Answer of Defendants to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amplify and to Particularize the Metropolitan School District Reorganization Plan

    L e o n  S. C o h a n  
Deputy Attorney General

STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY

^.
•
' 'V** ‘ or. ><tv

*-? " f 4

GENERA

FRANK J. KELLEY
A T T O R N E Y  G E N E R A L

LANSING 
4 8 0 1 3

February 18, 1972

Mr. Frederick W. Johnson, Clerk 
United States District Court 
133 U.S. Courthouse 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Re: Bradley v. Milliken
No. 35257

Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find Answer of Defendants 
to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amplify and to Particularize 
the Metropolitan School District Reorganization Plan 
in the above entitled cause with Certificate of Service 
attached for filing.

Very truly yours.

Enc 
cc:

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

v  /_-A?Eugepe Krasicky
Assistant Attorney General

/

Messrs. Louis R. Lucas 
and William E. Caldwell 
Mr. E. Winther McCroom 
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
Messrs. J. Harold Flannery, 
Paul R. Dimond and 
Robert Pressman 

Messrs. Jack Greenberg and 
Norman J. Chec’nkin 

Mr. George T. Roumell, Jr. 
Mr. Theodore Sachs 
Mr. Alexander B. Ritchie



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, No. 35257

Defendants,
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 
LOCAL #2 31, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-
Intervenor

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Defendants-
Intervenor

/

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAM G, MILLIKEN,
FRANK J. KELLEY, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND 
JOHN W. PORTER TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMPLIFY 
AND TO PARTICULARIZE THE METROPOLITAN SCHOOL 
DISTRICT REORGANIZATION PLAN.

In answer to plaintiffs' motion, these defendants 
respectfully show that:

1. At the hearing of October 4, 1972, they informed the
Court that it would take at least six months and $250,000, based upon the 
experience of other areas in the country, in particular Los Angeles, 
California, to prepare a rational, understandable metropolitan plan.
The court recognized this when it suggested that the state board 
"present a skeletal plan so that we can recognize the dimensions of our 
problems.'" '

2. These defendants respectfully submit that despite 
plaintiffs' claims to the contrary, these plans more than meet



the legal requirements to remedy the racial segregation which this 
Court found to exist in the Detroit Public Schools. The Court 
expressly left the dimensions of the plans to the state board.

3. The personal views of Miss Marilyn Jean Kelly, extracted 
and quoted in plaintiffs’ motion, have no relevancy to the proceedings 
at bar. The State Board of Education can act only as a board, as 
that action is duly recorded in its minutes, and does not act by 
the views of one of its members. Further, it should be noted that 
Miss Kelly did move for the adoption by the state of any particular 
plan.

^. In answer to the allegations in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs’
motion:

(a) There was no failure to provide for the 
desegregation of grades K to 3; transportation 
realities and the ages of the children involved 
preclude including grades K-3 in the plan.

(b) The proposed two year implementation 
schedule is not only reasonable but is required

■ -g

by the enormity and complexity of the changes 
required by the proposed plan.

(c) The proposal is not to abandon schools 
attended predominantly by black students; the plan 
proposes to close only those physical plants that 
are "considered deficient."

(d) The claim of "gerrymanded subdividing" is 
without merit; existing county and school district 
boundary lines are the basis for the DMEA and the 
IOZ and were used for the reasons set forth in the 
plan.

-2



#

5. In answer to the prayer in plaintiffs' motion:

(a) The plan itself sets forth the racial 
composition of schools and grades as projected.
A more particularized projection will require 
computerization of vast amounts of data at great 
expense, which is not warranted until such time 
as a plan is accepted.

(b) Within the time claimed by plaintiffs, 
it is not practical to devise specific techniques 
for pupil selection, assignment or transportation. 
Neither is the cost warranted until a plan is 
accepted by the Court. The general principles
to be followed are set forth in the plan.

(c) Plaintiffs' claimed anomalies do not 
exist in fact and the claim appears to be based 
upon an insufficient reading or understanding of 
the proposed plans since information amplifies and 
supplements the others.

WHEREFORE, these defendants move the Court for a denial

of plaintiffs' motion.
Respectfully submitted

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Eugene Krasicky <
Assistant Attorney GeneralDated: February 18, 1972

Business Address: ■
7 Story Office Building 
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Gerald F. Young 
George L, McCargar 
Assistant Attorneys General

- 3-



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing
Answer of Defendants to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amplify and to 
Particularize the Metropolitan School District Reorganization 
Plan was served upon the following named addressees this 18th 
day of February, 1972 by United States mail, postage prepaid, 
addressed to them at their respective business 'addresses:

Messrs. Louis R. Lucas and 
William E. Caldwell

Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones
Messrs. J. Harold Flannery, 

Paul R. Dimond and 
Robert Pressman

Mr. E. Winther McCroom
Messrs. Jack Greenberg and 

Norman J. Chechkin
Mr. George T. Roumell, Jr.
Mr. Theodore Sachs
Mr. Alexander B. Ritchie

George L. McCargar 
Assistant Attorney GeneralDated: February 18, 1972