Opinion and Order with Cover Letter
Public Court Documents
August 15, 1975
137 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Working Files. Opinion and Order with Cover Letter, 1975. 1780c0d7-54e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/42618233-16f1-4070-8ca5-1dce2dc33a5d/opinion-and-order-with-cover-letter. Accessed July 31, 2025.
Copied!
J^iatrs Oistnd Oltutri
Jletniif ‘1S22C
R O B E R T E. D i M A S C I O
August 15, 1975
Louis R. Lucas
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas
Suite 525
Commerce Title Building
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Dear Mr. Lucas:
The court has requested that I forward an
advance copy of the opinion in the above-entitled
cause. It is one of the first copies reproduced.
The original opinion will be filed at 9:00 A.M.,
Saturday, August 16, 1975.
Re: Bradley v. Millihen
Civil No. 35257
Sincerely
Secretary to Judge DeMascio
Enclosures
Memorandum Opinion and Order
C H A M B E R S O F
R O B E R T E . D e M A S C I
J U D G E1
o
Jlnitelt j^tnica ^District QJrmri
^ o r i l]C P i s t r i c t of
Jlctrmt *18226
August 15, 1975
Louis R. Lucas
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas
Suite 525
Commerce Title Building
Memphis*, Tennessee 38103
Re: Bradley v. Milliken
Civil No. 35257____
Dear Mr. Lucas:
The court has requested that I forward an
advance copy of the opinion in the above-entitled
cause. It is one of the first copies reproduced.
The original opinion will be filed at 9:00 A.M.,
Saturday, August 16, 1975.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Memorandum Opinion and Order
*
«. *
TABLE OF CONTENTS*• •
I.
II.
Ill.
iv.
v .
Introduction .............................
Prior Proceedings . . ..................
Findings of Fact
A. The Detroit School System ..........
B. Statistical & Demographic Data . . . .
C. Plaintiffs' Plan ....................
D. Detroit Board of Education Plan . . .
E. Educational Components ..............
F. School Financing ....................
Conclusions of Law
A. General Analysis of Both Plans . . . .
B. Plaintiffs' P l a n ................ - *
C. Detroit Board Plan ..................
D. Plaintiffs'Objections ±o Board's Plan.
E. General Conclusions - Both Plans . . .
Remedial Guidelines ....................
1. Student’Transportation ..............
2. Reading and Communications Skills . .
3. In-Service Training ................
4. Vocational Education ................
5. Testing .............................
I6. Students' Rights & Responsibilities . .
7. School Community Relations ..........
0. Counseling and Career Guidance . . . .
9. Co-Curricular Activities ..........
1
IQ
12
29
39
46
46
38
60
65
73
80
84
87
99
101
103
108
109
111
113
114
10. Bilingual/Multi-Ethnic Studies ........ 115
11. Faculty Assignments .................. 116
12. Monitoring ............................ 118
VI. Conclusion and Appendices.................... 120
«. •
... TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . Introduction............................... X
II . Prior Proceedings......................... 5
III . Findings of Fact .
A. The Detroit School S y s t e m ............. IQ
. , • iB. Statistical & Demographic Data . . . . . 12
C. Plaintiffs' P l a n ....................... 29
D. Detroit Board of Education Plan . . . . 39
E. Educational Components............ .. . 46
. F. School Financing ....................... 46
IV . Conclusions of Law
A. General Analysis of Both Plans . . . . . 58
B. Plaintiffs'Plan........ '............. 60
C. Detroit Board P l a n .................... 65
D. Plaintiffs'Objections ±0 Board's Plan. . 73
E. General Conclusions - Both Plans . . . . 80
V. Remedial Guidelines.................. 84
1. Student'Transportation ................ 87
2. Reading and Communications Skills . . . 99
3. In-Service Training .................. 101
4. Vocational Education .................. 103
5. T e s t i n g ........................ 108
>
6. Students' Rights & Responsibilities . . . 109
7. School Community Relations ............ Ill
8. Counseling and Career Guidance ........ 113
9. Co-Curricular Activities .......... . 114
\
10. Bilingual/Multi-Ethnic Studies ........ 115
11. Faculty Assignments.................. 116
12. Monitoring ............................ 118
VI. Conclusion and Appendices.................... 120
t
s
r.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ERSTERR DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
, SOUTHERN DIVISION
RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,
Plainti ffs,
v.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor
of the State of Michigan and
Ex-Officio Member of Michigan
State Board of Education;
FRANK J. KELLEY, Attorney General
of the State of Michigan;
ALLISON GREEN, State Treasurer;
•MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
a constitutional body corporate,
and its Members;
JOHN W. PORTER, Superintendent
of Public Instruction;
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF DETROIT, a first-class
school district and its
Members; -
GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF
DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS;
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
LOCAL 231, AFT, AFL-CIO,
Defendants.
___________/
Civil No. 35257
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
REMEDIAL DECREE
(Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law)
DeMascio, Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Our task in this on-going litigation is to formulate
a just, equitable cad feasible plan to desegregate the Detroit
School System, taking account of the practicalities at hand.
We do so in response to a United States Supreme Court mandate
that we formulate a "decree directed to eliminating the
segregation found to exist in Detroit City Schools." Writing
for the majority of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Burger
noted that the district court and court of appeals:
". • .proceeded on an assumption that the
. Detroit Schools could not be truly desegre
gated -- in their view of what constituted
desegregation — unless the racial composi
tion of the student body of each school
substantially reflected the racial composi- '
tion [of the metropolitan area]."
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 at 740(1974).
The Chief Justice then pointed out that Swann v. Board 'of
Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ". . .does not require any par
ticular racial balance in each 'school, grade, or classroom'
. . . ." Thus, the Court did not deem it essential to
furnish guidelines for desegregating the Detroit School System.
Cf. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo. 413 U.S. 189
(1973). Rather, it left this court to determine what constitute
t
desegregation in this particular school district.
In our analysis, we have been mindful that rigid and
inflexible desegregation plans too often neglect to treat
school children as individuals, instead treating them as pig
mented pawns to be shuffled about and counted solely to achieve
an abstraction called "racial mix." We recognize that our con
cern is with the very young and that a just, equitable and
feasible desegregation plan should not destroy the educational
mission of the schools they attend. We are aware of the adverse
educational and psychological impact upon black children com
pelled to attend segregated schools; to separate them from
other children solely because of skin pigmentation is indeed
invidious. But, although the resulting injury is great, the
remedy devised should not inflict sacrifices or penalties upon
other innocent children as punishment for the constitutional
violations exposed.. We must boar in mind that since those
committing tne grotesque violations are no longer about,
any such punishment or sacrifices would fall upon the very
young; it is the children for whom the remedy is fashioned
who must bear the additional burdens.
The necessity of preserving the educational system
for whom this remedy is addressed has compelled us to scrutinize
carefully plans that are rigidly structured to achieve a racial
mix, that include pairing and clustering of schools, that
fracture grade structures, and that include massive transporta
tion. All of these techniques require children to spend more
time going to school and divert educational dollars and energy
from legitimate educational concerns.
If Detroit's school population were more equally
divided between black and white, or if the desegregation area
were sufficiently large to permit greater equalization, it
would be possible to diminish the inevitable limitations on
the task of eliminating racially identifiable schools in the
district. But it is impossible to avoid having a substantial
number of all black or nearly all black schools in a school
district that is over 70% black. The truth of this statement
is best demonstrated by the desegregation plan offered by the
plaintiffs in this litigation; while plaintiffs contend that
their plan affords the greatest degree of desegregation, their
plan leaves £he majority of the schools in the district between
75% and 90% black. An appropriate desegregation plan must
carefully balance the costs of desegregation techniques against
the possible results to be achieved. Where the benefits to be
gained are negligible, those techniques should be adopted
sparingly.
-1-
Finally, an effective and feasible remedy must pre
vent resegregation at all costs. To ignore the possibility
of resegregation would risk further injury to Detroit school
children, both black and white. In a school district that
is only 26% white, a remedy that does not take account of
. \the possibility of resegregation will be short-lived and use
less if that percentage of whitesfurther decreased, h 'realis
tic desegregation plan should recognize that abuses such as
optional attendance zones, gerrymandered attendance zones,
discriminatory assignments, the bussing of black children
away from closer white schools, and school construction that
knowingly tends to have segregative effects are unlikely to
recur in a school system that has a majority black board of
education and a bi—racial administrative staff.
t
The guidelines adopted by this court consider the
“practicalities of the situation", and at Lhe same time make
"every effort to achieve the greatest degree of actual desegre
gation." Davis v. School Comm'rs of Mobile County, 402 U.S. 33,
37 (1971). The "practicalities" that an appropriate remedy
should consider encompass the legitimate concerns of the school
system and the community at large. One legitimate concern de
serving of weight is the undesirability of forced reassignment
of students achieving only negligible desegregative results.
Another of bhe practicalities is the shifting demography
occurring naturally in the school district together with
the persistent increase in black student enrollment.
Still another of the practicalities to be taken into
account is the racial population of the district, which is
predominantly black by wide margins. Further practicalities
that must' be considered by this court include the declining
tax base of the City of Detroit, the depressed economy of the
-!
City, and the volatile atmosphere cheated by the highest rate
of unemployment in the nation. Finally, the decree must con
sider the overriding community concern for the quality of
educational services available in the school district. An
effective and flexible remedy must contain safeguards that
will enhance rather than destroy the quality of the educational
services provided to the City of Detroit.
II. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
The Detroit School Desegregation case has been in
litigation for nearly five years. The plaintiffs filed this
action on August 18, 1970, naming as defendants the Detroit
Board of Education, its Members and the Detroit Superintendent
of Schools, together with the Governor, Attorney General,
State Board of Education, and the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction for the State of Michigan. The complaint
alleged inter a3ia that as a result of actions and inactions
on the part of all the named defendants, the Detroit Public
School System was racially segregated. The complaint further
challenged the constitutionality of Act 48 of tlie Michigan
Public Acts of 1970 insofar as that Act precluded implementa
tion of the April 7, 1970, "plan" to desegregate the Detroit
Public Schools. The plaintiffs further prayed for a preliminary
injunction to restrain the enforcement of Act 48 together with
an order requiring the Detroit Board of Education to implement
tlie so-called April ", 1970, desegregation plan.
The district court ruled that plaintiffs were not
entitled to preliminary injunctive relief and declined to rule
on the constitutionality of Act 48. At tliat time, the district
-5-
court granted a motion dismissing the action as to the Governor
«. *\
and the Attorney General. (Rulings dated September 3, 1970.)
Upon 'appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit sustained the district court's denial of plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction but reversed the district
court in part,holding that portions of Act 48 were unconstitu
tional and at the same time ordering that the Governor and the
Attorney General remain as parties to the litigation. Bradley
v. MiHiben, 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970). Although the .
defendant Detroit Board of Education would have implemented the
so-called April 7 desegregation plan upon order of the court or
otherwise, the district court did not order implementation of
such "plan"; instead, as an interim plan, it adopted a plan
submitted by the Detroit Board known as the "Magnet Plan."
(December 3, 1970, Ruling on School jPlans.)
Following a trial on the liability issue, the
district court found that the Detroit School District was
segregated on the basis of race. The court found that certain
conduct on the part of the defendant Detroit Board of Education
and the defendant State of Michigan, through its various state
officials, fostered segregation in the Detroit Public School-
System and violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Detroit
school children. The district court also held that the state
was vicariously liable for certain de_ jure acts of the defendant
a IDetroit Board of Education. The district court specifically
found that the state failed until 1971 to provide funds for the
transportation of pupils within the Detroit School System re
gardless of their poverty or distance from the school to which
they were assigned, although at the same time the state provided
financial assistance for student transportation to many
t •V
neighboring, mostly white suburban districts. The district
court finally found that the state, through Act 48, acted
to"impede, delay and minimize racial integration in Detroit
schools." 338 F.Supp. at 589.
The district court thereafter ordered the parties
to submit plans to desegregate the Detroit Public Schools.
Pursuant to this order, the defendant Detroit Board of
Education submitted two plans, referred to as Plan A and
Plan C, that were limited to the corporate limits of the .
City of Detroit. At the same time, the plaintiffs filed a
desegregation plan known as the "Foster Plan" and the State
defendants filed a "Metropolitan School District Reorganiza
tion Plan." Following the hearings conducted on the Detroit-
only plan, the district court concluded that the Detroit Board
of Education Plans A and C were legally insufficient because they
would not significantly desegregate the school system. The
court found that Plan A was an elaboration and extension of the
Magnet Plan then in effect, and further found that Plan C as
submitted by the Detroit Board Weis merely a token desegregation
effort. The district court also rejected the plan submitted by
plaintiffs, specifically finding that plaintiffs' plan would
entail a re-casting of the entire Detroit School System and
would leave the majority of its schools 75 to 95% black, thus
making the Detroit School System more; identifiably black. The
district court then concluded as a matter of law that "under
the evidence in this case [it] is inescapable that relief of
segregation in the public schools of the City of Detroit cannot
be accomplished within the corporate geographical limits of the
city." The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
-7
district court's ruling on the ibsue of segregation and its
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Detroit-only
plan. The court further affirmed in principle the propriety
of a metropolitan remedy. Following a grant of certiorari
to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, on July 25, 1974,
affirmed the district court's finding on the liability issue
of segregation and did not disturb the court's finding that
the Detroit Public Schools could not be adequately desegregated
within the corporate limits of the city, but reversed the
court's approval of a metropolitan remedy, holding that a district
court may not impose a multi-district remedy to correct a
single school district's acts of de_ jure segregation.
