Draft Joint Pre-Trial Statement

    M
IL

L
E

R
. 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
. 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
. 

2
5

0
0

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 8
c 

T
R

U
S

T
 B

U
IL

D
IN

G
. 

D
E

T
R

O
IT

. 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 4

8
2

2
6

+

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et at..

Plaintiffs,

vs.

WILLIAM G. MIL LIKEN, et a l.,

and
Defendants,

No. 35257

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
TEACHERS. AFL-CIO,

Intervening Defendant,

and

DENISE MAGDOWSK2, et a l..

Intervening Defendants.

JOINT PRE-TRIA Ij STATEMENT

I.

GENERAL STATEMENTS OF CLAIMS
THEORIES, AND DEFENSES_______

PLAINTIFFS’ STA T EM ENT

The Detroit public schools are being operated ;in a manner which vio­

lates the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the

United States.'

The Detroit School System operates schools which are racially identi­

fiable as "Negro” and "White" schools, which schools are inherently unequal, 

and which deny plaintiffs equal educational opportunities.

A school system which operates schools as set out in the preceding 

paragraph is under an affirmative duty imposed by the Thirteenth and Four­

teenth Amendments to remove the racial ideatifiability of the schools in its

- I -



M
IL

L
E

R
. 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
. 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
. 

2
5

0
0

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 &
 T

R
U

S
T

 B
U

IL
D

I N
G

. 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
, 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
8

2
2

6

system by desegregating the student bodies of the individual schools and by 

assigning and/or reassigning faculty members to each school in accordance 

with the system-wide ratio of black and white faculty members, and by planning 

and making facility additions in a manner which will promote and maintain 

racially non-identifiable schools.

BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS* STATEMENT

The Board of Education Defendants assert the following three

defenses:

A. The Detroit Board of Education has not intentionally acted to 

separate pupils on the basis of their race. Acts of the Detroit Board of Edu­

cation which arc neutral and do not have as their intent the separation of pupils 

on' the basis of race do not violate its constitutional duty, even if the unintention­

al and unanticipated effect thereof is to permit schools to exist whose student 

bodice are predominantly Negro or predominantly white. Therefore, the 

Detroit School System io neither a dual nor a dc jure segregated school system 

as Plaintiffs contend.

B. The Detroit Board of Education is under no constitutional duty

to overcome residential racial separation. Nevertheless, the Detroit Board of 

Education recognizes an educational responsibility to integrate its pupils and 

staff--racially, culturally, economically and religiously--and has voluntarily 

acted in numerous and substantial ways to fulfill that educational responsibility.

C. The allegation that the school system contains some schools 

where the student body is predominately Negro and other schools where the 

student body is predominately white, in and of itself, fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted.

STATE DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT

A. That the school administrative regions established under the 

last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2a, which are also election regions

-2-



M
IL

L
E

R
. 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
. 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
. 

2
S

O
O

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 &
 T

R
U

S
T

 B
U

IL
D

IN
G

. 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
. 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
8

2
2

6

for the purpose of electing members to the first class district school board, 

were established to conform to the requirements of both the Federal Equal 

Protection Clause and Section 2a and to implement administrative decentrali­

zation of the Detroit schools for the purpose of fostering greater community 

control therein.

B. That the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2a and 

the regions established thereunder are in conformity with the Federal Equal

Protection Clause.

C. That the state defendants have not engaged in any affirmative 

conduct constituting state compelled de jure segregation concerning the es- 

tablisnment of attendance areas, the assignment of school personnel or the 

location and construction of school buildings or control over such matters is 

reposed by state statute in the Detroit Board of Education.

INTERVENING DEFENDANT DETROIT FEDERATION 
_________ OF TEACHERS' STATEMENT_______________

Intervener submits, on information and belief, that the Detroit

Board of Education has not been guilty of state-compelled segregation of faculty

and/or students and, therefore, a judicial remedy of desegregation and/or in­

tegration of faculty is not required or appropriate.

