Jenkins v. Missouri Brief of Appellees Park Hill Reorganized School District

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 85-1765WM 
No. 85-1949WM 
No. 85-1974WM 
No. 85-2077WM

KALIMA JENKINS, et al., 

Appellants, 

vs.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., 

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
For the Western District of Missouri, Western Division 

The Honorable Russell G. Clark, Chief Judge

BRIEF OF APPELLEES PARK HILL REORGANIZED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. V OF PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI, 

AND MERLIN A. LUDWIG, ITS SUPERINTENDENT

Def endants-Appe11ees

LAWRENCE M. MAHER 
JAMES H. McLAENEY 
SWANSON, MIDGLEY, GANGWERE,

CLARKE & KITCHIN 
1500 Conmerce Trust Building 
922 Walnut Street 
Kansas City, Missouri 64106 
(816) 342-9692

ATTORNEYS FOR PARK HILL REORGANIZED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. V OF PLATTE COUNTY, 
MISSOURI, AND MERLIN A. LUDWIG, ITS 
SUPERINTENDENT



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 85-1765WM 
No. 85-1949WM 
No. 85-1974WM 
No. 85-2077WM

KALIMA JENKINS, et al., 

Appellants,

vs.

STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., 

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
For the Western District of Missouri, Western Division 

The Honorable Russell G. Clark, Chief Judqe

BRIEF OF APPELLEES PARK HILL REORGANIZED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. V OF PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI, 

AND MERLIN A. LUDWIG, ITS SUPERINTENDENT

Defendants-Appellees

LAWRENCE M. MAiER 
JAMES H. McLARNEY 
SWANSON, MIDGLEY, GANGWERE,
CLARKE & KITCHIN 

1500 Ccnmerce Trust Building 
922 Walnut Street 
Kansas City, Missouri 64106 
(816) 842-9692

ATTORNEYS FOR PARK HILL REORGANIZED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. V OF PLATTE COUNTY, 
MISSOURI, AND MERLIN A. LUDWIG, ITS 
SUPERINTENDENT



SUMMARY AND REQUEST FDR ORAL ARGUMENT

The instant litigation was initiated by the Kansas City Missouri School 

District (KCMSD) in 1977. The States of Missouri and Kansas, their State 

Boards of Education, 19 school districts on both sides of the state line and 

three federal agencies were named as defendants. The District Court dismissed 

the Kansas defendants for lack of jurisdiction and realigned KCMSD as a defen­

dant. Millions of documents were produced and examined and over 130 deposi­

tions were taken. Trial commenced on October 31, 1983 and plaintiffs rested 

their case on March 6, 1984. The trial consumed 64 full trial days, the 

transcript extends over 16,000 pages, 2,100 exhibits were offered and 140 wit­

nesses were called. Additionally, over 10,000 pages of deposition testimony 

were designated and considered. The District Court listened to the entire 

proceedings, had the opportunity to consider the credibility and qualifica­

tions of all the witnesses and the probativeness of the exhibits, designated 

depositions and interrogatory answers introduced by plaintiffs. In reaching 

its decision, the District Court considered the exhibits which had not been 

admitted but merely received for the record. The District Court made exten­

sive findings of fact which are fully supported by record citations. Those 

findings of fact are unchallenged. Appellants (plaintiffs and KCMSD) do not 

maintain that they are erroneous nor have taken their appeal on that basis.

The District Court properly found that the Park Hill Reorganized School 

District No. V of Platte Countv, Missouri, ("Park Hill") is operating a uni­

tary, fully integrated district. The District Court properly found that 

plaintiffs had not met their burden of Droving a cognizable constitutional 

violation by this District with significant interdistrict segregative effects

(i)



entitling them to the mandatory interdistrict relief. The evidence concerning 

Park Hill will not support plaintiffs' legally erroneous theory that the 

actions of other constitutional violators had any effect in or upon Park Hill 

thereby entitling them to the relief requested. Plaintiffs pre-1954 theory is 

not supported by evidence concerning the Park Hill area and there is no evi­

dence to show that any of the alleged post-1954 actions had any effect what­

soever on the Park Hill School District or its racial composition.

Under the circumstances presented, the District Court did not err in 

failing to order a massive program of interdistrict student transfers or the 

consolidation of school districts, inevitably followed by massive busing to 

achieve the plaintiffs' avowed goal of racially balanced, as opposed to 

integrated, schools. The District Court's order dismissing the Park Hill 

School District under Federal Rule 41(b) and its remedial orders rejecting 

mandatory interdistrict remedies squarely ccmport with the decisions of the 

United States Supreme Court and should be affirmed.

