Memo in Support of Motion for Planning

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

)
Plaintiffs, )

)
v.  )

)
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, )

)
Defendants, )

)and )
)

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, )
)

Defendants- )
Intervenors, )

)
and )

)
ALLEN PARK, et al., )

)
Defendants- )
Intervenors, )

)
and j

KERRY GREEN, et al., )
)

Defendants- )
Intervenors, )

- )
and )

)
WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE )
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., )

)
Added Defendants. ) 

...........  )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 
REQUIRE PLANNING TO PROCEED

1. "Delay is no longer tolerable" in fashioning and 

implementing an effective plan for the desegregation of the
Detroit public schools." Bradley v. Milliken, ____F.2d____

(Nos. 72-1809 - 72-1814, June 12, 1973 en banc) Slip Op. 71.
2. "The panel appointed by the District Court is 

authorized to proceed with its studies and planning under 
the direction of the District Court. Pending further orders 

of the District Court or this Court, the defendants and school 
districts involved will continue to supply administrative
and staff assistance to the panel upon its request. Until



#

further order of the court, the reasonable costs incurred by 

the panel will be paid as provided by the District Court’s 
order of June 14, 1972" Ibid. at 69.

3. The District Court’s Order of June 14, 1972 
provides in pertinent part: ’’The parties, their agents, employees, 

successors and all others having actual notice of this

Order shall cooperate fully with the panel in their assigned 
mission including, but not limited to, the provision of 

data and reasonable full and part-time assistance as requested 

by the panel....All reasonable costs incurred by the panel 
shall be borne by the State Defendants; provided, however, 
that staff assistance or other services provided by any 
school district, its employees or agents shall be without 

charge and the cost thereof shall be borne by such school 

district.” Order for Development of Plan of Desegregation,
June 14, 1972, Part I.C., aff’d in pertinent part,
Ibid, at 69.

4. The panel and the State Superintendent submitted 

reports on July 24, July 29, and August 31, 1972. The views 
and suggestions of several of the parties were made known
to the panel and the Court by responses filed in September; 
similar opportunity can be provided to all additional parties 
without delay or inconvenience. Guidelines for further 

planning, however, are set forth in full in Part VIII of the 
Opinion of the Court of Appeals in Bradley v. Milliken (Nos. 

72-1809 - 72-1814, June 12, 1973 en banc) Slip Op. 70-80.
5. Planning should proceed immediately so that full 

interim and/or final plans of desegregation— and any alternatives 
and objections— may be before the Court and the parties to
the end that all the parties may have a full opportunity to 
be heard on all relevant issues and an effective plan for the 
desegregation of the Detroit public schools can be implemented 
at the earliest practicable date.

6. On the b asis of the Court’s prior findings of 
illegal school segregation, the obligation of defendants 

is to adopt and implement a sound and practicable plan of 

desegregation that promises realistically to achieve now

-  p



and hereafter the greatest possible degree of actual school 

desegregation taking into account the practicalities of the
situation and to substitute for theJblack schools and white

a  r o  w  t-fW
schools found/just schools now and hereafter. E.g., Green v.

— —---ty. Sch°01 ♦ ■» 391 U.S. 430; Swann v, Charlotte-Mecklenberg
— of_ Ed. , 402 U.S. 1; Davis v, Bd. of School Commissioners,

402 U.S. 33; Bradley v. Milliken, supra, Slip Op. In view 

of the circumstances of this case, however, state defendants 
bear the initial burden of going forward with proof.

7. The schedule and procedure set forth in the attached 
proposed order permit the Court and the parties to so proceed, 
and the proposed order provides a fair and reasonable method for 

the Court and the parties to proceed as set forth in the opinion, 
rulings and remand of the Court of Appeals of June 12, 1973.
Slip Op. 67-70.

8. "[T]he legislature of the State of Michigan has power 
to provide a complete remedy for the unconstitutional segregation 
disclosed in this record. It, too, has responsibility for 
following the great mandates of the United States Constitution.
If, however, the legislature fails to act or if it acts in

a manner inconsistent with the expeditious and efficient 

elimination of the unconstitutional practices and conditions 
described in this opinion, the District Court shall proceed 
to fashion such a remedy, including an interim remedy, if found 

to be necessary, as it shall determine to be appropriate within 
the guidelines of this opinion.11 Ibid. at 68. The proposed 
schedule gives the legislature the opportunity to act and is 
subject to alteration to accomodate appropriate action by the 
legislature. See Slip Op.

Respectfully submitted,

LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Ratner, Sugermon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Bldg. 
Memphis, Tennessee

NATHANIEL JONES 
General Counsel 
N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019

PAUL R. DIMOND 
906 Rose Avenue 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 
313-769-8899 

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
ROBERT PRESSMAN

Center for Law & Education 
61 Kirkland St.
Cambridge, Mass. 02138 

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN

10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y.
3