In the event such a remedy were required, plaintiffs' proposed 

remedy, namely, tnat faculty be assigned and/or reassigned in each school of 

the Detroit system in direct ratio to the over-all ratio of white and black 

teachers in the system, and without regard to teacher skills, certification, 

amount oi experience, tenure and seniority, or otherwise, is neither required 

nor appropriate.

STATEMENT OF INTERVENING DEFENDANTS MAGDOWSKI, ET AL.

Intervening Defendants Magdowski, et al. join in the defenses and 

issues of the Board of Education Defendants.



•  •

II.

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES

A. ISSUES RELATING TO BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS*
_________________________ DEFENSE A.___________________________ '

Plaintiffs' Issues Relating; to Board*s Defense A

1. Whether the Detroit Board of Education has acted with the

intention or with the result that schools have been established

or maintained as racially identifiable units.

a. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has instituted and/or 

utilized such pupil assignment and transfer policies.

b. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has established, 

perpetuated and/or maintained such pupil attendance 

zones and pupil feeder patterns.

c. Whether the defendant Detroit Board's open enrollment 

policies, optional attendance zones, transportation and/or 

other administrative policies have had the effect of aiding 

the creation and/or maintenance of racially identifiable

a choolo ?

d. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has constructed new 

schools and made additions to existing schools in a manner 

that has resulted in the establishment, existence and/or 

maintenance of racially identifiable schools?

e. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has purchased and/or 

placed additional school facilities of any type, including,

, but not limited to, transportables, mobile units, and

rented relief apace in a manner which has aided in the 

creation, existence and/or maintenance of racially

identifiable schools?



f. Whether the Detroit Board has by act or omission failed 

to avail itself of opportunities to eliminate or diminish 

the racial identifiability of the schools in its system, or to 

prevent the increase or creation of racially identifiable

schools?

g. Whether a policy of neutrality as to any facet of school 

administration, including pupil and teacher assignments, 

satisfies the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment 

obligations of the defendant Detroit Board to provide equal 

educational opportunities to the school children in its 

system?

Whether the defendant Detroit Board has complied with its 

affirmative Constitutional duty to operate a public school 

system without "Negro" and "White" schools, but just schools? 

Whether the defendant Detroit Board maintains a public 

school system which denies equality of educational opportunity 

to Detroit's public school children on the basis of race?

a. Whether or not there exist or have ever existed in the 

Detroit School System patterns of school, classroom

or course assignment to "tracks", "levels" or so-called 

"ability groups" which have the effect of denying equal 

educational opportunities to Detroit school children?

b. Whether the Detroit Board, having initiated a partial 

plan (i. e . , April 7th plan) for providing equal educa­

tional opportunities to some of the high school students 

in the Detroit system, is under a duty to provide



M
IL

L
E

R
, 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
, 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
, 

2
S

O
O

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 &
 T

R
U

S
T

 B
U

IL
D

IN
G

, 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
, 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
0

2
2

9

complete equality of educational opportunity to all 

Detroit Public School children by instituting a complete 

plan of school desegregation?

Board of Education Defendants' Issues
________ Relating to Defense A________

1. Has the Detroit Board of Education intentionally assigned 

pupils to separate educational facilities on the basis of 

their race?

2. Is the Detroit School System a biracial dual, or de jure school 

system?

3. Has the Detroit Board of Education adopted any policies '*"*'““* “ 

which, although neutral or benign in intent, have had the 

unintentional and unanticipated effect of creating schools 

whose student bodies are predominantly Negro or predominantly

white ?

B. ISSUES RELATING TO BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS'
_________________________ DEFENSE B. ___________________

Plaintiffs' Issues Relating to Board's Defense B

1. Whether the defendant Detroit Board's student and faculty 

assignment practices have impermissibly segregated students 

and faculty by race, by reason of the underlying racially 

segregated residential patterns?

2. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has built upon or does 

build upon racially segregated residential patterns in the 

assignment of students and faculty?