Because of the importance of these issues, Appellee Park Hill Reorganized 

School District No. V of Platte County, Missouri, requests 10 minutes for oral

argument.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Summary and Request for Oral Argument................................ (i)

Table of Contents................................    (iii)

Table of Authorities................................................. (v)

Statement of the Issues.............................................. (vi)

Statement of the Case................................................ 1

A. This District Is A Unitary, Fully Desegregated School District... 2

B. Appellants' Theory That There Was A "Pre-1954 Interdistrict 
System" Which Caused "Depopulation/Impaction" Is Not Supported
By The Credible Evidence With Respect To This District..........  3

C. There is No Evidence That This District Has Been Involved In 
Any "Housing Violation" And No Evidence That Any Alleged
Violation Has Had Any Effect In This District...................  5

1. Restrictive Covenants......................................  5

2. FHA Mortgage Guarantees....................................  5

3. Urban Renewal/Highway Construction........   6

D. Even if There Were Violations By The State Or KCMSD, There Is 
No Evidence Of Any Significant Effect In This District, (The
White Flight Theory)............................................. 6

E. Plaintiffs Have Adduced No Evidence That Any Of The So-Called 
"Post-1954 Actions And Inactions" Had Any Effect In Or On
This District....................................................  6

1. House Bill 171...........................................   6

2. "Spainhower Plan"........................................... 7

3. Participation in the Platte Countv Area Vocational-Technical
School...................................................... 7

ARGUMENT

I. The District Court Did Not Err In Denying Mandatory Inter­
district Relief Involving This District Because The Evidence 
Does Not Establish Any Intentionally Discriminatory Acts Or 
Omissions By It Which Have Had Significant Segregative Effect 
In It Or Any Other District.....................................  7

(iii)



II. Even If No Intentional Discriminatory Conduct Is Necessary And 
A School District May Be Ordered Into A Mandatory Interdistrict 
Remedy If It Is "Affected By" A Violation, The Court Did Not 
Err In Refusing To Grant Such Relief Because The Evidence Does 
Not Demonstrate That This District, Or Its Racial Composition,
Was "Affected By" Any Violation Or That Any Violation Had Any
Effect In Or On This District.................................... 8

(iv)



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Milliken v. Bradley (I), 418 U.S. 717 (1974)

Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 753 (1955)

Anderson v. City of Bessemer, North Carolina, U.S. , 105 S.Ct. 1504,
(1985)

Tasby v. Estes, 572 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1978), cert, granted 440 U.S. 906 
(1979), cert, dismissed 444 U.S. 437 (1980)

Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 308 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1962)

Shull v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., 561 F.2d 152 (8th Cir. 1977) cert, denied 
434 U.S. 1086 (1978)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

(v)



STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Absent intentional racially discriminatory acts or emissions by this 

District having significant effects in this or another district and absent 

evidence that alleged constitutional violations by other entities had a signi­

ficant segregative effect in this District, did the District Court err in 

failing to order: (a) mandatory interdistrict transfers of students between

Park Hill School District and the Kansas City Missouri School District 

("KCMSD"); or (b) the dissolution of Park Hill School District and con­

solidation of some but not all of the school districts in the metropolitan 

area?

Milliken v. Bradley (I), 418 U.S. 717 (1974)

Anderson v. City of Bessemer, North Carolina, U.S. , 105 S.Ct.
1504, (1985)

Tasby v. Estes, 572 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. granted 440 U.S. 906
(1979), cert, dismissed 444 U.S. 437 (1980)

Park Hill incorporates by reference the Statement of the Issues stated in 

the principal brief of the Appellee School Districts.

(vi)



STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The District Court made extensive findings of fact fully supported by 

record citations. Appellants ignore those findings, embark upon a statement 

of facts which is improperly argumentative, incomplete and rife with hyperbole, 

if not wholly misleading and inaccurate.1 The District Court's findings of 

fact concerning Park Hill, 6/5/84 Opn at 83, are unchallenged. These findings 

are the only proper statement of facts for the determination of this appeal.

