Memo from State Board of Education to Judge Roth Re: Introductory Statement to Metropolitan Desegregation Plans

    STATE OF MICHIGAN

Superintendent of 
Public Instruction

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Lansing, M ichigan 48902

February 1, 1972

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Stephen J. Roth

FROM: State Board of Education

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
EDWIN L. NOVAK, O.D. 

President
MICHAEL J, DEE!)

Vice President
DR. GORTON RIETHMILLER 

Secretary
THOMAS J. BRENNAN 

Treasurer
MARILYN JEAN KELLY 

ANNETTA MILLER 
DR. CHARLES E. MORTON 

JAMES F. O’NEIL 
GOV. WILLIAM G. MILL1KEN 

Ex-Officio

SUBJECT: Introductory Statement to Metropolitan Desegregation Plans

On September 27, 1971, this Court ruled that the State Board of 
Education, together with the other defendants, by action or inaction, 
contributed to the de jure segregation this Court found to exist in 
the Detroit Public Schools. The order incorporating that ruling has 
been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and it 
should be clearly understood that the State Board of Education reserves 
all its rights under its appeal and the submission of any plans is not 
a waiver of any and all of its rights.

On November 5, 1971 this Court entered its order directing the State 
Board of Education to submit metropolitan plans of desegregation to 
the Court within 120 days from October 4, 1971.

In compliance with such order, the State Board of Education respect­
fully submits the following metropolitan desegregation plans:

1. Detroit Metropolitan Racial Proportion Criteria Plan

2. Metropolitan One-way Movement Plan

3. Metropolitan School District Reorganization Plan

4. Metropolitan Magnet Plan .

5. Neighborhood School Based Metropolitan Plan

6. Metropolitan Equal Educational Opportunity and Quality Integration
Plan .

In connection with these metropolitan desegregation plans, it must be 
observed that under present Michigan law, the State Board of Education 
lacks the power or lawful authority to unilaterally implement any of the 
plans submitted. •



The Honorable Stephen J. Roth 
Page 2
February 1, 1972

These plans are submitted in compliance with the Court's order and do not 
constitute any claims by the State Board of Education that it has the power, 
under present Michigan law, to unilaterally effectuate any of the plans 
submitted. The implementation of many of these plans, because of the financial, 
administrative, and governance problems therein as related to state statutes, 
would require new legislation.

As the Court considers the several plans before it, it becomes apparent 
that any plan to implement metropolitan school desegregation will require 
additional funding. The State Board of Education has no authority to 
appropriate funds for public education in Michigan, thus it will be 
important to work within the state and federal legal structure to finance 
such arrangements.

sg



STATE OF MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

I, Ladislaus B. Dombrowski, Administrative Secretary

of the State Board of Education of the State of Michigan, 

do hereby certify that the annexed is a true copy of the 

motion passed by the State Board of Education on February 1, 

1972, on the transmittal of metropolitan desegregation plans 

to the Honorable Stephen J. Roth.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

affixed the seal of said State Board of Education, at Lansing, 

this third day of February, A.D. 1972.

Ladislaus B. Dombrowski 
Administrative Secretary 
Michigan State Board of Education



Excerpts of Minutes of Regular Meeting of State Board of Education, held in 
the City of Lansing, Michigan, on February 1, 1972, 8:30 p.m., in the Offices 
of the State Department of Education.

Present: Dr. John W. Porter, Chairman
Dr. Edwin L. Novak, President 
Mr. Michael J. Deeb, Vice President 
Dr. Gorton Riethmillcr, Secretary 
Mr. Thomas J. Brennan, Treasurer 
Miss Marilyn Jean Kelly 
Mrs. Annetta Miller 
Dr. Charles E. Morton 
Mr. James F. O'Neil

* * *

Dr. Novak moved, seconded by Mr. Brennan, that the State Board of Education 
transmit to Federal Judge Stephen J. Roth without recommendation the 
following metropolitan desegregation plans which have been reviewed by the 
State Board of Education: (1) Detroit Metropolitan Racial Proportion v
Criteria Plan, (2) Metropolitan One-way Movement Plan, (3) Metropolitan 
School District Reorganization Plan, (4) Metropolitan Magnet Plan, (5) Neighborhood 
School Based Metropolitan Plan, and (6) Metropolitan Equal Educational Opportunity 
and Quality Integration Plan.