3. Whether the policies and practices of public officials with 

respect to location, building or expansion of public housing

-6-



M
IL

L
E

R
, 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
, 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
, 

2
3

0
0

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 &
 T

R
U

S
T

 B
U

IL
D

IN
G

, 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
, 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
8

2
2

6

I
\

unite, and tenant admission and assignment thereto, have 

aided and/or contributed to the creation or existence of 

racially segregated residential patterns within the City of

Detroit?

4. Whether tho policies and practices of public officials with 

respect to the sponsorship, insurance, guarantee or 

subsidy of private housing has aided and/or contributed to 

racially segregated residential patterns?

5. Whether any other policies and practices of public officials 

have contributed to the racially segregated residential 

patterns in Detroit?

6. Whether the opportunities of blacks and whites for private 

housing have been restricted on the basis of race by the 

practices and policies of various public, quasi-public and 

private persons and organizations?

7. Whether such restrictions on housing opportunities, and 

their persisting effects, have contributed to racially 

segregated residential patterns?

8. Whether tho racially segregated residential patterns in the 

City of Detroit have had any effect upon pupil attendance and 

faculty assignment patterns in the Detroit public schools?

9. Whether the Detroit Board is and has been under an 

obligation to select from the available alternatives that method 

of operation which minimizes the effect of such residential 

segregation?

10. Whether there is any relationship between residential

segregation and school segregation in Detroit, including

-7-



M
IL

L
E

R
. 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
. 

rA
D

D
O

C
K

 A
N

D
 S

T
O

N
E

, 
2

S
O

O
 D

E
T

R
O

IT
 B

A
N

K
 a

 T
R

U
S

T
 B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, 

D
E

T
R

O
IT

, 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 4

6
2

2
6

I

whether Detroit Board policies and their persisting 

effects such as location and size of schools, pupil assign­

ment policies, teacher assignment policies, feeder patterns, 

transportation, open school policies and pupil and teacher 

transfer policies, have caused, aided or contributed to 

racially segregated residential patterns or have failed to 

counteract the effect thereof; and, conversely, whether 

racial restrictions upon residential choices, and their 

persisting effects, have caused, aided or contributed to 

racial identifiability of the Detroit Public Schools?

Board of Education Defendants' Issues 
________Relating to Defense B__________

1. Has the Detroit Board of Education used sound educational 

techniques in determining attendance boundaries; or has 

the Board intentionally employed racially segregated 

residential patterns for the express purpose of creating or 

perpetuating racially segregated schools?

2. Has the Board's selection of school sites and construction 

of new school facilities been on the basis of (a) safety of 

pupils, (b) accessibility to pupils, (c) access to parks or 

other recreational facilities, (d) coat economy, (e) replace­

ment of antiquated facilities and (f) mobile population needs; 

or, has the Board made its selection of sites and decisions 

to construct now school facilities with the intent to separate 

pupila on the basis of race?

3. Does tho Detroit Board of Education have a constitutional 

duty to reject the use of sound educational techniques and

-S- V



H
IL

L
E

R
. 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
, 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
. 

Z
S

O
O

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 f
t 

T
R

U
S

T
 B

U
IL

D
IN

G
. 

D
E

T
R

O
IT

. 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 4

S
2

2
S

il

.

:

|

4.

factors, including student residence, as determinants 

of school attendance?

Docs the Detroit Board of Education have a constitutional 

duty to reject the educationally sound factors of pupil 

safety, accessibility, access to parks and recreational 

facilities, cost economy, replacement of antiquated 

facilities and mobile population needs in determining site 

locations for school facilities?

C. ISSUES RELATING TO BOARD OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS' * 1
_ ________________________DEFENSE C.____________________

Plaintiffs' Issues Relating to Board's Defense C

Plaintiffs see no issues presented.

Board of Education Defendants' Issues Relating 
________________to Defense C__________________

1. Does the fact of variance in the racial composition of the

student bodies at schools in the Detroit School System,

in itself, constitute a violation of the United States

Constitution?