On January 13, 1975, upon receipt of the Supreme
Court mandate from the Court of Appeals, this court filed an
order requiring the parties to file a current status report.
This order precipitated the filing of numerous motions to
dismiss by the intervening suburban defendants. Following a
pre-trial conference on February 18, 1975, the defendant Detroit
Board and the plaintiffs were ordered to submit desegregation
plans for Detroit only, on or before April 1, 1975. The State
defendants were ordered to submit a critique of the Detroit Board
plan by April 20, 1975. On April 16, 1975, the court granted
the motions to dismiss filed by the intervening suburban
defendants and simultaneously granted plaintiffs' motion to
amend their complaint to include allegations of inter-district
de jure violations.
The plan submitted by the Detroit Board contained
many components that were vague or poorly documented. Costs
for these components, including transportation, are excessive.
-8-
\
The defendant Detroit Board sought to add 3,416 new employees,
many at salaries well in excess of its more experienced anc
tenured teachers. Moreover, the plan failed to inform the
court of the extent to which each of the components might
presently exist in the school system. When these deficiencies
became apparent, the court deemed it advisable to appoint
three court experts and commissioned them as officers of the
court to obtain much of the needed information. The court
assigned its experts to obtain from the Detroit Board sufri—
cient data to evaluate the components' included in the plan.
Because the constitutional sufficiency of the defendant- Board s
plan could be determined only by examining all of the alter
natives, the court deemed it necessary to request its experts
to explore additional possibilities! to aid the court s evalua
tion of the transportation component. The hearings on both
plans commenced on April 29, 1975.
■ We now detail the findings of fact in order to
determine the amount of desegregation possible in this
school district, giving due consideration to the practicali
ties at hand. We are reminded that, according to Brown v.
t
Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 300 (1954), this court is
to be guided by equitable principles. Thus, its guidelines
must be flexible and responsive to public and private needs.
r. -9-
Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT .
A . The Detroit .School System
1. The Detroit School System, which is coter
minous with the City of Detroit, is governed by a
Central Board of Education. In an attempt to decentra
lize this huge school system the Michigan legislature,
pursuant to Act 48 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1970
(Mich. Comp. Laws 388.171 et seq.) divided the school
system into eight geographic "regions". Each region is
governed by a regional board of education whose primary
responsibilities and relationship with the central Board
of Education are outlined in Defendant Board of Educa
tion's Exhibit 4, "Guidelines for Decentralization".
Each region has a five-member board■elected by the
citizens residing within its boundaries. The individual
board member receiving the highest number of- votes is
designated chairman of the regional board.
The central Board of Education consists of
13 members. Five of its members are elected from the
City of Detroit at large and the remaining positions
are occupied by the eight regional chairmen. The day-to
day administration of the entire school system is the
responsibility of a General Superintendent of Schools,
an Executive Deputy Superintendent, a Deputy Superintendent
and an Assistant Superintendent, together with eight
Regional Superintendents selected by the regional boards.
The "Guidelines for Decentralization" indicate that there
is much autonomy left with the regional board. For example,
the regional board retains the authority to change attendance
-10-
boundaries within its regiort; transfer teachers from
school to school within the region, vary the educational
curriculum in schools within the region and hire the
Regional Superintendents. Under the regional system
the quality of education could vary not only among
regions but also among schools within a region. Notwith
standing this decentralized system, the central Board of
Education remains responsible for governing the entire
system and for overseeing the actions of the regional
boards.
2. Both the central Board and the central
administration staff under the supervision of the General
Superintendent are bi-racial in character. Nine of the
central Board's thirteen members, including the Board
President, are black; the other four members are white.
At the beginning of this remedial hearing, the General
Superintendent was white and the Executive Deputy Superin
tendent was black; when these proceedings were completed,
the white General Superintendent had retired and had been
replaced by one who is black. The bi-racial aspects of
the school administration extend throughout the entire
staff, down to the level of the department heads.
■ The racial composition of the school admini
stration has changed dramatically since the inception of
I
this lawsuit in 1970. At the conclusion of the trial on
the liability aspects of this litigation in 1971, the
central board was composed of ten white members and three
black members, and the greater part of the General Super
intendent's staff was white. As a result of the
-11-
decentralization brought about by the passage of Act 49,
the black community has become more involved in and has
experienced greater control over the Detroit School System.
3. Although the Supreme Court decision in this
case was handed down in July of 1974, the Detroit Board
of Education did not take steps to formulate a desegrega
tion plan until ordered to do so by this Court. In January
of 1975, however, they created a desegregation office
commissioned to formulate an acceptable plan. The Detroit
Board's plan, submitted to this Coiirt on April 1, 197 5,
was adopted by a 9-4 vote. The nine black members of the
Board voted in favor of the desegregation plan while the
four white members opposed the plan as presented. Although
this vote was split along racialtlines, the Central Board
of Education is nevertheless a cooperative Board and is
willing to desegregate the Detroit school system. However,
the plan as submitted does not enjoy unanimous acceptance
among the members of the Detroit Board, the members of the
administrative staff, or the members of the desegregation
office. It is apparent that under the regional system it
is possible that the degree of desegregation under the
Board's plan could vary among different regions and it is
likely that the plan as submitted by the central Board
of Education enjoys varying degrees of acceptance in
different regions.
B. Statistical and Demographic Data
4. The most recent official racial-ethnic dis
tribution count, taken on September 2.1, 1974, discloses
that there are 257,396 students enrolled in the Detroit
1. •\
Public Schools. Of this number 71.5% are black and 26.4%
are white, while 2.1% comprise other ethnic groups. In
the Detroit School System's regular K-12 program 247,113
students are enrolled, of which 71.4% are black and 28.6%
is comprised of white and other ethnic groups. In the
elementary schools, grades K-6, 141,806 students are
enrolled, of which 72.3% are black and 27.7% is comprised
of white and other ethnic groups. In the junior high
schools, grades 7-8, 39,600 students are enrolled, of
which 73.0% are black and 27.0% is comprised of white
and other ethnic groups. In the senior high school?,
grades 9-12, 65,707 students are enrolled, of which 68.6%
are black and 31.4% is comprised of white and other ethnic
groups. (See Defendant Board of Education's Exhibit 6, page
4.) The racial composition of each region as of September, 27,
1974, is reflected in the table next attached.
I
-13-
«. •V
ETHNIC COMPOSITION
BY REGION
Total Racial-Ethnic Distribution
Region
U vJCi L-I i
Member- American
Indian
Asian
American
Black
American
Spanish
Surnamed
White and ,
Others
ship Num
ber
Per
cent
Num
ber
Per
cent.
Num- 'Per-
ber cent
Num
ber
Per
cent
Num- Ber
ber cent
1 24907 70 0.3 68 0.3 22486 90.3 234 0.9 2049 8.2
2 36972 121 0.3 93 0.3 22278 60.3 3450 9.3 11030 29.8
3 33723 22 0.1 50 0.1 23876 70.8 220 0.7 9555 28.3
4 36820 40 0.1 181 0.5 20414 55.4 145 0.4 16040 43.6
5 31354 7 0.0 16 0.1 30325 96.7 17 0.1 989 3.1
6 30796 37 0.1 48 0.2 19442 63.1 130 0.4 11139 36.2
7 24605 16 0.1 140 0.6 11114 45.2 88 0.3 13247 53.8
8 29725 4 0.0 26 0.1 28300 95.2 66 0.2 1329 4.5
City-Wide
Schools 8494 15 0.1 34 0.4 5883 69.3 107 1.3 2455 28.9
Total
District 257396 332 0.1 656 0.3 184118 71.5
—
4457 1.7 67833 26.4
-14-
5. This Court previously found that the popu-
iation of the City of Detroit peaked in 1950 and since
that year has been declining steadily at the rate of
approximately 169,500 per decade. In 1950 Detroit's
population constituted 61% of the total population of
the standard metropolitan area; in 1970 it comprised but
36% of that figure. The black population in the City of
Detroit has increased markedly from 1.4% of the city
population in 1900 to 43.9% in 1970. 338 F. Supp. 582
at 585-86. The Detroit Board of Education's demographic
1
expert testified, and we agree, that a current study of
Detroit population trends indicates that as of 1975 the
population of the City of Detroit is majority black.
6. On September 27, d971 this Court found that
the decline in the white students in the Detroit Public
School system during the period 1961-1970 was greater than
the percentage decline of the overall white population in
the city. At the same time the percentage of black enroll
ment in the Detroit school system increased at a greater
rate than the overall general black population in the
city during the same period. In the 1960-1961 school year
there were 285,512 students in the Detroit school system,
of which 130,765 (45.8%) were black. In the 1966-1967
»
school year there were 297,035 students in the system,
of which 168,299 (56.7%) were black. In the 1970-1971
school year 289,743 students were enrolled, of which
184,194 (63.6%) were black. During the period between
1968 and 1970 the Detroit school system experienced a «
-15-
V
larger increase in percentage of black students than any
other major northern school district. The percentage
increase in Detroit during that period was 4.7% as con
trasted with a high of 3.2% in Boston and a low of 1.1%
in Denver among other major northern school districts.
(338 F. Supp. 582 at 586.) This court predicted in 1971
that, if present trends continued, the percentage of black
students in the Detroit Public Schools would be 72% in
the 1975-1976 school year, 80.7% in the 1980-1981 school
year, and, further, the system would be virtually 100%
black by 1992. (338 F. Supp. at 585.) The record compiled
during this remedial proceeding demonstrates that the
predictions made by the District Court in 1971 were
1/
totally accurate, if not somewhat conservative. During
the past five years the black student enrollment has
increased at an average of 2% per year, with a corres
ponding 2% decrease in the white student population during
the same five-year period. At the elementary level the
school system is presently 72.5% black and the trend
toward a 2% annual increase has been positively identi
fied.
1/
The District Court in 1971 predicted that in the 1975
1976 school year the black student enrollment would total
72 percent. The evidence taken during this remedial pro
ceeding indicates that that figure was low. Black enroll
ment in the elementary schoools exceeded 72% on September
27, 1974, and black enrollment system-wide on that date
was 71.5%.
-16
7. Thoore arc presently 32 6 schools in the
Detroit Public School System: 226 elementary schools,
56 junior high schools. 22 high schools and 22 specialized
and primary schools, '.’he system operates on a feeder plan
in which elementary students are assigned to specific
junior high and senior high schools. These schools are
distributed throughout the city and form a perimeter
adjacent to outlying suburban areas. The geographic
distribution of schools throughout the system reflects
the Detroit School Sys;em's devotion to the neighborhood
school concept.
The increasing blade student enrollment
in the Detroit Public School System, which extends to
schools located at the city's boundaries, is demonstrated
by the following tables reflecting significant increases
in black student enrollment since 1969: *
*
-17-
School
CARSTENS
GUYTON
HAMILTON
HOSMER
IVES
LINGEMANN
JACKSON J.H.
ROBINSON M.S.
School
COOPER
A. L. HOLMES
CLEVELAND J.H.
GREUSEL J.H.
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT 1969-1974
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS - DETROIT EASTSIDE
TABLE I \ '
PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT
YEAR
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
37.4 48.0 62.3 73.2 82.6 88.3
17.2 30.6 49.5 64.1 73.9 77.9
63.6 70.8 71.8 74.2 79.8 83.4
8.2 18.1 28.2 44.8 57.8 70.0
6.2 13.0 19.1 37.9 54.0 64.2
53.1 60.2 62.6 65.8 68.9 72.3
39.8 43.3 54.2 71.9 85.1 92.0
_ — — __ 69.1 84.8 88.7 92 .6
TABLE II
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT 1969-1974
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS - NORTHEAST DETROIT
PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLIMENT
YEAR
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
59.0 72.1 79.6 85.7 86.9 90.3
86.6 93.2 95.3 96.3 97.8 98.5
68.8 71.6 74.9 74.3 75.9 79.4
69.5 73.6 75.9 70.5 82.2 81.4
-IB-
TABLE III
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT 1969-1974
ALONG WOODWARD AVENUE* •
PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT
■ Year
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
School
HAMPTON 68.8 75.1 60.7 70.6 75.3 81.5
Woodward Avenue is a major thoroughfare in Detroit, which
divides the city along east-west lines.
TABLE IV %
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT, 1969-1974
Or' SELECTED SCHOOLS ON DETROIT'S NORTH SIDE
(BORDERING EIGHT MILE ROAD)
PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT
Year
School
1969 1970 1971 1 972 1973 1974
BOW 13.6 17.8 ‘ 27.9 44.7 57.4 68.6
GREENFIELD PK. 32.3 38.2 41.1 46.2 50.7 54.0
MARSHALL 57.3 65.0 69.3 75.1 81.7 84.6
MASON 48.6 52.7 61.6 69.7 77.2 83.5
WINSIIIP 50.1 70.4 89.8 93.3 96.2 97.7
CLEVELAND J.H. 68.8 71.6 74.9 74.3 75.9 79.4
A
-.1 9-
FARWELL J.H. 6 3,3 67.8 68.4 v 68.0 73.9
* * * * it
GRANT J.H. 21.7 26.2t, 27.8 29.7 38.1
HAMPTON J.H. 68.8
*
75.1 95.5 97.1 98.1
PERSHING H.S. 57.7 63.8 73.1 81.0 83.4
* Elementary School Figures.