Mr. O'Neil offered a substitute motion that the State Board of Education 
submit the Equal Educational Opportunity and Quality Integration Plan to 
Judge Roth in answer to his Court Order. There was no second.

A roll-call vote was taken on the motion.

Novak: Aye
Brennan: Aye
Riethmiller: Aye
Miller: *Nay
Kelly: **Nay 
O'Neil: ***Nay
Morton: Aye
Deeb: Aye

The motion carried.

*Mrs. Miller explained her "nay" vote. "I believe all six plans should be 
submitted. However, I would feel in all fairness that we should have some 
evaluation on them and so that is why I voted 'no.'"

**Mr. O'Neil wished his earlier remarks to be included in the minutes as 
the reason for his "nay" vote. (Exhibit A)

***Miss Kelly wished her earlier remarks to he included in the minutes as 
the reason for her "nay" vote. (Exhibit B)

* * *



Exhibit A

Explanation of "May" vote by Mr. James F. O'Neil on the motion. 

Mr. O'Neil's remarks.

Considering the crucial question before us this evening, it not only involves 
the State Board of Education, but the State of Michigan, but our entire nation.
I would first ask the good God above to give us the wisdom to know what is 
right and the courage to do it here this evening. I also want to say that even 
though I may have differing views with some members of this Board and maybe 
diametrically opposite views with a few, I respect each and every one of my 
fellow members and their dedication to public service and their right to their 
respective philosophies.

We members of the State Board .of Education are confronted with one of the most 
crucial domestic issues ever placed before our schools and society. And I would 
remind the public, as Dr. Novak has indicated, that in its present form this 
issue has been thrust on this Board by the courts. I would also remind the 
public that the majority of this Board has voted to appeal Judge Roth's ruling 
that the State Board of Education is guilty of de jure segregation.

I know personally, beyond a doubt, that this Board is not guilty of deliberate 
segregation, but instead has worked in a concerted manner to provide equal 
opportunity for quality education. However, I believe Judge Roth has misconstrued 
the law in finding us guilty of de jure segregation and in then ordering us to 
develop desegregation plans which could involve court ordered discrimination 
and the forced busing of children across school district lines and the forced 
reorganization of local school districts.

I believe it is a miscarriage of justice for Judg Roth to order us to develop 
any desegregation plans until our appeal of his finding of de jure segregation 
has been resolved. I believe it is a grave miscarriage of justice, it is uncon­
stitutional, and it is a threat to the very fabric of our democracy for a court 
to order the discriminate assignment of children to schools on the basis of 
either race, color, creed, or ethnic origin. I believe such court order dis­
crimination is a hangman's noose that threatens to strangle the very life out 
of our living U. S. Constitution.

The U. S. Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever conceived by man 
to safeguard individual freedoms and the courts are betraying that document.
And these are the very courts that were established to safeguard individual free­
doms. They are now ordering that those individual freedoms be taken away from 
the people. In doing this, the courts are in violation of the Constitutional 
Amendments established to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of 
people, namely Article IX which says, and I quote, "The enumeration in the 
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage 
others retained by the people." Article X: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are 
reserved to the states respectively or to the people." Article XIV: "No
state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 
immunities of the citizens of the United States," and Article VIII of our own 
State Constitution says, "No person shall be denied the equal protection of 
the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political 
rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, 
race, color or national origin."



-2 -

I also believe recent court actions are in violation of our 'Declaration of 
Independence which states:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, 
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That 
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their 
just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of 
Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People 
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its 
Foundation on such principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, 
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 
Prudence, indeed will dictate that Governments long established should 
not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all 
Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while 
Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms 
to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and 
Usurptions, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to • 
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, 
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their Future 
Security."

I would submit to this Board and the public that such court ordered abuses of 
the individual freedoms and rights should not, cannot, and must not continue.
And the only fundamental way to prevent this threat to our Constitutional Rights 
of individual freedom is a Constitutional Amendment to prevent court-ordered 
discrimination by the assignment of children to schools on the basis of race, 
color, creed, or national origin.

However, at this moment, before this Board, we are confronted with a lower 
court order to submit a metropolitan plan of desegregation.