D. ISSUES RELATING TO FACULTY ASSIGNMENT.

Plaintiffs' Issues Relating to Faculty Assignment

1. Whether the pupil and faculty assignment policies of the 

defendant Detroit Board have failed and do fail to provide 

all persons with the same right to the full and equal 

benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of 

persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 and the Thirteenth and 

Fourteenth Amendments ?

-9-
V

f'



M
IL

L
E

R
, 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
, 

R
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
, 

2
5

0
0

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 f
t 

T
R

U
S

T
 B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, 

D
E

T
R

O
IT

. 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 4

6
2

2
5

2. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has and does assign 

racially identifiable faculties to correspondingly racially 

identifiable student bodies, thereby aiding in the creation 

and/or maintenance of racially identifiable schools?

3. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has instituted teacher 

assignment and/or transfer policies which have aided in 

the creation and/or maintenance of racially identifiable 

schools?

4. Whether teacher contracts, collective bargaining agree* 

ments or any other employment custom or practice may be 

relied on or utilised to delay, impede or otherwise restrict 

the total desegregation of the faculty and staff of the 

Detroit School System?

5. Whether the Detroit Board should be required to immediately

reassign and/or assign individual school instructional

personnel in accordance with the system-wide ratio of black

and white instructional personnel?

Board of Education Defendants1 Issues Relating to 
_______________  Faculty Assignment_______ ______

1. Does the United States Constitution prohibit the assignment of 

educational and administrative personnel to school facilities 

in accordance with the balanced staff concept, which concept 

involves balancing of staff with respect to race, age, sex and

experience?

Intervening Defendant Detroit Federation of Teachers 
Issue3 Relating to Faculty Assignment__________

1, Whether the Detroit Board of Education has been guilty of 

state-compelled segregation of faculty and/or pupils which

r/'

-10-
V



requires a remedy of desegregation and/or integration of

faculty;

2. Whether, in the event a remedy of desegregation and/or 

integration of faculty is required, a remedy of assignment 

and/or reassignment of faculty is required and/or appropriate 

that faculty be assigned and/or reassigned in each school of 

the Detroit school system in direct ratio to the over-all ratio 

of white and black teachers in the system, and without regard 

to teacher skills, certification, amount of experience, tenure 

and seniority, or otherwise.

ISSUES RELATING TO THE STATS DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs* Issues Relating to State Defendants

1. Whether Section 2A of Act 48 is unconstitutional as applied 

in that it established school administrative regions, which 

as implemented, have the effect of impeding racial integra­

tion of the schools?

2. Whether the requirements of compact and contiguous 

regions and the drawing of racially separate regions of 

school administration by a state agency and the adoption 

of guidelines by the defendant Detroit Board have the 

effect of making more difficult the desegregation of the
• II I m It. (Nil M

Detroit schools?

3. Whether, because of the state-established eight racially 

separate administrative regions, the Detroit Board is 

prohibited from any delegation of authority to regional 

boards which diminishes the authority and responsibility



H
IL

L
E

R
, 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
, 

F
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
. 

2
5

0
0

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 f
t 

T
R

U
S

T
 B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, 

D
E

T
R

O
IT

, 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 4

6
2

2
6

of the Detroit Board of Education to desegregate its 

public schools, including, if necessary, actions which 

crocs regional boundaries?

4. Whether or not the state defendants have met their 

constitutional duty with respect to the creation and 

operation of racially desegregated schools in the City of

Detroit?

State Defendants1 issues Relating to State Defendants

1. Whether the last sentence of the first paragraph of 

Section 2a, as applied, is violative of the Federal Equal 

Protection Clause as constituting invidious racial 

discrimination?

2. Whether the state defendants have engaged in any affirma­

tive conduct constituting state compelled de jure 

segregation concerning the establishment of attendance 

areas, the assignment of school personnel or the location 

and construction of school buildings or facilities in the 

Detroit schools?

F. ADD PARTIES RESPECTFULLY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO STATE OR 
RAISE FURTHER ISSUES, DEFENSES, OR THEORIES AS PERCEIVED 
____________________ OR AS RAISED BY THE PROOFS__________________

m.