TABLE V
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT, 1969-1974
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS IN NORTHWEST-WEST AREA
OF DETROIT
PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT
- Year
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
School
BURNS 31.4 59.8 80.0 90.0 94.5
CADILLAC 17.6 39.1 73.5 75.3 90.9
CRARY 4.5 20.6 40.9 61.9 83.0
DOSSIN . 6.0 5.0 16.8 34.2 64.0
FORD 34.2 35.4 51.8 70.0 84.3
HERMAN 55.6 58.5 66.4 73.9 79.3
McFARLANE 77.6 82.0 89.9 93.9 95.7
NEWTON 14.5 21.8 27.8 45.1 66.9
PARKER 62.7 79.4 88.1 95.1 97.0
PARKMAN 7.8 12.8 29.9 47.8 68.4
COOLEY H.S. 58 .'9 76.3 94.0 97.4 99.3
82.4
41.4
98.8
85.6
1974
97.1
94.4
89.1
80.8
89.6
85.8
96.5
76.9
97.6
78.3
99.6
TABLE VI \-
RACI/vL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT, 1969-1974
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS IN DETROIT'S SOUTHWEST AREA
PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT
Year
1969 1970 1971 1972 197 3 1974
School
CRAFT 88.4 86.8 84.3 92.1 91.7 91.3
ELLIS 66.9 71.6 74.0 72.5 77.0 83.8
OWEN 69.5 70.8 68.7 67.4 71.5 79.5
r.
-21-
Shifting demographic patterns in Detroit are reflected not
«. •\
only in the schools which are 70% or more black, but also in
those schools which, though not yet majority black, will be so
within a short period:
TABLE VII
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS, 1969-1974
IN SELECTED SCHOOLS ON DETROIT'§ NORTHWEST AND
WEST SIDES
Year
School
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
EMERSON 3.6 3.6 3.0 8.5 27.7 40.9
MeKENNY 5.1 5.7 10.3 22.2 38.4 4.6.4
COOLIDGE 1.3 2.1 5.1 13.8 30.1 45.6
TABLE: viii
RACIAL
IN SELECTEE
DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS, 1969-1974
i SCHOOLS IN NORTHEAST DETROIT
Year
School
1969 1970 ' 1971 1972 1973 1974
GRANT 21.7 26.2 27.8 29.7 38.1 41.4
LYNCH 10.4 6.7 12.8 18.0 30.9 47.8
Based on present trends, it is accurate to expect that the
black enrollment of several schools on Detroit's northwest and
east sides will be in excess of 70% black by the 1975-1976
school year:
TABL1C IX «. •
RACIAL DEMOGRiAPHIC SHIFTS, 1969- 1.974
■
percentag:E BIACK ENROLLMENT
Ye;ar
School
196 9 1970 1971 1972 197 3 1974
BOW 13.6 17.8 27.9 44.7 57.4 68.6
COFFEY — 29.0 33.2 43.6 51.8 68.8
EDISON 0.3 2.7 9.3 25.3 49.5 65.3
HOSMER 8.2 18.1 28.2 44.8 59.8 70.0
The Ford High School whose attendance zone abuts Detroit's
border is located on Detroit's extreme northwest side. As indicated
by.the following table, Ford, presently 55% black, will in all likel
hood be 50% black by the 1975-1975 school year.if demographic trends
continue:
TABLE X . .
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT 1959-1974 IN
FORD HIGH SCHOOL
PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT
Year
1959 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
13.4 20.0 30.5 40.3 48.2 54.6
-2 3
• ;
Based on current trends, thc\-following schools, which have
student population between 25% and 35% black, can expect to have sub
stantial increases in black enrollment:
_ TABLE XI
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS, 1969-1974
PERCENTAGE BIACK ENROLLMENT
School
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
GOODALE 0.1 0.7 1.5 4.0 14.9 25.2
MACOMB 1.6 2.8 4.9 8.1 21.0 30.6
EMERSON J.H.
*
3.6
*
3.6
*
3.0 8.4 19.9 30.6
MURPHY J.H. 6.5 9.8 12.7 6.3 20.1 30.3
TAFT J.H. 0.3 0.7 2.4 12.8
t
21.0 34.5
* Elementary school figures
-2 4-
8. These tables clearly demonstrate the City
of Detroit's changing demography and conclusively reflect
significant increases in black student enrollment since
1969. The tables point out that schools that were as low
as 4.5% black in 1969 had increased to as much as 89.1%
black by 1974. The demographic patterns in Detroit reflect
a large number of schools that are 70% or more black and
it is apparent that many schools that are not yet majority
black will become majority black within a short period of
time. For example, Table VII aboVc contains a sampling
of schools located on the northwest side of Detroit-that
will experience a majority black school population within
the coming school year. Similarly, schools located in the
northeast section of Detroit that are presently 40-50%
black will be majority black within the coming school year.
If present demographic trends continue, schools that now
have student enrollment ranging between 20 and 40% black
can expect to have substantial increases in black enroll
ment. Although the vetroit school system as a whole is
experiencing a 2% annual increase in black enrollment, the
following table demonstrates that individual schools in
many areas undergoing racial demographic shifts have
experienced increases in black, enrollment that are as high
as 16.9%'. These shifting demographic patterns are rapidly
changing Detroit's residential patterns; mixed residential
areas may now be found in all parts of the citv, inducing
areas bordering the suburbs.
V -
-2 5-
«. •
\
AVERAGE YEARLY PERCENTAGE
RACIAL CHANGE IN SELECTED SCHOOLS
BETWEEN 1969-1974
PERCENTAGE BIACK ENROLLMENT
Average Yearly Percentage,
School 1969 1974 Change
Emerson 3.6 30.6 5.4
Marshall 57.3 84.6 5.5
Coolidge 1.3 45.6 8.9
Kennedy 64.6 93.1 5.7
Herman 55.6 85.8 6.0
Cooper 59.0 90.3 6.3
Van Zile 46.9 79.7 , 6.6
Parker 62.7 97.6 7.0
Mason 48.6 83.5 7.0
Lynch 10.4 47.8 ' 7.5
McKenny 5.1 46.4 . 8.3
Cerveny 51.5 97.5 9.2
Winship 50.1 97.7 9.5
Carstens 37.4 88.3 10.2
Bow 13.6 68.6 11.0
Ford 34.2 89.6 11.1
Ives 6.2 64.2 11.6
Hosrner 8.2 70.0 12.4
Newton 14.5 76.9 12.5
Edison 0.3 65.3 13.0
Burns 31.4 97.1 13.1
Guyton 17.2 77.9 12.1
Parkman 7.8 78.3 14.1
Dossin 6.0 80.8 * 15.0
Cadillac 17.6 94.4 15.4
Crary 4.5 89.1 16.9
y .
-26-
9. The Board began to undertake steps to
desegregate cs early as 1.97 0 and was precluded from
doing so only by the passage of Act 48 of the Michigan
Public Acts of 1970 (Mich. Comp. Laws §388.171) by the
Michigan Legislature. The Board has followed the policy
of 1 ransporting students to relieve overcrowding in such
a manner as to increase desegregation. In the 1974-1975
school year the Detroit Board was able to increase the
percentage of black students in many schools that had
a low percentage of black enrollment. The table next
annexed demonstrates the dramatic increases in black
student enrollment at various schools accomplished by
such transportation.
»
PERCENTAGE BLACK ENROLLMENT
IN SCHOOLS RECEIVING STUDENTS
TO RELIEVE OVERCROWDING
School
Northwest Area
■ * *
Ann Arb^r Trail
Burgess
Carver
*Dow
Harding
Healy ^
Houghtea
Leslig
Lodge
Mann
Weatherby
Yost
Northeast Area
*Burbank *Hanstein
Marquette*
.McGregor
Pulaski
Robinson _ • *T n x
Wilkins
1974
Without Transportation
2
4
0
32
18
0
4
0
0
14
3
0
0
0
6
0
2
9
0
6
With Transportation
39
21
18
43
22
18
12
32
27
25
16
42
16
23
12
34
14
9
24
16
* Schools which abut the Detroit city limits.
r.
-28-
C. P la in t i f f s 1 P lain
10. The Plaintiffs' desegregation plan, submitted
on April 1, 1975, pursuant to an order of this court and
revised on April 30, 1975, was designed by Dr. Gordon
Foster, Director of the University of Miami Title IV De
segregation Center. The plan as devised by Dr. Foster
deals solely with pupil reassignment. The rationale and the
ultimate goal of the plan are that, as far as possible,
every school within the district must reflect the racial
ratio of the school district as a whole within the limits
of 15 percentage points in either direction. Dr. Foster
admitted that the 15% figure was arrived at arbitrarily.
Under Dr. Foster's definition, any school whose racial
composition varies more than 15% in either direction from
the Detroit system-wide ratio is racially identifiable.
Accordingly, an elementary school with 57.3%-87.3% black
enrollment, a junior high school with 58.0%-88.0% black
enrollment, and a senior high school with 51.9%-81.9%
black enrollment are desegregated schools. Carrying
Dr. Foster's plan a step further, an elementary school
that is 56% black is a racially identifiable white
school and an elementary school that is 85% black is
a desegregated non-racially identifiable school.
(Plaintiffs' plan, p. 7A.)
11. In developing Plaintiffs' plan, Dr. Foster
testified he explored the extent to which desegregation could
be affected by each of the following commonly accepted
in facility utilization. Under the Plaintiffs' plan,
present high school juniors, although included in the
pupil assignment process, are given the option of re
maining at their present school and graduating there,
assuming that to do so would not cause or maintain
. 1
segregation. (Plaintiffs' plan page 5A.)
12. Under the Plaintiffs' plan, not only are .
many students reassigned to elementary schools outside
of their neighborhood for half of their elementary years,
but, as a result of the pairings and changes in feeder
patterns into junior and senior high schools, many .
students will attend a school out of their home neighbor
hood for between eight and eleven years. See, e.g .,
Plaintiffs' plan for Webster, Birney, Peck, Amos, Beard,
Larned, Higginbotham, Glaser and McGregor schools.
Under Plaintiffs' plan only the racial ratio that could
be achieved by a particular pairing was considered in the
selection of schools for the pairings. Consequently, the
Plaintiffs' plan creates many problems relating to building
capacity. For example, proposed enrollment exceeds school
2/
capacity at 18 junior high schools. In addition, some
elementary school pairings under the plan would result in
over-enrollment. While Plaintiffs' plan attempts to minimize
y - ~ ~ ‘
In addition, under Plaintiffs' plan, the Columbus Junior
High School would be over capacity were it not for the
utilization of temporary spaces.
-31-
«. -
techniques: redrawing zone lines between contiguous
zones of differing racial composition, pairing schools
within these zones, pairing non-contiguous zones,
changing feeder patterns in affected schools, examin
ing various building utilization techniques, use of
temporary space, and changing grade structures in parti
cular buildings. Dr. Foster examined these alternatives
in an effort to achieve his desired racial mix. There
after, he subdivided the system into five clusters
with similar racial compositions, each containing a group
of high school constellations. (Plaintiffs plan page 3A,
4A.) Dr. Foster proceeded to alter the grade structures
at particular schools within each cluster, and schools
Iwithin the clusters were then paired. The pairing of
schools was accomplished by selection of all the "racicilly
identifiable" white schools and the "racially identifiable"
black schools in order of size and percentage of children
by race. Thereafter, children in the newly created pairings
were exchanged to achieve ratios conforming to Dr. Foster's
definition of a desegregated school. The plan also created
new feeder patterns for junior and senior high schools
that ultimately achieve a racial mix falling within the
same parameters.
Plaintiffs' pupil reassignment plan does not
include kindergarten and pre-kindergarten children; pro
vision has been made for them to attend the school nearest
their home, which in many instances necessitates changes
-30-
problems of capacity by creating "swing grades" with
the variable assignments of the 6th, 7th and 9th grades, this
technique results in undue disruption of grade structures.
At the senior high school level, the Plaintiffs' plan has
avoided problems of capacity by assuming a dropout correction
factor of .7069 for blacks and .9426 for whites and others.
(Plaintiffs' plan, p. 6A.) As a result, there would be
13,865 fewer blacks and 1,145 fewer whites in the three
senior high grades than in the three junior high grades.
However, no evidence was presented that justifies reliance
upon such a dropout factor; consequently, capacity problems
may be created by Plaintiffs' plan at the senior high school
level as well. Reliance upon a 30% dropout rate for black
students at the senior high school level would disrupt the
entire school system if theprojected number of dropouts
did not materialize. Moreover, even if such a .statistic
were supported by credible evidence, Plaintiffs have not
allowed for the possibility that the dropout rate would
decline in a desegregated system. .