Appellants disingeniously lump together the suburban districts throughout 

their briefs, yet the evidence clearly shows that Park Hill's history and 

development is not analogous to other parts of the metro area. The only defen­

dant located in Platte County, Park Hill is geographically^, economically3 and

^Because of space limitations, it is impossible to address the numerous 
misleading statements and purported record citations concerning this District, 
which are found in plaintiffs' Brief. It is, however, grossly unfair to per­
mit parties to pass such an effort off as a "Statement of Facts". With this 
Court's indulgence, this District has addressed a few of the more egregious 
examples of this tactic in its Addendum. (PH ADD 4)

^Geographically, Park Hill is located north of the Missouri River, with 
Kansas on its southern boundary, and is not contiguous to KCMSD or Jackson 
County (X 7, 8 and 9). It is located wholly within Platte County. The evi­
dence adduced by plaintiffs was that Platte County, including the area that 
became the Park Hill District, was traditionally rural and agricultural.
6/5/84 Opn at 83. Plaintiffs' witness, Dr. Tobin, confirmed that such was the 
case as late as 1957 (X 22, T 13022). Much, if not most, of this district's 
area is rural and undeveloped, even today.

^Demographic statistics reveal that growth in Platte County is a very 
recent development and that the urban and suburban growth taking place in 
other areas, particularly south of the Missouri River and in Kansas, largely 
passed by Platte County and the Park Hill School District until the 1970s.
X 16A demonstrates that, while the population of Jackson County rose at a very 
rapid rate between 1900 and 1940 (195,193 to 427,828), the population of 
Platte County actually declined by 2331. Platte County's percentage of the 
three-county population fell from 7 percent in 1900 to 2.5 percent in 1950, a 
reflection of its agricultural base and corresponding out-migration. While 
the population has increased since then, almost half of that growth, over 
14,000 persons, occurred between 1970 and 1980. During that time, Clay Countv 
grew by some 106,000 persons and Jackson County by seme 345,000 persons.

-1-



historially distinct.4

A. THIS DISTRICT IS A UNITARY, FULLY DESEGREGATED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Appellants introduced no evidence that the boundaries of this District 

were originally established or subsequently changed or adjusted for segrega­

tive purposes. The only evidence is that consolidation and reorganization 

took place prior to 1954, that no changes occurred after 1954 and that the 

boundaries were not established with or maintained for any discriminatory 

purpose.  ̂ The District Court so found. 6/5/84 Opn at 84.

There is no evidence that the Park Hill School District is not fully 

desegregated and a unitary school system. See 6/5/84 Opn at 87. The only 

evidence is that Park Hill moved with deliberate speed to fully desegregate 

itself within five years after the Brcwn decision. The high schol was fully 

integrated in 1956; the junior high in 1957; and the elementary schools in 

1959. (T 2740, 2831, 2848, 5857 and Jones D 35) Full integration was 

completed in a span of only three years. The only evidence concerning the 

manner and effect of the District's desegregation effort was the testimony of 

Mr. Frank Douglass, a black resident and former teacher at the black school, 

that Park Hill "did a good job of integrating the schools". (T 1506, PH ADD 2) 

Moreover, there is no evidence that the gradual desegregation of its schools 

had a continuing significant segregative effect. Indeed, Professor Orfield 

testified it had little effect, if any. (T 14926, PH ADD 4)

4platte County was a traditional rural area with traditional rural one and 
two room elementary schools every few square miles, except in the few towns 
such as Parkville, Platte City and Weston. There was no high school in the 
Park Hill area until 1925, when the old Parkville District started one.
(Aikmus DX 3 and 4) The rural schools were not closed until after reorganiza­
tion and consolidation occurred in 1949 through 1951, when Park Hill was 
organized. (Jones D 108) See generally 6/5/84 Opn at 84.

Sjones D 56-57, Harmon D at 32-34 and Shipley D at 27, 68-70.

-2-



No parent testified to an awareness of any post—Brown discrimination 

against minority students by the Park Hill District and Mr. Douglass testified 

that, if any had occurred, he would have been aware of it. (T 1507, PH ADD 2)6

B. APPELLANTS' THEORY THAT THERE WAS A "PRE-1954 INTERDISTRICT SYSTEM" 
WHICH CAUSED "DEPOPULATION/IMPACTION" IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE 
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THIS DISTRICT. ____________

