census, P.X. 100J, p. 10-20 (see also 22 Tr. 2511-13): Northeastern Predominately white Constellations Administrators Cody 3 Negro 55 white Ford 3 Negro 41 white Redford 1 Negro 46 white Osborn 2 Negro 42 white Denby 1 Negro 30 white Finney 8 Negro 44 white Predominately black Constellations _ Administrators King 35 Negro 22 white Central 23 Negro 23 white Northwestern 25 Negro 23 white Northern 24 Negro 24 white 30 Negro 29 white 13. The EEO committee further found, and the evidence demon- strates, discriminatory practices regarding the placement of ESRPs and probationary teachers. “[W]henever Emergency Substitutes ; la 137 or Probationary I’s and II’s are Negroes, they are assigned to only 5 of the 9 districts.” [P.X. 3 at 74]. The Committee further found “that a large number of . . . [ESRPs and probationary teachers] are currently assigned to 3 [black] districts - the Center, Southeast and East Districts... .” [P.X. 3 at 83, 96-97]. 14. In 1963 the Committee on Schools of the Detroit Com- mission on Human Relations reported to the Board its appraisal of “the regular opportunities of the administrative staff to place per- sonnel on the basis of qualifications and preparation.” The Com- mission “found that in 1960-61, 51% of the school personnel were involved in personnel transactions, and in the following year, 54% or 10,429 contract personnel were involved. Many of these changes represented significant opportunities to demonstrate a pattern of teacher assignment without regard to race.” [P.X. 177 at 2]. The Commission found that despite these opportunities the conditions reported by the 1962 EEO Committee “remains virtually unchanged.” Again, in 1964, the same group, at the request of the Board, examined the 1963 racial count data. Their findings reported to the Board and which are uncontradicted in this record were (P.X. 178 at 2-3): In October, 1963, Negro teachers were not assigned on the staff of 56 of the city’s 281 schools. Not one of the city’s 2,592 Negro teachers were 52 (or 25%) of the elementary schools and 4 of the junior high : In October, 1963, those schools which had from 0 to 4 Negro teachers on their staff numbered 135, or approximately one half of the city’s schools. In these 135 schools, a total of 182 (or 7%) of the Negro teachers were found 3,428 white teachers were on the faculties of these 135 schools. In October, 1963, those schools which had 5 or more Negro teachers on their staffs numbered 146, or approximately the remaining one half of the city’s schools. In these 146 schools, a total of 2,410 (or 93%) of the Negro teachers were found. cg 59 white teachers were on these school faculties . In March, 1963, it was found that as the number of Negro tate : pupils in any particular school increased, the number of Negro teachers in that school also increased. . . : In the 135 schools with 0 to 4 Negro teachers on their staffs, 6% or 9,082 Negro pupils were found and 7%, or 182 Negro teachers were found. In the remaining 146 schools with 5 or more Negro teachers on their staffs, 94%, or 141,844 Negro pupils were found and 93%, or 2,410 Negro teachers were found. In October, 1963, 102 elementary schools were found in the category of from 0 to 4 Negro teachers on their staff. Between March 30, 1963 and October 1, 1963, 385 place- ments were made in these 102 elementary schools. The result of these 385 placements was the net addition of only 35 Negro teachers to these faculties. In October, 1963, 52 elementary schools had no Negro teachers on their staff. 10 of these 52 schools which acquired no Negro teachers before October, 1963, expanded their faculties by a total of 33 additional teachers between March ~ and October, 1963. In the 4 new schools with predominantely Negro student bodies, a total of 144 teachers were placed. 79, or about 50% of these 144 teachers were Negro teachers. ‘ In the 3 new schools with almost completely white student bodies, 104 teachers were assigned. Only 5 of the 104 teach- ers were Negro teachers. . . aa 15. On September 18, 1964, Judge Kaess entered “Interim Findings” in Sherrill School Parents Committee, et al., v. The Board of Education of the School District of the City of Detroit, Civ. No. 22092 (E.D.Mich.), recommending, inter alia that The Board should commit itself to the immediate and sub- stantial reduction of the number of schools in which there are no Negro teachers and other professional personnel. er Ia 139 Substantial intergration of faculty and professional personnel should be achieved in all schools by the beginning of February, 1965 term. [P.X. 6]. 16. In the 1968 the Board-appointed High School Study Commission examined, among other things, the racial composition of the faculty at two black (Central and Northwestern) and two white (Cody and Redford) high schools In The Report of the High School Study Commission (P.X. 107), the Subcommittee on Personnel, chaired by Deputy Superintendent Authur Johnson, found, with regard to these four high schools, that The percentage of Negro teachers, while being very low in the “fringe” schools, approaches 50 per cent in the two “inner” schools. The percentage of Negro teachers corresponds to the Negro population of the student body. [P.X. 107 at 294]. f Commission also found that “more experienced and older teachers are found in the fringe schools then in the inner schools” and that “[t)he inner schools tend to have a larger percentage of relatively inexperienced, young teachers.” [P.X. 107 at 298]. 