13. We find that a largo number of schools are
paired solely to achieve a desired racial ratio in each
of the paired schools. (Tr. Vol. 18, p. 45.) The
arbitrary pairings devised in Plaintiffs' plan necessitate
the transportation of thousands of black school children
many miles to schools that still remain 80% or more black.
-32-
V
Plan
Paqe SCHOOL 1974 PROPOSED
8 Ellis 83.8 83.0
15 Higginbotham 100.0 82.7 '
27 Keith Primary 99.6 82.6
30 Bellevue 96.7 82.1
28 Krolik 100.0 81.8
12 Alger 100.0 81.6
11 ‘ McFarlane 96.5 81.4
13 Cadillac 94.4 81.0
1 Woodward • 99.9 81.0
4 Chaney 98.3 80.7
1 Roosevelt • 99.9 80.7
9 Monnier 97.0 ' 80.4
4 Goldberg 98.9 80.4
14 Dossin 80.8 80.8
2 Turner 99.4 80.1
4 Owen 79.5 80.0
It is apparent that, for example , Plaintiffs' selection
of the Lingemann School vvas made solely because white
students were needed for transfer to the Bunche School
to accomplish Plaintiffs ' desired balance. Presently,
the Lingemann School is 72.3% black and thus is a deseg
school by Plaintiffs' definition . After application of
Plaintiffs' plan Lingemann School becomes 83.'1% black.
-34
\
Lingemann v;as included in Plaintiffs' plan irrespective
df the fact that it is located in a naturally integrated
neighborhood that has attained a measure of racial sta
bility. The Plaintiffs' plan groups the Craft, Ellis,
Glazier and McKinstry Schools and transports 753 students;
as a result, the Ellis School is reduced from 03.8% to
83.0% black. In the Carrie, Morley and Peck School
grouping, the Carrie School is presently 58% black and
thus not racially identifiable according to Plaintiffs'
definition. After transporting children, Carrie is
reduced to 54.1% black; black students are bussed out of
Carrie solely to be added to the black population at
Morley.
In addition, after transporting thousands of
students, there are a number of schools that are under
or barely exceed the acceptable minimum percentage devised
by Dr. Foster. The following table demonstrates the racial
mix achieved at selected schools:
V
Plan
Page SCHOOL % black
5 Amos 50.7
10 Carver 52.0
21 Richard 52.4
16 * Cooke 52.5
13 Houghton 53.4
6 Higgins 54.1
7 Cary 54.1 .
22 Trix 54.9
. ■ ■-.* .
-35-
t •
V
P1 a n
Page SCPOCi. Black >
•31 Burbank 55.1
.31 McGregor 55.4
6 ' Bennett 55.8
1 Webster 56.1 >ol
17 Larned 56.1 -
19 Burt 57.1
13 Yost 57.4
23 Grayling 57.4 ;
6 I arms > 57 . 6 -
20 Law 58.1 .
10 McColl 58.5 7A.
10 Maybee 55.5 ip-
23 Greenfield Union 58.6 p
9 Everett 58.6 .her
23 White 56.3 :
27 Clark 59.0
3 Burton 59.4
19 . J'olcomb 59.4
22 Fleming 59.5 :k-u;
13 Edison 59.9
3 Beard 60.0 . ,ent
Groupings of schools with comparable racial ratios remain
>
even after the application of Plaintiffs' plan. Schools
containing enrollment over 80t black are grouped in a
contiguous area and follow a consistent pattern. Similarly,
-3 6-
.»* ■ '•'* ■■
«. ■
schools with enrollment under (>0% black are grouped in
contiguous areas and follow an easily discernible pattern.
(See Defendant Board of Education's Exhibit 10.)
. 14. The Plaintiffs1 reassignment plan requires
the transportation of 77,303 children, of which 48,312 are
elementary school children and 28,991 are junior high school
children. Deducting 5,954 children presently being trans
ported, Plaintiffs have arrived at a total of 71,349
students requiring transportation under their plan as
3/ *
proposed. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs use a factor of four
daily round .rips per ius with 6G pupils per bus and esti
mate that 271 additional busses would be required to•
effectuate their reassignment plan. (Plaintiffs' plan p. 7A.)
There is no credible evidence to support Plaintiffs' assump-
{
tion that every bus could be utilized to make four round
trip runs. The Plaintiffs' estirn Le of 271 busses is further
dependent upon the unrealistic assumption of utilizing one
pick-up point for 66 school children without consideration
of the distances students would have to walk to arrive at
the pick-up point. Mo: .over, their estimate does not con
sider the ethnic composition of any area surrounding a pick-up
point.
Plaintiffs' present estimate of 77,303 students
_ -
Vie have 'arrived at varying estimates that range between
77,000 and 01,000 students requiring transportation under
Plaintiffs' plan.
-37-
is not far below their 1972 estimate of 82,000 children
■
requiring transportation. The most credible estimate of
the number of buses required foi Plaintiffs' 1972 plan
was 900. Expert testimony given in 1972 estimated that
a school district could transport an average of 100 students
for each bus in service. (Witness Kuty, Tr. page 122-124,
book 2; March 15, 1972.) Based upon this testimony, which
was not challenged by Pla . Lffs, Plaintiffs' plan would
require the procurement of approximately 840 buses,
including sufficient spares.
Accordingly, we find that the Plaintiffs' ‘ plan
involves the transportation of thousands of students, the
great majority of whom would be transported from one
predominantly black school to another predominantly black
school, involves bus runs within the city of Detroit of
up to thirty-eight minutes without taking in account time
for loading and unloading, and would result in many children
spending between nine and eleven years as far as five to
twelve mi] as from th ,.r neighborhood.
15. The Plaintiffs' plan, based upon a defini
tion of racial identifiability as beyond a range of 15%
from the system-wide racial mix ,is rigidly structured.
The plan does not consider the past or present demography
I
of the Detroit school district, more particularly ignoring
population shifts that have been occuring over the past
decade. Moreover, the plan does not consider the possi
bility of resegregation in the City of Detroit. Although
Dr. Foster testified that his pi an purports to avoid the
-38-
V
possibility of resegregation, this testimony is premised
upon the assumption that after application of the plan
there would be "no pockets where people can go." (Tr. Vol.
19, page 1G6.) There is no credible evidence in this
record to justify the assumption that adoption of Plaintiffs'
plan would lessen the chance of resegregation within or
without the city; Dr. Foster's testimony fails to take
into account the developed suburban areas that circumscribe
the city. Accordingly we find that the Plaintiffs' plan
does not include provisions for promoting racial stability
and avoiding resegregation. We re-affirm the prior-finding
of this Court that:
"It would be a natural, forseeable and
probable consequence of the implementation
of the Plaintiffs' plan that the trend of
the Detroit schools towards a higher
percentage of black students and a lower
percentage of white students will be
sharply accelerated." (Tr. March 14,
1972, page 504-586.)
D. Detroit Board of Education Plan
16. The Detroit Board of Education submitted a
plan that provided for transportation of approximately
51,000 students. Interwoven into the Board's plan is the
provision for magnet schools at both the middle school and
senior high school levels to aid in attaining maximum
desegregation. The goals of the Board's plan include
establishing maximum effective desegregation, removing
racially identifiable white schools and promoting inter
racial understanding and respect in a diversified school
district. The Detroit Board plan takes into consideration
-39-
t. •
the demography of the Detroit School District, and recog
nizes that the Detro.it School System is now 71.5% black
system-wide (72.3% black at the elementary school level).
The Board plan acknowledges that since 1969, the school
district population has declined from 293,859 to 257,396,
whi cli represents a loss of 36,463 students or a 12% decline.
During this five-year period, the black school population
has increased by 3500 students, and over 40,000 white
students have left the system. Accordingly, only 67,833
white students are presently enrolled.in the Detroit School
System, as compared with 189,563 black students. _
Under the Board plan, the Detroit School
System continues to operate on a feeder pattern. The pan-
ings have been devised to provide that every child will
spend at least a portion of his education either in a
neighborhood elementary school or a neighborhood junior and
senior high school. Although regional lines are crossed in
a few instances, the plan generally respects regional
boundary lines, which were brought about, by the State's
attempt to decentralize the school system.
17. Like the Plaintiffs' plan, the Board plan
explores each of the commonly accepted techniques for
desegregation. Like the Plaintiffs' plan, the Board plan
revamps grade structures at the elementary level by pro
viding that some will accommodate K through 3 and others
K plus 4 through 6, and thereafter pairs various schools,
-40-
providin'; transportation between the schools so paired.
Through this process of pairing and clustering schools,
the Board plan attempts to eliminate racially identi
fiable white elementary schools in Regions 2, 3, 4, 6
and 7. The reassignment plan desegregates the junior
and senior high schools by changing the feeder patterns
that feed into the junior and senior high schools, but
at the same time the plan attempts to respect the concept
of high school constellations made up of neighborhood
elenientar*, schools a d neighborhood junior high schools
feeding into an area high school. Under the feeder*plan
realignment the senior high schools will be desegregated
by September, 1976. Eight senior high schools will remain
unaffected bv the ple,n. >!>'
The Board plan attempts to achieve a 402-60%
black racial mix in the remaining white identifiable school
Although the Board purports not to strive for fixed racial
quotas, we find that it does in fact do so. In develop
ing its plan the Board sought to determine the racial
ratio that provided maximum desegregation while preserving
racial stability. The Board concluded that a racial
mixture between 40% and 60% black provided a healthy
and stable racial mix. The Board's statistical data
demonstrates that where elementary schools in a high
school constellation range from 76% to 95% black, resulting
fecc patterns cause the high school, to become 95% to
100% lilac];: white students simply leave the system.by the
time they reach high school. Birrn .1 irly, the statistical
v -
- 4 1 -
v •
data establish that a racial mixture that does not exceed
k't
60%' black provides a degree of stability. Some of the
pairings selected by the Board plan, particularly in
Region 2, fall below the goal set by the Board only
because of the high percentage of Spanish-speaking
students in these schools, which ranges as high as 2 0%
in some instances. To accommodate this factor the Board
permitted the percentage of black students to fall below
therr target for racial mix.
_ 18. The Detroit Board's phpil reassignment plan
does not affect the schools in Regions 1, 5 and 8. Each
of these three regions will remain over 90% black. The
basic premise of the defendant Board's plan is to eliminate
all of the schools with black enrollment below 25% and
bring thorn to the level of 40-60% black. These schools
are located largely on the outer fringes of the city.
The plan leaves untouched 95 schools, most of which are
y
between 95-100% black and are located within the inner city.
Under the defendant Board's plan many schools will operate
over capacity, while some schools in the inner city will
have substantitxl capacity available. The Board decided
to leave 95 schools untouched principally because the Board
y " ~~
In addition to the 95 schools untouched by the pupil re
assignment portion of the Board's plan, 16 schools that are
already desegregated according to the plaintiffs' definition
are untouched, 0 elementary schools are not paired but are
included in desegregated feeder patterns, and 6 schools are
taken out of service.
-42-
found it impractical to desegregate the student bodies
of these schools "without undue hardship of long distance
travel." The Board’s plan acknowledges that there are
too many black students in the system to provide ail of
item with a desegregated experience while at the same time
maintaining stability.
19. The pupil transportation portion of the
Detroit Board plan anticipates the daily transportation
of approximately 51,000 children between paired schools.
The evidence suggests the need for a fleet of busses ranging
between 335 and 425 66-passenger vehicles. The Defendant
Board has suggested that each bus would make two or three
runs per day. (Defendant Board's Exhibit 28.) However,
as indicated above with respect to the Plaintiffs' plan,
credible evidence lias not been presented by either party
to aid the court in making an accurate determination of
the number of busses needed to transport this vast number of
children. The Detroit Board lacks the experience needed
to manage a transportation fleet and does not have available
the appropriate data needed to devise an efficient trans
portation system. This court found it necessary to instruct
the Detroit Board to produce a sufficient data base to per
mit a computer print-out of a grid showing the exact racial
I
composition of students of both races in any particular-
area. Such dat., are necessary to develop an efficient
transportation scheme. Moreover, when such data are avail
able, there will be no justification for transporting
children into an area without consideration of the'ethnic
composition of that area.
Transportation under the Defendant Board's
plan involves much shorter distance than the Plaintiffs'
plan. School pairings were made to allow transportation
routes along major thoroughfares.
20. In addition to reassigning pupils between
paired schools the Detroit Board's plan includes a pro
vision to continue certain magnet schools. Pursuant to
an order of this Court on December 3, 1970, each of the .
eight regions created a magnet school, relying upon
voluntary attendance. Although these magnet schools did
not reach the racial mix sought by either the Plaintiffs
or the Defendant Board, they did serve to provide a
desegregated education in each of the regions in which
t k
they were created.
The Board plan also provides for the creation
of four vocational high schools, specializing in medical science,
transportation, construction and the commercial arts. These
four vocational schools will operate under an enrollment
controlled to simulate the system-wide racial composi
tion. In addition, the Board's plan creates two technical
high schools with enrollment open to students throughout
the entire school system, and creates city-wide high schools
with specialized curricula. The enrollment of these schools
I fwill be controlled to conform to the system-wide racial ratio.