Even if appellants' "depopulation" theory were a viable liability theory, 

the evidence presented by plaintiffs would not support the applicability of 

that theory to this District and, if this District were viewed as a microcosm, 

demonstrates the factually flimsy premises underlying the theory. In 1900, 

there were fewer than 240 blacks in that part of Platte County which became 

the Park Hill District.* 7 * Both the white (-425) and black (-66) population 

decreased from 1900 to 1910 (X 51A), which the District Court reasonably con­

cluded was related to the nonavailability of agricultural employment. (6/5/84 

Opn at 84-85) Subsequent to that agricultural out-migration, the black popu­

lation of what became Park Hill has been relatively stable.8 There is no cre­

dible evidentiary support for plaintiffs' theory that schools caused the 

out-migrations and the District Court could properly conclude, as it did, that 

economics and employment were the causes, if any, of demographic changes in 

Platte County. 6/5/84 Opn at 85.9

^Several witnesses who had children that attended integrated Park Hill 
schools testified. (Mr. Gaylon Hoskins, Mr. and Mrs. Douglass) None offered 
any evidence of such discrimination. Mr. Douglass specifically testified that 
he never felt his children were discriminated against. (T 1507, PH ADD 2)

7X 43B indicates that the majority of blacks living in Platte County in 
1900 resided outside what is now Park Hill (essentially Pettis and Waldron 
Townships) and most resided in or near Platte City (Carroll and Fair Townships) 
and Weston (Weston Township), in what was then, and still is, a rural area.

^Between 1910 and 1960 the black population of Pettis and Waldron town­
ships decreased by less than 50 people. (X 51A) Pettis Township's (Park- 
ville's) black population decreased by only 18 persons between 1910 and 1960 
(T 11131).

9The old Parkville District educated its black youngsters in the same 
manner as did Weston and Platte City, areas which did have substantial out-

-3-



Likewise, the "impaction" theory is not supported by the evidence pertain­

ing to this District, and viewing Park Hill as a microcosm, demonstrates the 

failure of that theory. One aspect of the theory is that blacks left the Dis­

trict and moved to KCMSD because of schools. As the District Court recognized, 

there is substantial evidence to support that proposition. 6/5/84 Opn at 86 J O  

Even if every black who left the Park Hill area between 1900 and 1960 (The 

decrease in population was approximately 100 persons, X 51A) moved to KCMSD (and 

even if schools were a significant factor) the "impact" would be de minimus.

The other aspect of the impaction theory— schools discouraged blacks from 

locating in Platte County— is not supported by any direct evidence, is 

directly refuted by seme evidence^-" and, in any event, is somewhat suspect, 

because plaintiffs' evidence reveals that there was no increase in either the 

black or white population of Platte County between 1900 and 1950. In fact, 

overall population, both black and white, decreased. (X 16A) Nobody was in- 

migrating to Platte County, regardless of race, and notwithstanding the 

availability or non-availability of schools. * *

migration. There were nonagricultural jobs available in Parkville for blacks 
at Park College. (T 2719, 2720) There is no evidence that similar job oppor­
tunities were available in Weston or Platte City. Thus, the more reasonable 
inference (there being no direct evidence supporting plaintiffs’ theory with 
respect to Platte County whatsoever) is that, to the extent there was depopu­
lation, it was brought about by economic conditions, the absence of agri­
cultural employment and farm mechanization.

lOlndeed, the testimonial evidence refutes it. All but one of plaintiffs' 
black "Parkville" witnesses testified as to moving into or staving in Park- 
ville notwithstanding the segregated school system. Mr. Douglass testified as 
to a desire to live in a more rural atmosphere. (1498, PH ADD 1) Mr. Clayton 
testified as to moving to Parkville to take a job so that his children could 
go to a better school. (3168, PH ADD 3) Mr. Hoskins stayed in Parkville and 
raised his own family after being raised and educated there himself. (2717) 
Indeed, only witnesses Allen Frazier and Marva Williams testified as to moving 
from Parkville and both did so after 1954.

llThe Douglass family, Leonard Clayton and Lillie Jackson, plaintiffs' 
"Parkville" witnesses, all moved into Parkville, despite the school situation.

