Brief of Defendant Detroit School Board in Support of Metropolitan Plan Based on Testimony Elicited at Hearing on Detroit-Only Plan

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)RONALD BRADLEY, et al, )
))
)
)
)
)
)) Civil Action
) No. 35257DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS LOCAL 231, )

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, )
)Intervening Defendant, )and )
)DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al, )
)Intervening Defendants. )

___________________ _________________________________ )

Plaintiffs,
v s .

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, 
Defendants,

and

BRIEF
OF DEFENDANT SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF 

THE CITY OF DETROIT AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN 
SUPPORT OF METROPOLITAN PLAN BASED ON TESTIMONY 

_____ELICITED AT HEARING ON DETROIT-ONLY PLAN

PREFACE

With a view to the due date of March 22, 1972, set for 
the Brief here submitted, counsel for the Detroit Board of Education 
began its preparation prior to the inception of hearing on March 
14, 1972. Counsel's initial hope, as was the Court's, was that 
this hearing might conclude some days prior to March 22, 1972, so 
that the testimony at that hearing might properly be referenced 
in that Brief. However, as circumstances have dictated that this 
was not to be the case, it became apparent that virtually no time 
was available for properly blending comment upon the testimony



with argument as to the law. Thus, faced with the choice of 
either attempting at the last minute to meld the record of 
these days of hearing into an existing memorandum of law, or 
rather presenting two separate documents which run the risk of 
being somewhat repetitive, counsel has chosen the latter. Counsel 
regrets any redundancy that may result thereby, and hopes that 
any such difficulty might be superceded by whatever greater 
clarity results from refraining from the hasty commingling of 
the two distinct presentations set forth below.

ARGUMENT

THE HEARINGS ON "DETROIT-ONLY" PLANS LEAD TO THE 
INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE DETROIT PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS CANNOT BE DESEGREGATED WITHIN THE CITY 
OF DETROIT.
The Court has been presented three "city-only" desegre­

gation plans, Plans A and C of the Detroit Board and Plaintiffs' 
Plan. While maintaining that Plans A and C do provide some dese­
gregation, the Detroit Board has candidly admitted that, as any 
"city-only" plan must, they fall short of complete desegregation.

Plaintiffs have not been quite so candid. While they 
maintain that a Metropolitan Plan is "preferable", they suggest 
that their plan is appropriate for interim or short term imple­
mentation— in spite of testimony from Plaintiffs' witness, Dr. 
Foster, that when a school is in a changing situation racially, 
and has the racial mix he envisions "the benefits of desegregation 
are often postponed." (R. 371) Counsel for the Detroit Board 
is unaware of any doctrine of "preferability" in the law of 
school desegregation and would suggest to the Court that Plaintiffs 
are saying to the Court, albeit indirectly, that their plan fails

- 2-



to meet the Davis standard of maximum possible desegregation.
The Detroit Board would submit that not only does it not meet 
that standard, but, in fact, it would provide if implemented, 
not desegregation, but further segregation now and certain rese­
gregation in September of 1972. In addition, the uncontroverted 
testimony of both Plaintiffs and defense witnesses established 
the impossibility of its implementation for September of 1972, 
the only purpose for which Plaintiffs advanced it.

A. Under Plaintiffs' Plan, Every School In Detroit 
Would Take On A Racial Identification As A 
"Black" School.

Detroit is fortunate that an appreciable number of 
schools are currently not "racially identifiable" in that they 
have stabilized their racial proportion at between thirty and 
fifty-five per cent black. In the upper range of this band are 
the Magnet Middle Schools, which, because of their controlled 
situation, and the lack of anticipation of racial change, are 
capable of obtaining a "50-50" racial mix without "tipping" and 
becoming black schools. The Plaintiffs' plan would wipe out 
these thirty or forty instances of desegregation which Detroit 
does now have, and place all the youngsters in those settings 
in identifiable black schools. Dr. Guthrie made it abundantly 
evident that a 65% black school, or for that matter, a 75% 
black school is racially identifiable and that racial identification 
begins to take place in a range or plane of 35% to 55% black.
Dr. Guthrie gave concrete examples of how this identification 
was caused: the black child, via his examination of newspapers,

- 3-



magazines and television knows that he is a minority and that 
there is a white majority. This produces a realization that 
society, by putting him in a predominately black school, is 
isolating him. This particularly follows when substantially all 
the districts surrounding Detroit are predominately white.

Plaintiffs' witness, Dr. Foster, appeared to agree.
He did agree that black children under his plan would have a 
feeling of racial isolation "in relation to the metropolitan 
area." Yet when asked why discussion should be limited to the 
City of Detroit, his only answer was, "That is what we are about.
I don't believe we are discussing metro."