The vocational, technical and city-wide schools are designed
as magnet schools to attract students from throughout the
-4 4-
school sys-com as a means of further desegregating the
school system.
. The Board plan further suggests that four
co-curriculum programs be implemented on a city-wide basis
in order to provide additional childr n with a desegregated
school experience. These programs would i; lude music
education, art, physical education and athletics. (Board
plan page 30.)
Finally, the Board plan suggests the creation
of cultural junior hi h school consortiums designed to
provide students from substantially black majority schools
with an opportunity to spend part of their academic week
with white students from other schools in various cultural
centers in the greater Detroit :-::ea. The Board proposes *,■
that these classes be held at the Art Institute, the Detroit
Public Library, the Merrill Palmer Institute, Wayne State ,
University, Shaw College and Lewis Business School.
>
-4 5-
\
E„ Educational Components
*«
21. In addition to the vocational and career
education and the junior high consortium the plan submitted
by the Detroit Board includes the following educational
components:
a. In-Service Training
b. Guidance and Counselling
c. School-Community Relations
d. Parental Involvement
e. Student Rights and Responsibilities
- .f. Testing .
g. Accountability
h. Curriculum Design
i. Bi- lingual Education v-
j. Multi-Ethnic Curriculum
■ k. Co-curricular Activities
The plan as submitted by the Detroit Board
does not distinguish between those components that are
necessary to the successful implementation of a desegrega
tion plan and those that are not. Moveover, the Defendant
Board's plan does not inform the Court of the extent to which
any of these components may currently be in effect in the
Detroit public school system; nor did the Board, either
through its plan or through expert witnesses, provide the
Court with information adequate to permit the Court to
evaluate the budgetary requests made for each of the
components. Accordingly, the Court found it necessary to
obtain a report from Dr. Louis Monacel outlining the
-46-
«. -
extent to which any or ail of these components currently
exist in the Detroit School System. (See "Comparison of
Existing Personnel, Programs, and Activities with the
Personnel, Programs and Activities Required in the Detroit
Public Schools Desegregation Plan.) The court also found
it necessary to seek an evaluation of each of these com
ponents from Dr. Michael Stolee, one of the Plaintiffs'
expert witnesses. Finally, the court found it necessary
to obtain additional information from its court-appointed
experts to permit a proper evaluation of each of the com
ponents proposed in the Board plan. .
22. We find that the majority of the educational
components included in the Detroit Board plan are essential
for a school district undergoing desegregation While it
is true that the delivery of quality desegregated educational
services is the obligation of the school board, neverthe
less this court deems it essential to mandate educational
components where they are needed to remedy effects of
past segregation, to assure a successful desegregative
effort, and to minimize the possib.i lity of resegregation.
In a segregated setting many techniques deny equal protection
to black students, such as discriminatory testing, discrimina
tory counseling, and discriminatory application of student
discipline.' In a system undergoing desegregation,
teachers will require orientation and training
for desegregation. Parents need to be more closely
involved with the school system and properly structured
programs must be devised for improving the relationship
-47-
* •
between the school and the community. lie agree with the
■ V'
State Defendants that the following components deserve
special emphasis: (1) In-Service Training; (2) Guidance
and Counselling; (3) Student Rights and Responsibilities
(See this Court's order, June 13, 1975); (4) School-
Community Relations-Liaison; (5) Parental Involvement;
(6) Curriculum Design; (7) Multi-Ethnic Curriculum; and,
(8) Co-curricular Activities. Additionally, we find that a
testing program, vocational education and comprehensive
reading programs are essential. Ue find that a comprehensive
reading instruction program together with appropriate* remedial
reading classes are essential to a successful desegregative
effort. Intensified reading instruction is basic to an
educational system's obligation to every child in the school
community (Tr. Vol. 19 pgs. 40-41; Vol. 22, pg. 47). Finally,
the Court finds that an effective Court-oriented monitoring
■program is necessary for effective implementation of a deseg
regation plan to assure that delivery of educational services
will not be made in a discriminatory manner.
F. School Financing
23. The Detroit School District receives
operating funds through levying a property tax, a portion of
which is voted by the electors of the school district and a
portion of which is allocated by the Uayne County Tax Allo
cation Board from the .5 mills constitutionally authorized
to be levied without a vote of the electorate. The school
_ -
See State Critique of Detroit Board's Desegregation Plan,
page 39. ‘
-4 8
1 •
\
district cannot levy additional .millago without a favorable
vote of the electorate. The Detroit School District presently
levies 22.51 mills for operating purposes and 2.25 mills to
finance a prior $68 million deficit (pursuant to Public Acts
1 and 2 of lu73) , for a total of 24.76 mills. This tax effort
produces approximately 33% of the school district's total
budget. State aid comprises 47% of the total budget.' The
j
State aid formula is based upon the number of students in the
school district and upon the State Equalized Valuation (SEV)
of property in the district. Additional state aid is pro
vided by special grants in the form of entitlement and
competitive funds. Federal funds orovide the remaining 15%
of the budget. (Tr. Vol. 7, pgs. 87-85; Vol. 25, pgs.
106-107.)
24. The State School Aid Act contains a formula
designed to equalize revenues among school districts to the
extent that disparities are the result of differences in SEV
per pupil among districts. Over the preceding five-year
period Detroit's State Equalized Valuation (SEV) has remained
relatively static while the SEV in the remainder of the State
generally increased. This trend can be explained by the
movement of industry, commercial institutions and people to
the suburbs and the huge amounts of land used for expressways
in Detroit which remove the property from the city's taxI
rolls.
because the nor capita State Equalized valua
tion in Detroit is 50% lower than the average for the 20
largest cities in Michigan, tire school district must levy
additional inillage to obtain a yield eciual to that of the
-40-
other cities. (Tr. Vol VII, p. 108, Defendant Board's
Exhibit 31.) Because of legislation directed specifically
to the Detroit School District, it .is required to operate on
a balanced budget and must file monthly reports with the
State Auditor General. See Mich. Comp. Laws Sections 338.
1233-1240.
25. The total of all Municipal taxes paid by
Detroit citizens translates into a municipal millage
equivalent of 34.83 mills. This is the highest tax burden
in the State and is 55” higher than the State average.
Only 16 cities in the State of Michigan levy an income
tax; among them, Detroit's rate is the highest. However,
Detroit's per capita income tax yield is substantially
lower than the other 15 cities. Moreover, county taxest
paid by Detroit citizens are 14.4% higher than the State
average, and Detroit municipal taxes are 14.6% higher than
the State average.
Detroit taxpayers also have the highest
municipal overburden in the State. (Defendant Board's
Exhibits 30, 33 & 41.) The State offers assistance to school
districts whose municipal overburden (i.e. the total property
tax rate in the district excluding the amount levied for
school operating purposes) exceeds 125% of the State
average (Bprsloy Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Section 333.1125).
The Act is designed to aid school districts throughout the
State that are unable :o raise sufficient tax revenues
because its taxpayers refuse to approve higher millage
requests in the face of numerous other taxes imposed on
the district by*other local taxing authorities.
V
-5 0-
(Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 103-104.) Presently, the municipal
overburden section of the Act is not fully funded by the
Michigan Legislature, but rather is only funded by
approximately 20%. If the section were fully funded, the
Detroit school district would receive an additional
$61,682,000; if it were funded by 50% during the 1974-75
school year, the school system would have received an
additional $18,787,000. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 116-120.) Thus,
the State does not supply the Detroit school district with
as much money as the Act provides.%
26. The power equalising section of the State
School Aid Act guarantees that, subject to certain conditions
each school district will have available $975 per student.
If local tax revenue is insufficient to generate this
amount, state aid will fund the balance. Complete funding
of the balance, however, is contingent upon a local school
district millage levy of 25 mills for operating purposes;
where a school district levies a lesser amount, state aid
is reduced proportionately. While 2.25 mills of Detroit's
levy goes to debt retirement rather than operating purposes,
the entire 24.76 mills is counted in the formula for state
aid. However, state aid does not provide operating
revenue to replace the 2.25 mills used for debt retirement.
Thus, the, 24.76 levy produces operating revenue of only
$916 per student in local taxes and state aid. (Tr. Vol.
7, pp. 93-107.)
The Wayne County Tax Allocation Board gives
the school district .64 mills, which is passed on directly
-51-
Since the majority of schoolto the Library Commission,
districts in Wayne County receive 3.65 mills from the
Tax Allocation Board and Detroit receives only 8.01 mills
exclusive of the library allocation, this additional .64
mills should be counted in the State Aid calculation;
however, it is not. If it were, the district, would have
a total levy of 25.40 mills and thus would be entitled to
the maximum state aid guarantee under the power equalizing
section of the Act.
The Detroit School District's millage levy
of 24.76 mills is slightly below the State average of 26.15
mills. However , when this millage levy is added to all
other taxes assessed against a Detroit taxpayer, the tax
burden is greatly in excess of thfe State average. (Tr. Vol.
7, pg. 104; Vol. 24, pg. 147.) This burden has caused
Detroit taxpayers to reject requests for additional millage.
Seven of the ten millage elections over the past eight
years have failed. Of the three successful votes, one
approved replacing a 15 income tax that the School
Board was authorized to levy pursuant to Public Acts 1 and 2
of 1973 with a "r mill property tax; another merely renewed
an already existing 7.5 mills for an additional ten years.
(Defendant Board's Exhibit 40; Tr. Vol. 24, pp. 143-144,
150-151; 'Vol. 7, p. 140.) It can bo reasonably expected
that the already heavy burden upon Detroit taxpayers will
cause them to reject further requests for millage increases
in the near future. ■
27. The cost of education is a function of the
the size of the system, and the Detroi School System, with
an enrollment, of 257,000 students, is the largest school
district in the State of Michigan. Moreover, the fact that
Detroit's ranking for per pupil expenditure is above the
State average is insignificant because per pupil educational
costs are greater in urban areas. Additionally, the
drop-out rate in the Detroit School District has been
increasing over the past ten years; the reduction in
enrollment results in less State aid under the pupil
membership formula of the State Aid Act. at the same time
that the cost of delivering educational services is‘
increasing.
28. Prior to a 1971 legislative enactment, the
Detroit School District did not receive any State reimburse
ment for in-city transportation expenditures, even though
reimbursement was provided to rural and suburban school
districts. (Tr. Vol. 24, pp. 103-105.) The Detroit
School District first received an allocation for transporta
tion in the 1973-74 school year, which was based on costs
expended during 1972-73. However, unlike other districts,
which were reimbursed for 75% of their transportation
expenditures, Detroit was reimbursed for only 92% of the
75% permitted under the Act. Moreover, reimbursement for
I
the Detroit School District was based upon the Wayne County
average transportation costs of $47.00 per pupil, while the
Detroit School District actually expended $185.00 per pupil.
Consequently, Detroit was reimbursed for only $288,770.39
of the $1,857,367 expended for transportation in 1972-73,
J
,nd $469,981.15 of the $2,696,133 expended for transportation
,n 1973-74. That Detroit’s transportation costs are so
iigh may be explained by several factors. First, transporta-
J0n costs are necessarily greater in urban areas than in
rural or suburban areas. Second, because Detroit received
no in-city transportation reimbursement whatsoever prior to
1971, Detroit does not have its own bus system and is forced
to rely on more costly chartered buses to transport elemen
tary and junior high school students. Third, Detroit is
required to subsidize bus tickets 'for indigent high school
students, which, in the long run, is also more costly than
operating a transportation system. (Tr. Vol. 24, pp. 107-123
Vol. 25, pp. 19-20.)
Faculty Assignments '
29. The teacher population in the Detroit School
District is 49.5% black. After having established
convincingly that fixed racial ratios for pupil reassignments
destroy stability, the Detroit Board desegregation plan
-suggests a scheme for teacher reassignments that achieves
a 50-50 black-white racial mix in every school in the
district. This approach is overly simplistic. It fails
to take account of the qualifications of a teacher to
teach the subject and grade level, the necessity ofI
balancing schools with respect to teacher experience, and
the necessity of considering the sex of the teacher, all
of which are necessary ingredients for quality desegregated
education. To seek a fixed racial mix, without more, is •
• '
ted
king
ds"
orly
d
s
ote
al
a
5
Is
ad
Dry
10
-54-
•!A
it 15 apparent from the quoted'^regulation that a school
district wh;.cn has been found guilty of segregation of staff
and which is not yet subject to a Court desegregation order
may apply for a waiver of disqualification by making assign
ments "...so that the proportion of minority group full-time
classroom teachers at each school is between 7 5 nercentum
and 125 percentum of the proportion of such minority group
leathers which exist on the faculty as a whole." Tlius, a
school district with approximately 505 minority which has
been found guilty of segregation of staff may qualify by
demonstrating teacher ssignnents that conform to 37.05
to 62.0% black. However, the Detroit School System has
never been round guilty of de jure staff segregation.
The plan submitted by the Plaintiffs does not
contain any proposal dealing with faculty reassignment; ?
