Correspondence from Lucas to Judge Roth

    M A R V I N  L. R A T N E R  
R. B. S U G A R M O N ,  JR.  

L O U I S  R. L U C A S  

W A L T E R  L. BAILEY,  JR.

1RVI  N M. S A L K Y  
M I C H A E L  B. KAY 

W I L L I A M  E. C A L D W E L L

RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS
A T T O R N E Y S  A T  L A W

S U I T E  5 2 5

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G

M E M PH IS ,  T E N N E S S E E  3 8 1 0 3

February 29, 1972

P H O N E  ( 901 )  5 2 5 - 8 6 0 1

B E N  L.  H O O K S  
O F  C O U N S E L

Honorable Stephen J. Roth, Judge 
United States District Court 
600 Church Street 
Flint, Michigan 48502
Dear Judge Roth:

Responding to Mr. Roumell's letter of February 23 and 
Mr. -Krasicky's letter of February 25, we write to advise the 
Court of plaintiffs' position with respect to the matters raised 
in those letters.

We wish to make clear our complete disagreement with 
the position taken by Mr. Krasicky as to the burden of proof 
with respect to the effectiveness of plans of desegregation. We 
also wish to register our disagreement with his statement in the 
last paragraph of his letter of the legal standard to be applied.

Without reiterating the details of our position we 
think it sufficient to state that there has been no change in the 
plaintiff's position as to the power of the Court, or the State 
duty, with respect to the possibility of a metropolitan desegre­
gation remedy since it became a subject of consideration in this 
case.

Mr, Roumell's discussion of the scope of a proposed 
"metro" hearing we view as a contradiction of the position taken 
by him in chambers at our last meeting. It was our understanding 
that he took the position along with plaintiffs and Mr. Ritchie 
representing the intervenors, that a metropolitan plan of desegre­
gation could be implemented in September; whereas, he now seems to 
suggest a multi-year process. We also note that the minutes of 
the Detroit Board of Education at the time of the submission of 
their plans to the Court indicate that it was the position of the 
Board majority and that it has been the position of the Board's 
majority all along that their first preference for desegregation 
was a metropolitan plan. Their preference for Plan A or C was 
conditional; that is, if the Court elected to limit the remedy to 
the City of Detroit. We know of no vote to the contrary although 
Board member Me Donald has expressed his difference of opinion 
from that of the Board majority.



Judge Roth — 2 — February 29, 1972

While plaintiffs are prepared to proceed on the 14th 
as scheduled, we would have no objection to a consolidated 
hearing on all plans if the Detroit Board makes clear its 
position that its primary recommendation to the Court for 
eliminating segregation is a metropolitan remedy. However, we 
disagree with Mr. Roumell's suggestion that the hearing be 
limited to the metropolitan remedies. We think that the Court 
in a consolidated hearing should first hear the evidence with 
respect to the Detroit plans and proceed thereafter at the same 
hearing to the metropolitan remedies in order that it might 
have before it the evidence of the relative effectiveness of 
the various plans in eliminating the pattern of "racially 
identifiable schools" resulting from the actions and inactions 
of the state and local defendants.

Should the Court elect to proceed with a single hear­
ing on all plans we would respectfully request that the Court, 
having heard the positions of the parties in chambers and 
having received written response from the state defendants, 
rule without further hearing on plaintiff's pending motion to 
require development of Plan 3 submitted by the State Board.
The Court will recall that plaintiffs and the intervenor repre­
sented by Mr. Ritchie concurred in the opinion that Plan 3, 
although not a desegregation plan, provided the only viable 
administrative framework within which a meaningful metropolitan 
desegregation plan could be developed. Requiring the develop­
ment of this plan does not constitute in any way a decision on 
the necessity for its implementation. There is a wealth of 
precedent for this action, the most recent example being the 
4th Circuit order in Richmond. A copy of that order has 
previously been furnished to the court.

Respectfully submitted,
RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS

NATHANIEL R. JONES 
E. WINTHER MC CROOM 
JACK GREENBERG

CC: THEODORE SACHS NORMAN J. CHACHKINL-'"'*
EUGENE KRASICKY J. HAROLD FLANNERY
ALEXANDER B. RITCHIE PAUL R. DIMOND
GEORGE T. ROUMELL, JR, ROBERT PRESSMAN