The witnesses then agree, albeit one rather reluctantly, 
that the Plaintiffs' plan leaves racial isolation very much in 
evidence within the Detroit schools; in fact, spreading the pheno­
menon from most of the schools to all of them. Even if Plaintiffs' 
plan could be implemented, even if it did not run the risk of 
serious educational detriment, even if the inevitable resegre­
gation inherent in Plaintiffs' plan did not occur; the ineluc­
table fact is that Detroit would have more segregated, racially 
identifiable schools under this plan that it does now.

B. The Plaintiffs' Plan Promotes Immediate 
Resegregation So As To Render The Numbers 
It Proposes Meaningless And Even Its Limited 
Goal Of Racial Proportion Within Detroit 
Unreachable.

Once again, with one of them evidencing reluctance, 
the experts agree that the Plaintiffs' plan will cause the further

- 4-



withdrawal of whites from the public school system. Dr. Foster 
conceded that there would be some flight, and further conceded 
that his plan contained no measures to promote stability not con­
tained in the plan he drew for Richmond, Virginia. While he 
speculated that there might be differences in the two communities 
,which might cause different reactions to a plan, he could name 
none. In Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, Judge 
Mehrige found as a fact that thirty-nine per cent of the white 
school population withdrew from the public schools in a matter 
of two years after implementation of the Foster Plan. (slip opinion 
p.66) There is simply no justification for imposing the burden 
of this monstruous additional segregation upon a desegregation 
process which certainly does not require additional challenge.

Dr. Guthrie forthrightly predicted that there would be 
substantial flight from the city and further noted that most of 
that flight would occur among parents of children with high "SES," 
causing even further damage discussed below.

It should be remembered that the Court has already found 
that forces not related to any plan of desegregation will continue 
to cause an increase in the proportion of blacks in the system.
Thus, Dr. Foster's "base" figure of 65% is suspect. Taking 
these "normal" factors,together with racial changes caused by 
the implementation of the plan, a base figure contemplating an 
80% black school system is far more reasonable than the 65% 
assumption upon which Dr. Foster has proceeded. Even Dr. Foster 
has conceded that schools which are 80% black are not desegregated.

C. The Plaintiffs' Plan Creates Great Risk Of
Educational Detriment While Offering No Promise 
Of Educational Benefit.

- 5-



The sole evidentiary statement as to educational bene­
fit offered by Plaintiffs on direct examination is printed in 
full below:

"Well, I think educationally the adoption 
of the proposed plan would be advantageous 
if for no other reason that the fact it 
would simply happen and a bird in the hand 
is always worth more than a bird in the 
bush." (R.350-351)

On cross examination, Dr. Foster bottomed a projected educational 
benefit on the elmination of racial isolation, but then himself 
admitted that such isolation would continue "in the metropolitan 
context."

On the other hand, Dr. Guthrie made it crystal clear that 
a sufficient number of children of high socio-economic status is 
essential for an effective educational program. He pointed out 
that in the flight that Plaintiffs' plan would cause, it would 
be predominantly the middle class who would leave Detroit. These 
people, whose children have average or above-average "SES," will 
leave because they have the means to do so, either via private 
schools or by outright moving. The problem, Dr. Guthrie points 
out, is that then the school system would be faced with a higher 
proportion of black children and poor white children. Dr. Guthrie 
pointed out that mixing poor black children with the remaining 
white children would produce absolutely no demonstratable educational 
benefit whatsoever. Furthermore, he noted that these remaining 
groups have a higher propensity for racial conflict. Case studies 
show the result of mixing poor whites and poor blacks is more 
racial tension then if the mixture contained numbers of middle 
SES and high SES students.

Dr. Guthrie further pointed out that the mixture of low



SES students of both races will produce the risk of continued 
mediocre achievement. Dr. Guthrie made it very clear that it 
is essential that there be a mixture including students of high 
and average SES to insure improved achievement from both poor 
black and poor white students. With white flight, particularly 
of the middle class, Dr. Guthrie unequivocally stated that the 
Board could not expect higher achievement under Plaintiffs' plan 
and would run the risk of such a plan of having a negative effect 
on such achievement. The record Evidence is clear then, that 
the Plaintiffs' plan does not offer any hope to the children it 
purports to benefit. To borrow a phrase from a witness in the 
Trial proper, it is a "policy of despair."