Judge Roth ordered us to develop such a plan on the basis that there was 
discrimination in the assignment of pupils in the Detroit schools and inequity 
in the distribution of educational resources. In regard to Judge Roth's first 
charge, let me say, if such discrimination ever occurred recently, they were 
isolated cases and immediately corrected when brought to the attention of the 
Detroit Superintendent or Board. I say this because Judge Roth's recent 
charges occurred at a time that Norm Drachler was Superintendent, and Detroit 
was considered as having a very liberal oriented school board —  both of whom 
were deeply dedicated to integrated education. In regard to the second charge 
relative to the inequity in the distribution of educational resources, there is 
inequity within Detroit and between Detroit and the rest of the state, but this 
inequity is directed toward the rest of the state -- not Detroit.

Detroit is presently levying 207, less local school millage than the average 
of the state but is spending 97, more per pupil than the rest of the state. They 
can primarily do this because of the added state and federally funded programs.
In addition, because of the added state and federally funded programs, Detroit 
is probably spending 507, more per pupil in some of the schools (with children 
from the low socio-economic areas) than the rest of their district.



One of the major tragedies of forced busing is that these children would be 
taken away from these added programs and resources that are designed to assist 
them overcome their disadvantages.

I submit to you, the question is not "How many blacks and whites are in the same 
school?"

Court ordered discrimination in the assignment of students to schools on the 
basis of race, color, or creed is just as unconstitutional as any other dis­
crimination. In fact, it is more dangerous and damaging because it jeopardizes 
the essence of our democracy which is freedom of choice. Court ordered dis­
crimination could lead to increased tensions, violence, and major social upheaval 
which could disrupt schools and society.

The Supreme Court has only ruled that busing could be used as a tool to "eliminate 
de jure segregation" and providing it does not significantly impinge on the 
educational processes. .

Forced busing would not only significantly impinge on the educational processes, 
it could very well disrupt and destroy our school system.

A black writer for one of the Detroit papers recently pointed out there are those 
who say balancing the schools would provide for better understanding, and she 
said, and I quote, "Didn't the Jews and Germans go to school together?" She then 
went on to say, and I quote, "If this country wants citizens who understand 
and respect each other, they better teach them the fullest meaning of citizenship," 
and I would add they had better teach them citizenship and respect for one another 
immediately.

Unfortunately, the courts are still making decisions based on the 1965 Coleman 
Report, which has since been refuted by HEW. Coleman himself agrees with the 
recent re-evaluation which points out that the single most important element in 
terms of pupil achievement, is not the socio-economic factors nor facilities 
and materials. In fact, the socio-economic background only contributes 12% of 
the educational factors related to achievement, and, further HEW evaluation, 
the school setting only 6%; that the single most important element is the impact 
of the teachers, and that this is of greatest importance for children from low- 
income or disadvantaged backgrounds.

In other words, teachers are more important than the quality of facilities, the 
quantities of materials and equipment, or other school factors.

Interestingly, this is the same conclusion the recent New Detroit Incorporated 
Survey of Black Detroiters indicated. The black Detroiters are most interested 
in the quality of teachers rather than racial mixes. The black Detroiters are 
more interested in their children attending neighborhood schools than racial 
issues and that one by a 2-1 margin.

I would submit to the Board, the answer is "Equal opportunity for quality education. 
And how? Two ways. By (a) implementing the newly adopted Common Goals of 
Michigan Education and (b) providing a K-16 system of free public education.



-4 -

Thc new Common Goals address themselves to four major areas.- The first is 
Citizenship and Morality and calls for the development of youth as citizens 
who have self-respect, respect for others and the law, and this is the most 
pressing need in our schools and society. The second Goal area is Democracy 
and Equal Opportunity, and it advances the principles of democi'acy' by recognizing 
the worth of every individual and by respecting each person's right to equal 
educational opportunity. This includes: adequate financial support for edu­
cation and equity in the allocation of funds, and greater community and parental 
participation in the educational system. The third Goal area is Student 
Learning, and it says this must help each individual acquire a positive atti­
tude toward school and the learning processes in order that he may achieve 
optimum personal growth and render service to society. This includes: improved 
teaching of the 3 R's; career preparation to insure each high school graduate 
of a job entrance skill; development of creative, constructive and critical 
thinking; and greater emphasis on environmental, economic and continuing education.

The last area which is now in the appendix is called Educational Improvement, 
and it provides information and actions which will lead to the attainment of 
the Common Goals, and this includes: quality teaching, accountability, assess­
ment and evaluation, and research and development.