17. Yet, this discriminatory pattern of faculty assignment persists at the present time. During the 1970-71 school year dis- proportionate numbers of black teachers were assigned to pre- dominantly black schools and disproportionate numbers of white teachers were assigned to predominantly white schools; the pre- vailing pattern of assignment is that the percentage black of school faculties substantially correlates with the tage black of student bodies. [P.X. 154C; Joint X. FFFFI2] ; 15 Tr. 1611-21 22 Tr. 2506-18 (Foster); 38 Tr. 4340 (Johnson); see Finding 7, supra; P.X. 161 A-C, 162A-C, 165A-C, 166 (hourglass); 16 Tr. 1805-10). As Deputy Superintendent Johnson testified, this persisting racial (2) Joint Exhibit FFFF was prepared and marked for identification by de- fendant Board, but made a joint exhibit when plaintiffs noted it and offered it. [40 Tr. 4613]. The exhibit shows a high correlation between percentage black of faculties and percentage black of pupils in each school. la 140 pattern of faculty assignments “is the result of discrimination.” (38 Tr. 4340} . ‘ 18. Additionally, ESRPs continue to be assigned more heavily to black schools than to white schools and teachers in the lower salary classes are disproportionately placed in black schools, while white schools are assigned a disproportionate number of teachers in the higher salary classes. [P.X. 161A-C. 162A-C; 16 Tr. 1779-91 }. 19. Thus, the range of faculty distribution factors, including race, qualifications and experience, continues to reflect a dis- criminatory pattern. B. Pupils 20. In 1962 the EEO Committee found (P.X. 3 at 61): Numerous public schools in Detroit are presently segregated by race. The allegation that purposeful administrative devices have at times been used to perpetuate segregation in some schools is clearly substantiated. It is necessary that the Board and its administration intensify their recent efforts to desegre- 4 /~.. gate the public schools. This finding is substantially corroborated by the evidence and de- fendants have failed to present any compelling justification for the policies and practices set forth below which had natural, probable and actual segregatory effects. - 21. An assistant superintendent, Charles WElls, testified from the minutes of the EEO committee (P.X. 105 at p. 478) with respect to a letter presented to the Committee by the Citizens’ Association for Better Schools (of which Mr. Wells was a member) at an EEO meeting in 1960 attended by Mr. Wells. After outlining the hopes and dreams of equal educational opportunities of Detrodit’s black citizens, particularly the hopes inspired by the favorable millage vote in 1959, the Association stated: Their [black people] first disillusionment occurred only a few la 141 months, but yet a few weeks after the passage of the millage ~— they were rewarded with the creation of the present Center District. In effect this District, with a few minor exceptions, created a segregated school system. It accomplished with a few marks of the crayon on the map, the return of the Negro child from the few instances of an integrated school exposure, to the traditional predominantly uniracial school system to which he had formerly been accustomed in the City of Detroit.... (Protestations) resulted in only rationalizations concerning segregated housing patterns, and denials of any attempts to segregate. When it was pointed out that regardless of motivation, that segregation was the result of their boundary changes, little compromise was effected, except in one or two instances, where opposition leadership was most vocal and aggressive. {20 Tr. 2245-46] . These charges, joined in by Mr. Wells, were sup- ported with statistical data showing the disproportionate size, in- ferior facilities and unequal resources relegated to the Center District. /See generally 20 Tr. 2243-52]. The Center District exemplified “ a policy of containment of minority groups within specified boundaries.” [20 Tr. 2247-48]. Its boundary line was described as “look[ing] like the coastline of the Eastern United States where the Negro population is on one side and the white population on the other.” [20 Tr. 2255]. This testimony is supported by the evidence in the record and was in no way questioned by the defendants. 22. Deputy Superintendant Johnson acknowledged that there had been discriminatory practices and that “‘we still live with the results of discriminatory practices.” [38 Tr. 4347]. 23. During the decade beginning in 1950 the Board created and maintained optional attendance zones in neighborhoods undergoing racial transition and between high school attendance areas of opposite predominant racial compositions. [32 Tr. 3420-21, 3423-28(Henrickson); 13 Tr. 1396-98, 1406-78(Foster); 1 Tr. 28-32 (Former Board President Stephens]. In 1959 there were 8 basic optional attendance areas [P.X. 109A (1959-60 Ia 142 overlay)] affecting 21 schools. [3] [P.X. 155A at p. 44; 15 Tr. 1667, 1677(Foster)}. The natural, probable and actual effect of these optional zones was to allow white youngsters to escape in- dentifiably “black” schools. [13 Tr. 1478-84, 15 Tr. 1677 (Foster); 32 Tr. 3421, 3423-28 (Henrickson); P.X. 132; P.X. 109A-L, 78A-L, 136B and 136C.]. [There had also been an optional zone eliminated between 1956 and 1959, 32 Tr. 3385 created in “an attempt acted out . . . to separate Jews and Gentiles within the system” (26 Tr. 2822), the effect of which was that Jewish youngsters went to Mumford High School and Gentile youngsters went to Cooley (32 Tr. 3384). See also Drachler Deposition de bene esse (6/28/71) at pp. 36-37). Although many of these optional areas had served their purpose by 1960 [4] due to the fact that most of the areas had become predominantly black [P.X. 136B(1960 census map)] , one optional area (Southwestern-Western affecting Wilson Junior High graduates) continued until the present school year (and will con- tinue to effect 11th and 12th grade white youngsters who elected to escape from predominantly black Southwestern to pre- {3} Optional attendance areas provided pupils living within certain elementary areas a choice of attendance at one of two high schools. [32 Tr. 3420]. In addition there was at least one optional area either created or existing in 1960 between two junior high schools of opposite predominant racial components. [13 T [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0342%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.