-4-



c. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS DISTRICT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY
"HOUSING VIOLATION" AND NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION HAS 
HAD ANY EFFECT IN THIS DISTRICT._________________________________ _

Plaintiffs do not cite nor is there any evidence that this District was 

involved in making or carrying out housing policy and no evidence that it had 

anything whatsoever to do with any discriminatory conduct by any other govern­

mental entity in the area of housing. As the District Court found. Park Hill- 

avoided involvement in housing matters. 6/5/84 Opn at 89. More importantly, 

there is no evidence that any alleged housing violation had any significant 

effect in or on this District.12 Plaintiffs could only place three families 

from KCMSD in the Park Hill area. 6/5/84 Opn at 90. Indeed, plaintiffs evi 

dence revealed exactly the opposite:

1 . Restrictive Covenants: Very few such covenants ever existed in the
Park Hill area.13 During the time frame in which those covenants were opera­
tive, the population of Platte County increased by only about 1000 people (X 
16A) so their effect, if any, was de minimus. There is, in fact, no evidence 
that they had any effect on population movement into the Park Hill area or on 
present-day racial composition of the area.

2. FHA Mortgage Guarantees: The total number of FHA loans in all of
Platte County through 1960 was less than 300. (X1512)14 Again, the effect of

12Plaintiffs seem to concede as much. Despite copious citations to the 
record in footnotes on the housing issues, no mention is made of this District 
or the area in which it is located.

13There were only 33 restrictive covenants ever extant in all of Platte^ 
County. None of them were in place prior to 1930. Most of them were put in 
place between 1940 and 1950. All, of course, were unenforceable after She_ly 
v. Kramer, so that most had an effective life of less than ten years. Only a 
minute portion of the land area in this defendant school district was ever 
covered by restictive covenants and the vast amount of the developed area m  
the 1930s and 1940s was not subject to restrictions. For instance, no 
restrictions appeared in and around Parkville, Riverside or the Northern 
Heights area. Indeed, no restrictions appeared in the southern part of the 
school district at all. (Pi. Exs. 22 and 22A)

14Through 1960, FHA had made 40,727 loans in Jackson County and 5,167 loans 
in Clay County. Less than .6 percent of the total FHA loans m  the three- 
county area were made in Platte County. (X 1512)

-5-



FHA policy, if any, is de minimus and there is no evidence that it had any 
effect on movement into this District or on its present racial composition.15

3. Urban Renewal/Highway Construction: The evidence is that a grand
total of 2 people displaced by urban renewal relocated in this District. (X 
322A and X 322B) There is no evidence that any highway construction reloca- 
tee, either black or white, was referred to or relocated in Platte County.

In sum, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the "housing

violations" {if any) had or continue to have any effect in this District.

D. EVEN IF THERE WERE VIOLATIONS BY THE STATE OR KCMSD, THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT IN THIS DISTRICT, (THE WHITE 
FLIGHT THEORY)._______________ ______________________________ ____

Even if this legal theory obtained there is no evidence that significant 

white flight occurred into this District and no evidence of any segregative 

effect of any such white flight in or upon this District. The irrefutable 

fact is that, to the extent that whites moved out of KCMSD and for whatever

reason they chose to do so, they did not move into this defendant school

district. Plaintiffs' testimony and exhibits make that patently clear.^

E. PLAINTIFFS HAVE ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT ANY OF THE
SO-CALLED "POST-1954 ACTIONS AND INACTIONS" HAD ANY EFFECT IN OR ON 
THIS D I S T R I C T . ____________________ ______________ ________

1. House Bill 171: There is no evidence whatsoever that this defendant
district was involved in any fashion with HB 171. 6/5/84 Opn at 89.

To find that passage of HB 171 had a significant segregative effect in 
this district, plaintiffs would have the Court speculate that (1) the City of 
Kansas City would have reached the population of 500,000 (it didn't in 1960), 
(2) the 1962 annexations would have passed, and (3) the residents of the unin­
corporated areas in Platte County would have acceded to annexations by Kansas 
City instead of annexation by existing municipalities. Plaintiffs have

15Appellants offer no explanation for the failure of their theories with 
respect to Platte County. Indeed, the evidence clearly shows that housing 
patterns remain the same regardless of whether there was a past history of 
substantial restrictive covenants and a large number of FHA loans (C ay 
County) or a minute number of restrictive covenants and a minute number of FHA 
loans (Platte County). (X 1512) The evidence disproves, rather than proves, 
their theories.

1^Witness after witness testified that the white people that they knew that 
moved out of the so-called "Southeast Corridor" (which is at exactly the oppo-

- 6-



adduced no evidence to remove such considerations from the realm of pure spe­
culation.

2. "Spainhower Plan"; The so-called Spainhower Plan's effect, had it 
been enacted, would have been to create a school district called Platte County 
Ir which would have encompassed the four then-existing school districts in 
Platte County. (X 504) Creation of such a school district would have had no 
effect outside Platte County and would have had no effect in or on Jackson 
County.