In all these areas action is going forward. Public meetings will start the 
first part of March regarding Citizenship and Morality. In Democracy and Equal 
Opportunity, the Governor, the State Board of Education, and the educational 
community is developing and prepared to implement an "Equal Quality Plan" to 
insure adequacy and equity in financing education. In Student Learning, the 
State Board of Education has encouraged all local districts to adopt and implement 
similar goals and has developed a Career Education Program that will assure 
each high school graduate of a job entrance skill.

In the area of Educational Improvement, the State Board of Education has recom­
mended to the Legislature an Inservice Training Program for Teachers to provide 
for more effective teaching, which is one of the most crucial elements in 
education. It has established Educational Commissions to determine the educa­
tional criteria for each grade level. It has implemented an assessment program 
for the 4th and 7th grades and requested funds to expand this program; and it 
has encouraged the development of alternatives to existing practices in order 
to better achieve these goals.

I submit this to you as what the State Board has done and is doing on a concerted 
basis to provide equal opportunity for quality education.

In regard to the K-16 System of Free Public Education, through the almost complete 
statewide system of community colleges, we can move immediately to a K-14 
system of free public education. In addition, by 1976, the 200th anniversary 
of our democracy, we should celebrate that anniversary by insuring everyone in 
this country of an equal opportunity for quality education. This is the essence 
of our democracy. And by opening the doors wide to equal educational oppor­
tunity, we open the doors wide to equal opportunity for jobs, housing, and all 
other opportunity in this great land of ours.



-5 -

The question would come up, "Wouldn't this be expensive?" and I submit to you, 
"Yes." However, it is very inexpensive when compared to the costs of present 
day crises of of Social Welfare, now costing $160 billion annually. This is 
up from $60 billion ten years ago; of War and Defense which is now over $80 
billion and going higher; Crime and Delinquency which costs this country $51 
billion annually; and Mental Illness, which costs $20 billion. And those costs 
in no way show the tragedy behind the figures.

The only plan, in my opinion, the State Board of Education has considered that 
would meet the fundamental needs of our schools and society is the Equal 
Opportunity for Quality Education Plan.

This fundamental concept, when coupled with the implementation of the newly 
adopted Common Goals of Michigan Education, and a K-16 system of Free Public 
Education, could provide real equal educational opportunity for quality education 
for every youth and adult. •

The Magnet School Plan could be utilized in Detroit, in addition to the Equal 
Opportunity for Quality Education Plan, to foster integration. It could also 
be considered as a metropolitan plan, but only on a voluntary basis. The .
Magnet School Plan, as you know, provides for voluntary integration on the 
basis of common interests —  which is the only acceptable way in our democracy.

As I previously pointed out, any desegregation plan that infringes upon the 
rights of the people is worse than no plan at all since it endangers the funda­
mental essence of our democracy -- freedom of choice.

In view of recent and recurring court actions the only fundamental way to 
prevent this unconstitutional court-ordered discrimination now or later is to 
approve and ratify the Anti-Busing Constitutional Amendment.

The other plans before this Board are radical proposals that would disrupt 90 
school districts, destroy local control, impose another layer of bureaucracy, 
and make educational accountability impossible.

The other plans would disrupt education by causing the major emphasis to be 
placed on busing and reorganization rather than on educational matters.

The other plans would cause fear relative to the safety of children on the part 
of parents, both black and white. They would cause deep concern among parents 
that their children are being used as pawns for a social experiment rather than 
improving their educational opportunity.

The other plans would cause more money to be wasted on buses and related items 
rather than invested in improving education.

The other plans would significantly impinge on the educational processes avail­
able to both blacks and whites.

The other plans would take blacks away from compensatory programs designed to 
assist them overcome their socio-economic deprivations.

The other plans would place whites in educational settings that were not 
challenging, leading to increased dropouts, and all the other related adverse 
social problems.



The other plans would prevent many students from participating in extra­
curricular activities such as athletics, bands, and all the various clubs, 
all of which are very important to the overall education and development of 
youth.

The other plans would undermine community and parental involvement in school 
activities which is essential to the best interests of all the schools and 
communities.

The other plans would follow the prejudiced views of the lower courts to compel 
desegregation as the only means of racial redress.

The improvement of black schools is being neglected because this prevailing 
prejudice narrows the discussion of the various means by which educational 
equity may be obtained by black Americans to desegregating schools. Such 
hostility toward majority black schools reinforces the assumption that majority 
black schools are inferior and therefore bad schools. This is a disservice to 
black Americans, and it prevents the development of effective educational 
programs for all races.