Plaintiffs concluded their critique of -the faculty
reassignment provision in the Detroit Board's plan by
•stating that they had no desire to resolve collective
bargaining disputes unless and until they interfered with
constitutional rights > r pupils. notwithstanding this
stated position, the only evidence produced in this
record concerning teacher reassignments was presented by
the Plaintiffs, who made reference to Defendant Board
Exhibit 6. This exhibit includes summaries of the racial
identification of educational^ personnel by race. Educational
personnel consists of more than just teaching staff; it also
includes principals, department heads, counselors, library
personnel, audio-visual personnel, school-community agents,
etc. Thus, whatever correlations Plaintiffs draw from this
- 5 r, -
data is incompetent evidence of
V
facility segregation.
ihere is certainly insufficient evidence in
this record to justify a finding that the ordinary adrainistra
tive and collective bargaining processes of the parties
will not satisfy the necessity of having a proper racial
mix among the teaching staff of the school district.
Moreover, when this Court's desegregation order is
implemented the necessity of additional teacher transfers
on a desegregated basis will become apparent. There is
sufficient time for this Court to -obtain proper and
adequate evidence to determine what orders will be
essential to achieve a plan for complete desegregation of
pupils, faculty and staff.
-1)7-
J
xv* COKcrusIONS Or LAW
A . General Analysis of Both Plans. Tho plaintiffs'
and defendant Board's desegregation plans envploy the same
general techniques for desegregating the Detroit School System.
Both plans'pair and cluster schools, fracture grade structures
and change feeder patterns of the affected schools. The pair
ings involve the exchange of one-half of the student population
. from one school with one-half of the student population of the
Vother. Moreover, both plans provide for massive bussing.
/vlthough employ ng similar methods for desegregation, the parties
differ as to what constitutes desegregation, each asserting that
his plan is more "feasible", "workable", "effective" and
"realistic." These, of course, are proper criteria for testing
an acceptable plan. Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430
(1968). ' •
Plaintiffs' approach to desegregation was devised
by Dr. Gordon Foster, Director of the University of Miami Title
IV Desegregation Center. Dr. Foster began by devising an
arithmetical ratio for defining a racially identifiable
school. Under his definition, any school that varies more
than 15% in either direction from the system-wide racial
ratio is racially identifiable. Plaintiffs' plan thus accepts
as desegregated any elementary school that ranges between 57.3%-
»
87.3% black, any junior high school that ranges between 58%-
88% black, and any high school that ranges between 51.9% to
w ----------------------
Defendant Board's plan, ccording to the court's count, would
transport between 51,000-55,000 students, affecting 159 schools.
The plaintiffs' plan, according to our count, would bus between
77,000-81,000 students and affect virtually every school in the
̂ system. ■ _"* ■ ■
-58
V
01.9% black. The plan divides the system into five clusters.
Racially identifiable black and white schools within each
cluster are paired, and one-half of the student body of each
is transported between the schools. To accommodate school
reassignments, grade structures are altered at all schools.
Additionally, all feeder patterns are changed to accomplish
desegregation of the junior and senior high schools. The
plaintiffs' plan does not include any component other than
student reassignment.
Unlike the plaintiffs' plan, which proposes to
bring every school in the district within 15 percentage points
of the system-wide racial mix, the goal of the Detroit Board's
plan is to eliminate only the racially identifiable white
school^,which are located largely in the outlying sections of
the city. Approximately one-half of the district's 218 ele
mentary schools will not be touched by the plan. The Board
has determined that a school that has 75% or more of one race
is racially identifiable. The Board's plan seeks to attain a
40% to 60% black enrollment in each school involved in the
plan, although the presence of Spanish-speaking students,
especially in Region Two, brings black enrollment below these
percentages in some schools. .
The Board's plan affects approximately 55% of
the total student enrollment, or approximately 141,545 students
(State critique, p. 7) and requires transportation for 51,000
students through relatively short distances. The plan gradually
changes the racial ratios of the students in the junior and
-59-
V
senior high S'hoo]'-. by altering feeder patterns. The Board's
plan-generally respects regional boundary lines and does not
affect three of the district's eight regions.
As an integral part of the pupil reassignment
portion of its plan, the Board seeks to continue the operation
of one Magnet School in each region. The plan also creates
a junior high school consortium and co-curricular programs to
achieve desegregation at this level. Moreover, the plan pro
vides for the establishment of four city-wide vocational high
schools and two additional technical high schools that will
have enrollments .control .ed to conform to the system-wide
racial ratio. Additionally, the Board's plan contains several
educational components, which involve every school in the system.
B. The Plaintiffs' Plan. Our first objection to
plaintiffs' plan is that it is too rigidly structured. It
controls the entire educational life of a child. Not only does
the plan reassign elementary children miles from their neighbor
hood schools, but because of new feeder patterns into junior and
senior high schools, man,r students will attend schools many miles
from their home for eight to eleven years of their school
life. Generally, courts have approached desegregation prob
lems with flexibility, recognizing, as tin-/ must, that they
are dealing with constitutional and equitable rights of
children. Plaintiffs' plan will not permit such flexibility.
«
It does, not take account of demographic trends or population
proportions, black or white. As an inevitable consequence,
most schools are 75-85% black. Once implemented, it would
identify the entire school district as black.
-60-
The plan's sole purpose is to achieve a racial
mix within 15% of the system-wide rati.o in every school in the
district. We reject plaintiffs' contentions that this is the
only method that will desegregate the Detroit School System,
that their plan eliminates racially identifiable schools,
\
and that their plan can be implemented immediately. While
plaintiffs' plan increases the percentage of blacks in
formerly racially identifiable white schools, this could be
accomplished as well by a more flexible plan. Neither does
plaintiffs' plan eliminate all racially identifiable schools;
it is clear to us that a school that is 85% black, although
within plaintiffs' parameters, is a racially identifiable
black school. Further, as will be demonstrated, there are
serious obstacles to immediate implementation of plaintiffs'
plan.
The basic fallacy underlying plaintiffs' con
tention; and the principal source of the plan's rigidity,
lies in their definition of a desegregated school. While
plaintiffs argue that any school within 15% of the system
wide racial mix is desegregated, the black-white population
in the school system is so disparate that these parameters
range from 56.4% to 86.4% black. Clearly, it is unreasonable
to conclude that, without examining anything more than the
system-wide racial composition, a school that is 55% black is
a racially identifiable white school. Equally clear, it is
absurd to label a school that is 05% black as "desegregated"
merely because it falls within 15% of the system-wide racial
mix. To do so renders the concept of racial identifiability
-61-
meaningless. While the Supreme Court has approved the use
of mathematical ratios in formulating school desegregation
plans, it has approved them only "as a starting point in the
process of shaping a remedy." Swann v. Board of Education,
402 U.S. 1, 25 (1971). Moreover, the Court noted that "[t]he
constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean
that every school in every community must always reflect the
racial composition of the school system as a whole." Swann v.
Board of Education, supra, at 24.
Further evidence of the rigidity of plaintiffs'
plan is found in the fact that, even after transportation,
many schools are left 80% or more black. These schools are
' not scattered at random throughout the system but are clustered
in the predominantly black center of the city. See defendant
Board's Exhibit 10. Another element of rigidity is the arbitrary
selection of pairings in the plaintiffs' plan. Pairings within
each cluster were made solely on the basis of the racial compo
sition of the paired schools. In making the pairings, the
plaintiffs did not consider the demography of the school
district. Consequently, students are often bussed past a
near by 85-100% black school and are transported to another
85-100% black school further from their homes. To do so serves
no useful purpose and merely increases travel distances. After
all this effort, plaintiffs' plan still leaves the majority of
schools racially identifiably black.
Finally, many pairings result in pupil assign
ments in excess of stated school capacity. For example, the
prox^oscd enrollment of 10 junior high schools exceeds capacity.
- 62-
V
At the senior high level, the plaintiffs' plan avoids over
capacity only by assuming a correction factor for dropouts
that projects 13,865 fewer blacks in grades 10 through 12.
There is no justification in this record for assuming such
a dropout rate for blades. Records are not available to
reflect the race of dropouts, and moreover during the 197 3
1974 school year only 9,925 ninth through twelfth grade
students dropped out of the system. Plaintiffs’ plan further
attempts to remedy i lie problem of over-capacity through the
use of the sixth, seventh, and ninth grades as "swing grades."
Students in a "swing grade" could be reassigned to any
school having capacity. However, there is insufficient
justification in the record to conclude that use of "swing
grades" will solve the problem of over-capacity. In any
event, "swing grades" create a greater burden upon the .
children involved and increase the amount of transportation
necessary to effect plaintiffs’ plan
Our second objection to the plaintiffs' plan
is that while it involves extensive bussing, it produces
only negligible desegregative results. Plaintiffs' plan
itself is a positive pronouncement that the disparate black-
white ratio in this district precludes appreciable desegregation.
After transporting 77,900 to 81,000 students, plaintiffs' plan
accomplishes only an insignificant reduction in the black popula
tion of the vast majority of Detroit schools. If the white popula
tion were predominant, plaintiffs' plan could achieve desegre
gation. Under the practicalities at hand, however, plaintiffs'
plan is unsatisfactory because it does not distinguish between
v --63-
1 '
V
bussing black students to majority black schools and majority
white schools. As a consequence, it casts a heavy and
unnecessary burden upon the black students, notwithstanding
the fact that the remedy to be fashioned is to bestow upon
them benefits that were denied in the past. Black students
arc being asked to travel great distances to attend another
conspicuously majority black school. The purpose of plaintiffs'
plan is unexplainable to the children who are bussed many miles
to a school with a racial composition not much different from
the composition of their neighborhood school. Plaintiffs'
plan could not find the acceptance in the black community
necessary to the success of a desegregation plan. Moreover,
the cost of the number of busses needed to effect plaintiffs'
plan would financially cripple the Detroit School System,
which has been operating on a survival budget for the past
few years. Although the plaintiffs suggest that only 271
busses would be needed to implement their plan, we have con
cluded that 840 busses is a more appropriate estimate.
Further, the plaintiffs ignore the fact that the Detroit School
System does not presently possess the expertise to manage,
route, maintain, and store such a large fleet of busses.
Although the Detroit School District has in the past bussed
as many as 14,400 students to relieve overcrowding, to
I
accommodate dangerous crossings, or to transport students ex
cessive distances, such bussing has been accomplished haphazard
ly through the use of chartered city transportation. Moreover,
the record disclosed that the Detroit School Board has not yet
formulated bus routes to accommodate a transportation plan.
-64
It is no answer thaL testimony was presented to t..e effect
that'certain school system personnel could devise the routes
in a relatively short period of time; it is equally apparent
from the record that their expertise to do so is questionable.
The establishment of such a vast transportation
network would bring chaos and financial destruction to the
school system, with the main result of bussing black children
to majority black schools. In the final analysis, plaintiffs'
plan results largely in isolating minority students in con
centrated minority schools, changing dnly the location of the
school that each student attends. Moreover, the price for
this insignificant change is the severe burden of massive
transportation. The Constitution does not require that such
an extraordinary and costly remedy l>e applied where it produces
only negligible desegregative results. If such an extraordinary
remedy as bussing is to be employed, it should be used to bus
black children to white schools, not to schools that are pre
dominantly black. The use of such a remedy in these circum
stances contains all of the seeds for resegregation, which this
court has stated must be avoided at all costs.
C. The Dei ndant Board of Education Plan. The
Detroit Board of Education, unlike the boards in other school
desegregation cases, is willing to assume its constitutional
duty to desegregate the Detroit School System. The President
of the Board and the members of the bi-racial administrative
staff have convinced the court they will willingly implement
\
-65-
Persuasive evidenceany desegregation order the court may issue,
of assured co-operation from the Board and General Superintendent
lies in the fact that they have promptly complied with each
and every order of this court. Pursuant to an order of the
court, the Board timely submitted a comprehensive desegregative
plan; they did not choose to rely upon a "free choice" plan or
other methods that provide part-time desegregation. In addi
tion to many educational components and other desegregative
devices, the plan includes massive bussing for permanent re- ■
assignment of students. Moreover, the'attorney for the Board
has persistently assured the court that the Board would willingly
implement any plan the court may order. The Board has vehemently
argued that since the primary responsibility for bringing forth
a constitutional desegregation plan rests in the hands of a
local school board [Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15
(1971); Davis v. School District of City of Pontiac, Inc.,
443 F.2d 573, 577 (6th Cir. 1971)], other plans should not be
considered for implementation by the court. We were persuaded,
however, that a desegregation plan must be considered in light
of all available alternatives. Green v. County School Board,
391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968).
Notwithstanding the Board's co-operative disposi
tion, we perceive from the evident: .ry hearing and from informa
tion furnisheet to the court both by the Community Relations
Service and our own court-appointed experts that the plan
adopted by the Board is a compromise taking into account many
divergent views. In January 1975, before this court's order
to submit a desegregation plan, the Board created the "Office
V ~
The defendant Board took its first .step to desegregate the school
system - is early as 1970 when it: attempted to implement the April 7,
1970 plan. Tli i . attempt was frustrated only by acts of the
Mi cln gan 1 ,e<j i s 1., tu i:<:.
v
of Desegregation" to prepare a desegregation plan. This
Office was staffed by many people with divergent views.
The vote to approve the final plan was 9 to 4 , split along
racial lines. Competing factions within the Board together
w’ith their following have held widely differing views on
desegregation. Throughout the remedial hearing, there was
excessive speculation concerning what the court would
mandate as constitutionally required for desegregation.