D. Clear, Uncontroverted Record Evidence Shows 
The Plaintiffs" Plan Could Not Be Implemented 
In September Of 1972.

Both the Board's transportation expert, Eugene Kuthy, 
and the Defendants' transportation expert, Conwell Smith, agree 
on this record that it would be physically impossible for the 
Detroit Board to order sufficient buses to implement Plaintiffs' 
plan by September, 1972. Smith suggested initially that 350 
buses would be needed, although he finally agreed that at least 
600 buses would be needed. Obviously,the estimate of Kuthy, who 
is very familiar with Detroit and its environs, of 750 buses 
was more exact. It only emphasized the impracticability of 
implementing Plaintiffs' educationally bankrupt plan by September, 
1972.

In addition, Kuthy testified that eight months would

- 7-



be necessary to properly set up the routing structure and do 
other things necessary for starting up what amounts to a major 
metropolitan transportation system. Mr. Smith's refutation, based 
on his experience setting up a bus system for a campus "twenty 
blocks around" which he had never done before, is self-contro­
verting and requires no further comment. Dr. Guthrie, who is 
a specialist in administration, points out that the change in 
Plaintiffs' plan causes serious administration problems and 
disruptions, including disruptions of educational programs. He 
particularly reasons on the record that there is no reason to 
adopt Plaintiffs' plan as an interim plan to a Metropolitan Plan.

Kuthy, without taking a position on the Metropolitan Plan, 
clearly and without dispute, pointed out that the combining of 
the school bus systems of the suburbs would result in savings to 
Detroit and suburban systems and could be the basis for implementing 
a metropolitan school bus system that could effectuate a Metropolitan 
Plan in an exonomical fashion. -

E. Should The Court Conclude That Some "City Only"
Remedy Need Be Ordered, The Detroit Board Has 
Proposed Plans That Unlike The Plaintiffs' Plan,
Do Offer Some Desegregation.

The Board does not urge upon the Court the adoption of 
Plan A or Plan C. It does point out,though, that under either 
plan, there would be a real decrease in the amount of racial 
isolation present in the Detroit schools. Under Plan A, a 
substantial number of youngsters would be removed from racial 
isolation. Under Plan C a greater number of youngsters would 
be exposed to a desegregated experience for a significant portion

- 8-



of their school experience.
Dr. Stuart Rankin and Dr. Betty Ritzenheim pointed out 

that the School Board's Plan A does offer some desegregation. Dr. 
Rankin pointed out that Plan C does the same. However, both made 
it quite clear, as the Board previously reported to the Court 
neither Plan A or Plan C - nor both - can do the complete job 
because the Detroit School System with 65% black presently is 
already a racially identifiable school system. There are not 
enough white students to go around.

The Detroit Board in adopting Plans A and C was concerned 
with two essential ingredients, desegregation and educational 
value. Equally important, the Board was concerned with lasting 
desegregation or integration. We are sure that the Court cannot 
overlook the undisputed testimony of Dr. Ritzenheim that Plan A 
does work and does accomplish some desegregation and is a most 
stimulating educational experience for the children involved.
It is an excellent example of lasting desegregation. As Dr. 
Ritzenheim pointed out, it could serve as an excellent example 
to suburban parents that the Detroit system can produce an excel­
lent desegregated or integrated educational experience. In fact, 
Dr. Ritzenheim pointed out that through an exchange program with 
the Bloomfield Hills Township middle school,enthusiasm by subur­
ban students for the Detroit magnet middle school program has 
been engendered. This educator, Dr. Ritzenheim, specifically 
at the first line of education (the classroom) has shown by her 
exchange program that a Metropolitan Plan can work. Dr.
Ritzenheim made it quite clear to the Court that although she 
was enthusiastic about Plan A and has made it work, only a 
Metropolitan Plan could desegregate Detroit on a meaningful

- 9-



permanent basis.

CONCLUSION

The community in which we live, and the community in 
which this Court is mandated by its decision to provide school 
desegregation is the Detroit Metropolitan Community, a community 
as Dr. Marz has stated which is inextricably welded together 
with steel pipe. It is the desegregation of that community to 
which we must address ourselves, under the prior decision of the 
Court. Plaintiffs' plan does not so address itself; it only 
creates more segregated schools, thereby spreading the pathos 
of the ghetto. It offers not an interim step forward, but a 
needless and harmful step backward. The Board's plans cannot 
so address itself, as the Board has recognized the impossibility 
of having effective desegregation given the racial and socio­
economic status of the city.

It is no remedy to turn to the real plaintiffs here, the 
school children of this city, and tell them that while we regret 
we cannot release them from the ghetto, at least we have provided 
them with a slightly larger ghetto than before. Equity requires 
a metropolitan solution.

Respectfully submitted,

RILEY AND ROUMELL

720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: 962-8255

Dated: March 21, 1972.