Unfortunately, the lower courts have become hung-up on racial manipulations to 
the point of obsession. They have seldom concerned themselves with the funda­
mental needs of equal opportunity for quality education. Nor have the courts 
concerned themselves with black pupil performance either before or after deseg­
regation. In this regard the courts have done a particular disservice to black 
children by assuming an automatic improvement in black pupil performance in 
desegregated schools.

In addition, judicial hostility to majority black schools infers and implies 
that majority black schools are inferior and therefore bad schools. In doing 
so the courts have conspired to compel desegregation as the only means of 
racial redress to the exclusion of all other means of redress. And if deseg­
regation is as restrictive of black choice as segregation has been, then 
desegregation is neither legal nor just for either blacks or whites.



Exhibit B# . •
Explanation of "Nay" vote by Miss Marilyn Jean Kelly on the motion. 

Miss Kelly's remarks.

■ The Judge ordered this Board to come up with a plan for metropolitan desegre­
gation. Those are the words that he used. He didn't choose the'words at 
random we must assume. He said what he meant. He said he wanted this Board to 
decide upon a recommendation to him of what this Board in its educational wisdom 
feels should be done to resolve the situation of segregation which he has found 
in the Detroit Public Schools. Now I submit that the motion submitted to this 
Board by the President does not respond to the Judge's Order. I, for one, would 
not consider submitting all of the plans without recommendation in that it 
would be non-responsive to the Judge. It would, in effect, refuse to recommend 
to the Judge what he had ordered us to recommend or, in effect, it would say that 
all six of these plans are acceptable and of equal quality insofar as we are 
concerned, and I don't believe the latter is true; and I wouldn't want to be 
on record as supporting four of them.

I, like the others here, have no objection to the Judge being voluntarily given 
each plan that has been considered by the Board. I think it is appropriate 
that he should consider everything we have considered, but as I have said before, 
I think it is unresponsive to the Court Order for the Board to submit without 
comment or recommendation six plans. I think it is quite possible that the 
Judge might return the package with the further stressed order that he meant 
what he said -- that he would like us to recommend a_ plan. It is interesting 
to note that this Board has met almost countless times in private working on 
these plans. I counted 12 times just this month, which is at least two out 
of every five days that I have worked. We have never taken a straw vote. We 
have never expressed ourselves personally or as a Board about these plans except 
to say, "Here, as I see it, are the relative advantages and disadvantages." I 
feel this is, for the Board not to express to the Judge a value judgment on 
these plans, the essence of lack of leadership, and I am ashamed to be associ­
ated with such a group to that extent.

I would like to point out that the Judge's Order to this Board is based on 
the concept -- and we all know it —  that was expressed back in the Brown 
Decision that separate is not equal in educational facilities. This ruling has 
been followed by the highest court in this country, in the sense that black 
schools should be eliminated as black schools and white schools should be 
eliminated as white schools. It isn't a question simply of mixing the races 
for the sake of desegregation. The purpose is to force equal educational 
opportunity where it hasn't existed before.

Now, with this legal understanding in mind, I think that the Detroit Metropolitan 
Racial Proportion Criteria Plan does not fit the Judge's Order or the Supreme 
Court's conception because it is not metropolitan. As stated, it simply involves 
the Detroit School District.

The Metropolitan One-way Movement Plan, the one-way busing plan, is a plan 
which has been used in other areas, and we have come to realize that it is 
recognized elsewhere as a form of social exploitation of the black race.



-2 -

Thc Metropolitan Magnet Plan is simply an enlargement of a proven failure 
in Detroit.

The Metropolitan Equal Educational Opportunity and Quality Integration Plan, 
as I see it, is no plan at all. In fact, it is an anti-plan.

I think number 5, the Neighborhood School Based Metropolitan Plan, is interesting 
and on its face very intriguing, but followed to the particular end it has been 
drawn, amounts to a little more than tokenism and I think it could, if implemented, 
bear out some of the worst fears of parents in the metropolitan area.

Finally, I think that number 3, the Metropolitan School District Reorganization 
Plan, although imperfect as yet and not fully developed, is the only one of the 
six plans which could conceivably be said to be responsive to the Judge's 
Order, and for that reason it is the only one that I would see submitted with 
recommendation -- favorable recommendation -- to him.