As a consequence, the plan as submitted was
not well documented. The plan did not inform the court of
the extent to which any of the programs suggested existed
in the school district at the present time. Nor did the
plan present alternatives to the pairings and clusters
suggested. Therefore, the court deemed it necessary to
commission its experts to obtain information necessary to
evaluate the suggested educational components. The court
further commissioned its experts to present additional
alternatives to the transportation component contained in the
plan in order to evaluate the constitutionality of the plan
as submitted by the Board.
Having considered the alternatives in light of
all the "practicalities" at hand, we conclude that the Board's
goal of desegregating by eliminating racially identifiable
white schools meets constitutional standards for desegregating
the Detroit School System. Moreover, we approve the Board's
view that the plan must include educational components allow
ing for further desegregation and assuring a successful
desegregative effort. However, the plan taken as a whole is
-67-
J
not free from objection. While disavowing any attempt to
adhere to fixed racial ratios for each school, the Board's
plan does just that. The Board sought to determine the racial
mix that provides the greatest degree of meaningful inter
action between the races while at the same t ime providing
reliable assurances of stability. Having established that
schools in the 40-60% range have not been changed by demographic
shifts, the Board sought to impose this ratio (which is in
reality 50%-50% plus or minus 10%) on all of the schools in
volved in its plan. *
Rigid adherence to racial percentages is not
only undesirable but constitutionally infirm. Racial percentages
may be used as a starting point in formulating a remedy, but it
is essential that all of the critical circumstances apparent
in a particular school district be afforded proper weight.
Swann v. Board of Education, supra. It would be simplistic
to.assume that the mere adherence to racial quotas is suffi
cient to counter the pervasive effects of years of segregation.
Because of inflexible adherence to these percentages, some of
the Board's school pairings are made without regard to the
facts at hand. For example, some of the Board's school pair
ings include schools that are located in bi-racial residential
areas and have become desegregated naturally. To bus white or
black childreh from these schools is to undergo transportation
solely bo accommodate a racial count. Such transportation
serves no desegregative purpose and should be avoided by the
Detroit Board. Where a school already satisfies the definition
-68
\
of a desegregated, school, it should not be included in a
transportation plan.
Thus, while we accept the Board's rationale
of providing desegregation by eliminating the racially
identifiable white schools, we must reject the Board's plan
itself because, like the plaintiffs' plan, it is too rigidly
structured, seeking to obtain fixed quota:, through massive
bussing, and fails to take account of the "practicalities."
Additionally, the Board's plan is objectionable in that it
fails to consider techniques for changing the racial composi
tions of schools that do not involve transportation. ‘Borderline
schools are paired in the Board's plan even where re-zoning
across regional lines might suffice to produce desegregation
without transportation. Re-zoning is preferable to bussing
because it reduces transportation, permits walk-in schools
and serves bi-raeial neighborhoods. Rather than pair schools
■and transport students, the Board should first exhaust the
possibility of restructuring attendance zones. One-way bussing
might also reduce the amount of transportation needed to de
segregate where capacity permits.
The Board's plan is further objectionable in that
it needlessly changes the grade structures of schools involved
in the plan. It seems to us that traditional grade structures
isuch as K-5, 6-3 and 9-12, which are preferable because
irregular grade structures hamper school curriculum offerings,
can be achieved.
Moreover, we are not convinced that the choice of
schools involved in the pairings was not influenced by political
considerations unrelated to the effect of the individual, pairing
-69-
1 •
on desegregation. In order to detail our concern, we must
take account of the structure of the Detroit School System.
The decentralized system was conceived to afford an opportuni
ty for the community to exercise greater control over its
school system; however, decentralization as practiced in
Detroit has not truly accomplished this goal.
Pursuant to Act 48 of the Michigan Public Acts
of 1970 (Mich. Comp. Laws 388.171 et seq.), the Detroit School
System is divided into eight regions, each of which is permitted
a vast amount of autonomy. Each region has its own board
of education selected by the people within the region. The
board member r... -Giving the most votes not only is elected
chairman of the regional board, but also is a member of the
Central Board of Edcuation. Thus, eight of the thirteen seats
on the Central Board are occupied by regional chairmen. It is
obvious that through political maneuvering, the eight
regional chairmen can combine to promote regional insterests
at the expense of the over-all interests of the school system.
Thus, desegregation could be hampered through the political
maneuvering of the regional board members combining to promote
merely regional interests. Since the regional members consti
tute a majority of the board, there is no way to ensure that
the interests'of the entire school system can be advanced.
. We are unable to x^e^ceive from the Act a legis
lative intent to create the structure that in fact develox^ed
in the Detroit Schools. Rather than decentralizing to disperse
bureaucratic authority, the Detroit Schools have develox^ed
another completely burcaucratized political institution: the
-70-
regional boards of education. As originally conceived, the
legislature envisioned "community centered schools", not
separate independent bureaucracies substituting for a larger
one. Moreover, the present structure of the system frustrates
the achievement of educational goals common to all schools
throughout the system. The system is no longer a top-to-
bottom command educational organization. What has impressed
this court as a competent, dedicated staff at the top lacks
the means of assuring that its orders and programs will be
executed at the bottom. Any programs designed to advance the
interests of the entire system can be frustrated by any one
of the eight separate regions. An edict from the top can be
diluted so that by the time it readies the lower level it
leaves little or no impact.
Moreover, the testimony has indicated that the
lines of demarcation between the central and regional boards
have become obscured. The eight regional chairman acting in
conjunction can effectively strip the Central Board of all of
its power. Thus, the Central Board appears to have been
relegated to the role of advise and consent, and it is apparent
from the "Guidelines for Decentralization" (Defendant Board's
Exhibit 4) that the Central Board must consent more
frequently than it advises. Thus, Detroit voters have been
bequeathed no more than a vote for a regional board in
exchange for the Central Board. Nothing further towa'rd achiev
ing community control has developed in five years of decentral
ization. The political institution that has developed has
cast a heavier financial burden upon the people of Detroit
without resulting in a greater voice for the community in the
-71-
operation of the school system. Moreover, the structure has
not been able to develop or hold public interest in the
schools. Thus, the system now proposes to pay for the community
relations and participation that the legislature thought would
be engendered by the Act itself. The legislature may wish to
take a fresh look at the structure that has developed in order
to bring it more in line with the stated goals of
decentralization.
It is conceivable that the regions themselves
might have made demands concerning the very pairings contained
in the plan; by soliciting the support of other regions, each
region could effectively veto the inclusion of any given
school in the plan. Evidence of such political accomodation
might exist in some of the pairings chosen for the Board's
plan. Some schools that fall within the Board’s racial
parameters are nevertheless paired to reduce their percentage
of black students. For example, Hanneman School is reduced
from 58% to 48% black, Cary is reduced from 58% to 44%
black, McMillan is reduced from 52% to 41% black, and Edison
is reduced from 65% to 51% black. Transportation for the
purpose of reducing the percentage of black students in already
desegregated schools is clearly unnecessary and is inconsistent
with the Board's avowed purpose of eliminating racially
identifiable white schools. While the court cannot conclude
that the inclusion of such schools in the Board's plan
necessarily resulted from accomodation of regional interests
for political motives, neither can the court rule out such a
possibility. •
-72-
.the Board's plan also includes a number of
educational components intended to facilitate desegregation.
Some are unrelated to desegregation and have been inserted
with the hope that they could be implemented by court order.
Moreover, the magnitude and the importance of some components
are overly exaggerated. In its entirety, the Board plan
requires an expenditure of more than $60 million. However,
many of the proposed components have merit. Our remedy includes-
many of the Board's suggested components and adds others that
we feel are constitutionally mandated.
D * s' Objections to the Board's Plan. The
plaintiffs' principal complaint is that after application of
the Detroit Board s plan, the racial composition of student
N
enrollment in Regions I, V and VIII, which comprise the inner
core of the city, remains virtually unchanged at 90% to 95%
black. Plaintiffs complain that the racial composition of
student enrollment in S7 elementary schools, 18 junior high
schools, and 8 high schools in those three regions remains
unchanged. Considering the practicalities at hand, we do
not find that this objection presents any constitutional
impediment to the Board's plan. If the number of all-black
or predominantly blade schools that remain untouched appears
to be large, it must be remembered that the school district
itself is large; it is the fifth largest in the country and
-73-
.tains a total of 32G schools spread over a 136 square mile
a in which whites are outnumbered by blacks.
Plaintiffs refuse to acknowledge that the racial
position of these three regions precludes their inclusion
a desegregation plan. In Region V, for example, there are
351 students of whom (excluding the Spanish surnamed) only
(3.1%) are white. In Region VIII, there are 29,725 students
whom (excluding Spanish surnamed) only 1,329 (4.5%) are
te. In Region I, there are 24,907 students of whom (exclud-
Spanish surnamed) -only 2,049 (8.2%) are white. Clearly,
would be futile to attempt desegregation within the
ndaries of these regions; thus, a desegregation plan including
:se three regions would have to cross regional boundaries.
include these regions in the Board's plan would bring
>ut the same result that pertains after application of the
intiffs' own plan. The plaintiffs' plan itself is sufficient
of that any attempt to include these regions produces only
ligible results. Application of plaintiffs' plan "would
,e the Detroit School System more identifiably Black, and
ive many of its schools 75 to 90 per cent Black." (bindings
8/
Fact - March 28, 1972, 484 F.2d 215, 243-44 (1973.)
That inclusion of these three regions in a desegre-
ion plan would produce only negligible desogregative results
he district court's ruling on the Octroifc-onl
n is set out in full by the Court of Appeals,
is not otherwise officially reported.
y deseqregation
id. , at 2 4 2-245• T
«. •
They argue that the Board's decision to allow certain untouched
schools to operate under capacity while certain other schools
included in the plan are over-utilized is based upon the
fear that middle class white families will flee the school
district, the consideration of which is constitutionally
impermissible. It is true that "white flight", like the degree
of community resistance to ci desegregation order, is not one
of the practicalities" to be considered in formulating a
just, feasible and workable plan. The law must be obeyed
notwithstanding these considerations.* The Supreme Court has
stated on several occasions that white flight is not justifica
tion for limiting the degree of desegregation; nor will it
justify a school board's refusal to desegregate. Wright v.
Council of. City of Emporia, 107 U.S,. 451 (1972); United States
v * Scotland Neck Bd, of Educ., 407 U.S. 484 (1972). Our own
and other circuits have similarly ruled. Higgins v. Board of
Education of City of Grand Rapids, 508 F.2d 779 (6th Cir. 1974);
United States v. Board of Sch. Com'rs, Indianapolis, Ind., 503
F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1974). To hold otherwise would be tantamount
to depriving school children of their constitutional rights in
favor of those who prefer segregation. Moreover, consideration
of white flight would be senseless in view of available
statistical data contained in the United States Census
Bureau Statistics demonstrating that the exodus from the City
or Detroit occurred in the decade preceding the filing of this
-7 6--
V
A/7
litigation and has subsided since that date. In any event,
the evidence presented does not support the conclusion that the
Detroit Board was responsive to the fear of white flight in
the formulation of their desegregation plan.
On the other hand, it is unreasonable to expect
the Central Board to administer a large school system in a
vacuum. It is one thing to consider white flight to avoid
or limit desegregation; it is quite another thing to consider
the practical problems with which a board of education is
fjaced in attempting to achieve an acceptable racial balance
without aggravating conditions that produce a self-defeating
exodus of the middle class white and black. Higgins v. Board
of Education of City of Grand Rapids, supr.i . Detroit's
citizens are faced with a tax burden greater than any other
city in the State of Michigan. Their community over-burden,
caused by the U-. n ee of taxing authority exercised by the
City of Detroit, is not fully funded by the State. The Board
operates in a city that has left little room for taxation
to operate the school system. The community at large has •
already indicated its lack of support for propositions designed
to increase the Board's millage by rejecting such proposals
at the polls eight times. Not only is it constitutionally
I
permissible to take these "practicalities at hand" into account
H 7 - -
In addition, it would be absurd for the court to consider
white flight in view of the fact that there is an abundance of
literature which acknowledges that white flight is perceived
more as a function of class than race or resistance to desegrega
tive orders. See Nancy St. John, School Desegregation, Outcomes
for Children, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
-77-
in forming a desegregation plan, but it would be irresponsi
ble for this court ‘not to consider such practicalities where
the very survival of an already bankrupt school system is
at stake. To act irresponsibly would deny all school
children the right to quality education.
The Board was justified in considering the
"phenomenon f resegregation" in devising its plan for
desegregation. Well-intentioned middle class blacks and
whites will prefer private schools and suburban schools to
the prospect of remaining in a school district becoming
incapable of delivering basic educational ourvices. A white
and middle class black exodus will assuredly result if,as
a result of desegregation orders, the school district became
chaotic and hostile to intellectual achievement. It was
these “practicalities" that were considered by the Board in
attempting to achieve a degree of racial stability, and we
find that it is constitutionally permissible to take such
practicalities into account. As we have previously said,
the plaintiffs' plan itself sufficiently demonstrates the
justification for allowing one-race schools to operate in
Detroit. The alternative is to make each and every school
in the district identifiably black.