3• Participation in the Platte County Area Vocational-Technical School: 
Prior to 1980, this defendant did not participate or cooperate in any AVTS and 
did not transfer or receive students to or from any other districts in connec­
tion with vo-tech education. In 1980, the Platte County R-ITI District opened 
an area vocational school at Platte City and Park Hill does permit a small 
number of students to attend that school.37 There is simply no evidentiary 
substance to the argument that creation of or participation in this area voca­
tional school constitutes a violation and no evidence that any such purported 
violation has had any significant interdistrict effect in its few years of 
operation.

ARGUMENT

I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN DENYING MANDATORY INTERDISTRICT 
RELIEF INVOLVING THIS DISTRICT BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTAB­
LISH ANY INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATORY ACTS OR OMISSIONS BY IT WHICH 
HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT SEGREGATIVE EFFECT IN IT OR ANY OTHER DISTRICT.

The District Court properly considered the evidence under F. R. Civ. P. 

41(b). The findings concerning Park Hill are fully supported by the record.

site end of the metropolitan area from this District) moved to other parts of 
KCMSD or Johnson County, Kansas, or, in a few cases, other school districts in 
southern and eastern Jackson County. Only two witnesses were able to place 
any white families that left the Southeast Corridor and moved to Platte 
County— for a grand total of three families. (Neither were able to offer any 
explanation for the relocation of those families.) That was the sum and 
substance of all the testimonial evidence concerning any "white flight" to 
Platte County. (X 1775A, B, C and D shew a total of 25 students moving from 
KCMSD to Park Hill schools between 1958 and 1973.)

370ther participants are the North Platte R-I District, the West Platte 
R-II District and the Smithville District, which, like the Platte City 
District itself, are not parties to this litigation.

-7-



Those findings can only be reversed if clearly erroneous. Shull v. Pain

Kalman & Quail, Inc. Appellants cannot demonstrate, and apparently do not 

contend, that they are clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer.

The District Court's finding that Park Hill is a desegregated, unitary 

district and that it did not engage in any constitutional violations having 

substantial segregative impact in another district fully supports the conclu­

sion that interdistrict relief involving this District is inappropriate. 

Milliken. The gradual desegregation of Park Hill schools after Brown does not 

constitute a violation. Tasby v. Estes. Desegregation was carried out "with 

all deliberate speed". Brown II, Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board.

II. EVEN IF NO INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT IS NECESSARY AND A
SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY BE ORDERED INTO A MANDATORY INTERDISTRICT REMEDY 
IF IT IS "AFFECTED BY" A VIOLATION, THE COURT DID NOT ERR IN REFUSING 
TO GRANT SUCH RELIEF BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT 
THIS DISTRICT, OR ITS RACIAL COMPOSITION, WAS "AFFECTED BY" ANY VIOLA- 
TION OR THAT ANY VIOLATION HAD ANY EFFECT IN OR ON THIS DISTRICT.

Even if appellants' view of Milliken were tenable, the findings of the 

District Court and the evidence adduced by plaintiffs do not demonstrate that 

violations by other entities, if any, had any significant effect or "affected" 

this District. As this District has endeavored to shew in its Statement, 

supra, none of the so-called "bases for interdistrict relief" mentioned in 

plaintiffs' brief had any significant effect in or significantly "affected" 

this District. There is no substantial evidence that the pre-1954 educational 

system effected the racial composition of Park Hill or that post-1954 inaction 

had an effect on that composition. There is substantial evidence that this 

District was not effected by white flight from KCMSD (and, indeed, the evidence 

is to the contrary). There is no substantial evidence that this District was 

effected at all by the so-called housing violation and, indeed, the evidence 

indicates no effect. Thus, even if appellants' erroneous theory is accepted, 

this District was properly relieved of participation in an interdistrict remedy.

-8-



Respectfully submitted

LAWRENCE M. MAHER 
JAMES H. McLARNEY 
SWANSON, MIDGLEY, GANGWERE,

CLARKE & KITCHIN 
1500 Commerce Trust Building 
922 Walnut Street 
Kansas City, Missouri 64106 
(816) 842-9692

ATTORNEYS FOR PARK HILL REORGANIZED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. V OF PLATTE COUNTY, 
MISSOURI, AND MERLIN A. LUDWIG, ITS 
SUPERINTENDENT

-9-