STIPULATION OF FACTS

The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is stipulated to, and the 

authenticity of all records obtained from the Detroit Board of Education is 

likewise stipulated. Further, any statistical data which have been used by 

the Detroit Board of Education are stipulated without further proof. A ll



M
IL

L
E

R
, 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
, 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
. 

2
S

O
O

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 f
t 

T
R

U
S

T
 B

U
IL

D
IN

G
, 

D
E

T
R

O
IT

. 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 4

6
2

2
6

questions o£ relevancy, materiality and other questions of admissiblity are 

reserved as to any evidence submitted by any party.

IV.

WITNESSES

A. Plaintiffs will call the following named or designated witnesses:

Dr. Gordon Foster 

Dr. Robert Green 

Dr. Karl Taeuber

Various School Board Officials and Personnel (to be 
designated after completion of discovery)

Various Persons Familiar With Housing Patterns and 
the Housing Market in Detroit

[Upon completion of discovery, plaintiffs may desire to call other 

witnesses not hereinabove named or designated but will provide reasonable 

notice to all opposing counsel. ]

B. As of this time, the Detroit Board of Education intends to call,

as witnesses, the following:

Superintendent Drachler 
Deputy Superintendent McCarthy 
Deputy Superintendent Johnson 
Deputy Superintendent McCutcheon 
Assistant Superintendent Coker 
Divisional Director Lankton

and other possible employees and administrators of the Detroit Public 

School System who have as yet to be identified. In addition to these 

administrators, tentatively it is contemplated that defendant Detroit Board 

of Education will also call Dr. James Guthrie of the University of 

California at Berkeley and Dr. Henry Levin of Stanford University.

Should other expert witnesses be called. Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants will 

be notified.

-13-



M
IL

L
E

R
. 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
. 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
. 

2
5

0
0

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 f
t 

T
R

U
S

T
 B

U
IL

D
IN

O
, 

D
E

T
R

O
IT

, 
M

IC
H

IG
A

N
 <

6
2

2
8

C. Whether the state defendants will call an/ witnesses is dependent

upon plaintiffs' proofs.

D. Intorvenor Detroit Federation of Teachers may call Mary Ellen

Riordan, John Elliott and/or others dependent on plaintiffs' proofs.

E. Intervenor Magdowski, et al may wish to call witnesses dependent

on plaintiffs' proofs.

Respectfully submitted.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone

By _______________________________
George E. Bushnell, Jr.

Nathaniel Jones, General Counsel By _________________ _
N .A .A . C. P. Carl H. von Ende
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019

B y__________________________
E. Winther McCroom Gregory L. Curtner
3245 Woodbura 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207

Bruce Miller and Lucille Watts,
Attorneys for Legal Redress

Committee
N. A. A. C. P . , Detroit Branch 
3426 Cadillac Towers 
Detroit, Michigan, and

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Emmett E. Eagan, Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant Detroit Board
of Education

2500 Detroit Bank and Trust Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
(313) 963-6420

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Eugene Kraaicky 
Assistant Attorney General

Gerald F. Young 
Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for State Defendants

Business Address:
Seven Story Office Building 
525 "West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Louis R. Lucas 
William E. Caldwell 
Ratner, Sugarmon fit Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee

14 \



M
IL

L
E

R
. 

C
A

N
F

IE
L

D
, 

P
A

D
D

O
C

K
 A

N
D

 S
T

O
N

E
, 

2
S

O
O

 D
E

T
R

O
IT

 B
A

N
K

 &
 T

R
U

S
T

 B
U

IL
D

IN
G

. 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
. 

M
IC

H
IG

A
N

 4
8

2
2

6

ROTKE, MARSTON, MAZEY, SACKS, 
O'CONNELL, NUNN & FREED

°Y
Theodore Sachs

Attorneys for Intervenor Detroit 
Federation of Teachers 

1000 Farmer Street 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
965-3464

FENTON, NEDERLANDER, DODGE L 
BARRIS, P.C.

By
Alexander B. Ritchie

Attorneys for Intervening Defendants 
Magdowski, et al 

2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
965-5565

-15-