Finally, plaintiffs have presented much evidence
establishing that black children in segregated schools suffer
adverse educational and psychological damage. This is a
principle that has already been acknowledged by the courts,
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); 349 U.S. 294
(1955), and indeed this principle itself justifies the
-70-
t
imposition of a desegregation order„ However, the parties
differ on the definition of segregation. We have demonstrated
the fallacy underlying Plaintiffs' definition. As a result
of the application of their plan, all of the schools through
out the district become racially identifiable black. Thus,
psychological damage is more likely to occur as a result of
Plaintiffs' plan than as a result of the plan the court adopts.
There are indicia for assuring a perception that schools are
desegregated other than the presence of white students: Equal
facilities, integrated faculties, and meaningful guarantees
that every student is welcome in any school notwithstanding race.
Oftentimes, as Plaintiffs' plan demonstrates, the use of
fixed quotas will not give assurances' of desegregation, but
instead may tend to exteno segregation throughout the entire
system. In a district where the racial population is as
disparate as in this district, the existence of predominantly
black schools is not demeaning to blacks. A plan that does
no more than attempt to achieve the system-wide ratio in each
and every school may result in transporting children merely
to scatter a few white students here and there among majority
black students. To seek this result assumes that there is
some divine grace in being white. The notion that the mere
I
dispersing of whites here and there is educationally
beneficial to black students is demeaning. An appropriate
desegregation plan recognizes all the practicalities with which
a particular school district is faced. The validity of a
desegregation plan must be based upon constitutional and equit
able rights of individual students and upon the educational
-79-
goals that desegregation seeks to attain.
' E. General Conclusions Pertaining to Both Plans.
Many definitions of desegregation have been advanced by courts,
educators, and social scientists. Some have said that not
more than 90% may be of any one race. Others hold that
not more than 50% may be of any one minority group. Still
others insist on fixed racial quotas that reflect ethnic
proportions prevailing in a given area such as a state, county
or local community. Some argue for precise ratios while
others find that a specified tolerance, expressed as an *
arbitrary percentage that does not relate to racial compsi-
tions but rather is devised to accommodate an approach to
planned desegregation, is necessary. If school desegregation
does not occur naturally in bi-racial neighborhoods, it must
be planned. Limitations may be imposed by the desegregated
area. For example, the black proportion of the population
can be so great that racial balance will inevitably result
in majority black schools. In such an area, only two alterna
tives are available: The desegregation area must be enlarged
or flexibility must be permitted in defining a desegregated
setting.
. While there are many differences between the plans
i
proposed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Board, both plans
share the common defect of relying on fixed racial percentages.
Both plans attempt to conform all of the schools included
therein within a given tolerance range of a
-80- ■
predetermined racial percentage. We have indicated that the
Constitution does not require such an inflexible approach
to desegregation. Doth plans fail to take account of the
practicalities at hand., such as demographic trends, financial
limitations, existing grade structures and naturally integrated
neighborhoods. Both plans rely exclusively on transportation
to reassign pupils without exploring alternate techniques.
In the final analysis, it is because both plans are inatten
tive to such practicalities that both plans must be rejected.
Because both plans ignore the "practicalities," both plans
require massive transportation that is, at least to some
degree, unnecessary to achieve desegregation.
Plaintiffs contend that there is only one
constitution equally applicable to all school districts,
ilius, they argue that since we would not hesitate to apply
their parameters to a 72.5% white school district, we should
equally apply them to a 72.5% black school district. We
think such an argument m the context of this school district
is superficial. The argument ignores the fact that the
practicalities of the situation", which the constitution
requires that we take into account, would be different if
the school district were 72.5% white. There would not be,
for example, irresponsible bussing of black children to
black identifiable schools. Thus, we are required to bear
in mind that plaintiffs represent a class of blacks, and
that the bussing of black students to identifiably black
schools creates a burden on the blacks, the very class whom
the remedy is supposed to benefit, far in excess of the
-81-
V
benefit resulting therefrom. Moreover, because plaintiffs
represent a class of blacks and not a class of whites,
desegregation requires only that plaintiffs themselves
be represented in significant proportions throughout the
school district through the elimination of identifiably
white schools. That a unitary school system in Detroit
" !would not require the elimination of black identifiable
schools as well as obvious from the plaintiffs' argument:
If the system were 72.5% white, dispersing the blacks through
out the entire system would not eliminate white identifiable
schools.
Moreover, that elimination of white identifiable
schools is sufficient for desegregation in Detroit is apparent
from consideration of the evil desegregation is designed to
correct. As plaintiffs have argued throughout this litigation,
the evil of segregation lies in the devastating psychological
impact upon black children of the knowledge that they are being
excluded from white schools. "To separate them from others
of similar age and qualifications solely because of their
race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status
in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in
a way unlikely ever to be undone." Drown v. Board of Education
347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954). However, when blacks are represented
in all schools throughout the system, i.e., when white
identifiable schools are eliminated, this psychological
effect no longer exists. There no longer is a denial of
their right to equal protection when there are no schools
from which they are excluded.
-02-
We have concluded that the rationale behind the
Board's proposed plan promises meaningful disestablishment of
the state-imposed segregation. We perceive it to be our
obligation to assess the effectiveness of the Board's plan
in the light of the circumstances present and options
available. Accordingly, the remedy we propose will set
forth constitutional guidelines. Green v. Countv School
Board of ITew Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1369).
From the above, it is apparent that a fresh
start is required to dismantle the remaining vestiges of a
dual school system. We are prepared now to furnish the Board
with guidelines solely devoted to this purpose and to assure
quality education for all children in the system.
-83-
V. RF.r F.ni'u, c v i p e l t u e s
ThQt remedial guidelines that we detail herein
define constitutional requirements for dismantling the
dual school system found to exist in Detroit. In fashion
ing these guidelines, we have carefully considered the
"practicalities of the situation" existing in this district.
The guidelines are characterized by the flexibility needed
to accommodate conflicting community concerns. We have
not, however, allowed flexibility to substitute for
effectiveness and it is our belief that these guidelines
will'achieve quality desegregated education for all children
Recognizing that the interest of the community
as a whole is a legitimate concern of the district court
in formulating a desegregation remedy, the Supreme Court
has furnished the basic guideline: .
"Having once found a violation,.the
district judge or school authorities
should make every effort to achieve the
greatest possible degree of actual deseg
regation, taking into account the practi
calities of the situation." Davis v. board
of School Commissi oners of Mobile County ,
4 0 2 IITg . 32, 37 (1971).
Because a desegregation plan is comparable to other equitable
remedies, these guidelines are not premised upon a supposed
inflexible constitutional standard that each school must have
a predetermined racial composition. Swann v
Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971); Mi 11iken v
418 U.S. 717 (1974). Accordingly, there may
Board of
Bradley,
be variances
in the racial mix
a region. The gui
are artificial and
be tween regions and between schools within
delines recognize that inflexible parameters
arbitrary and that their application
-84-
to the Detroit schools would disrupt and bankrupt the
entire system. Thus, rather than focus on each school
in the system, the guidelines balance the practicalities
which affect the system as a whole. Reflecting such
practicalities, the guidelines recognize the impossibility
of eliminating all racially identifiable black schools.
Further, consistent with general equitable
principles, the guidelines balance the burden imposed
against the desegregative results achieved. They recognize
/
that transporting children is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed only when appreciable results may be accomplished
thereby, and then only when other alternatives have been
exhausted. Therefore, our guidelines do not require trans
porting black children to predominantly black schools.
Nor do they require transporting black or white children
from naturally desegregated attendance areas. The guidelines
acknowledge that the goal of desegregating this school
system requires the elimination of racially identifiable
white schools. Therefore, the guidelines require that a
representative number of black students be assigned to
every school in the district. However, taking account of
the wide variance in racial composition existing throughout
this school district, these guidelines do not attempt to
I
eliminate racially identifiable white schools by imposing
«
fixed ratios. .’e suggest a 50-r>0 racial mix only as a
starting point; we permit variations that take into
account the desegregative results likely to be achieved.
-85-
». •\
Further, the guidelines recognize that a
unitary school systen need not: rigidly reflect the
system-wide racial ratio in every school in the system.
The guidelines consider criteria for measuring a unitary
system other than ratios, such as faculty assignments,
i
staff assignments, extracurricular activities, equality
of facilities, and assignment patterns. Moreover,jthe
central theme of the guidelines is that equal educational
opportunities must be available for all children. An
equitable, workable and feasible plan must do more
than just reassign students. Thus, the guidelines -
provide for educational components designed both to
equalize the delivery of educational services at all
schools and to restore quality education, which has
deteriorated due to past acts of discrimination. Still
other guidelines outline components designed to assure
successful implementation of the court order by meeting
head-on the special problems accompanying desegregation.
From these guidelines a plan should evolve
that creates a unitary school system in which every
school in the community will be open to all students,
regardless of color. At the same time, the guidelines
do not neglect those considerations that would make it
difficult for the system to maintain the financial
support of the community. Inherent in these guidelines
is the recognition that a desegregation case requires
a search for a solut;on that is equitable and fair to
all. Only in this way can stability be assured and a
-86-
sound educational system be preserved for the entire
Community *
1. Guidelines for Revision of the Board Plan -
Student Transportation
The guidelines that follow will aid the
Board in producing a plan that eliminates the remaining
racially identifiably white schools in the district by
reassigning black students, who are in the majority,
throughout the schools of the city. It has been
emphasized, however, that these guidelines do not
sanction adherence to fixed racial ratios; they permit
variances derived from the constitutionally required
consideration of the "practicalities of the situation.
Davis v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402
U.S. 33, 37 (1971). The guidelines recognize that
variation in racial ratios is a function of many factors
and does not necessarily diminish the degree of desegre
gation .
From these guidelines, a plan should evolve
that effectively desegregates, urines into equitable balance
loy
the objectives sought and the results to be achieved, and
exhausts all alternatives before settling on the best
method to achieve its results. Such guidelines follow:
ijy
la -Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) the
District Courts .are reminded that a desegregation case r£
no different than an ordinary case in equity. ihe court
stated: "...the task is to correct, by a balance of the
individual and collective interests, that condition that
offends the constitution."
-87-
(a) Where possible, desegregation should
be accomplished by re-zoning attendance
11/
areas in lieu of transporting children.
Before using transportation, the,Board must
establish that all re-zoning methods have
■ been exhausted. The re-zoning should be
attempted only after all the requirements
of the Court's order are considered. The
Board is reminded that when re-zoning efforts
are attempted, regional lines need not be
respected; when the choice is between pre
serving regional lines and bussing, regional
lines must give way. Re-zoning will reduce
the amount of transportation required to
desegregate and will permit the use of
walk-in schools in integrated neighborhoods,
(b) The revised transportation plan should
avoid bussing black children to predominantly
black schools. A school that is 55% or more
black is a predominantly black school.
Neither black nor white children should be
bussed to schools that are already desegre
gated according to these guidelines; trans
portation under such circumstances produces
Li/Although the plaintiffs attempted to desegregate by rezoning
attendance areas, it is this court's belief that their failure
to do so was a result of their definition of a desegregated
school. There is no evidence in the record that, given this
court's more flexible approach to desegregation, rezoning
attendance areas will not be a useful desegregative tool.
-80
an inequitable burden upon the children
affected. 'Where only a small change in
enrollment s needed to briny a school
within the 10% to 55% range, the use of
satellite zones should be explored. We
trust the Board is assembling the data
base suggested by the Court to create
computer print-outs showing the racial
composition of neighborhoods by grids.
When this data are compiled the Board will
be able to avoid transportation under the
conditions descri. -d above.
The Detroit School System now transports 14,400
students by chartered bus to relieve overcrowding or to over
come dangerous crossings and long distances. Attempts should
be made to accommodate these children at neighborhood schools
by re-zoning where the neighborhood school is an equal facility.
However, if such transportation is necessary to desegregate
the receiving school, it should continue. In the event that
it is essential to bus these students they should be trans
ported to aid desegregation only in accordance with these
guidelines.
(c) Elementary schools should not be paired
when one or both of the schools already satisfies
‘ 12/
the Court's definition of a desegregated school.
For example, in the Southwest Constellation, the Carrie School
is paired although it is already 58% black. In the Chadsey
Constellation, the Hanneman School is 58% black. Moreover, ie
Board plan precludes students within walking distance of a
school from going to that school. For example, the ''.art Elemen
tary attendance zone is in the Rcdford area, yet Burt students
have been assigned to Cooley rather than Rcdford. Similar y,
students- in the Schultz attendance zone should go to Mumford,
yet they are assigned to Bedford.
-09-
Where desegregation cannot be accomplished
by re-zoning or the use of satellite
schools, the Board may pair appropriate
schools. In making the pairings, the
Board should, wherever possible, pair an
identifiably white school with the nearest
school exceeding 55% black enrollment.
In this way, the distances involved in
transportation will be kept to a minimum.
(d) The Board should seek to maintain
uniform grade structures, consisting of
K-5, 6-8 and 9-12. Since an excessive
variety of grade structures makes it
difficult to provide school offerings
consistent with quality education, con
sistent grade structures are preferable.
Irregular grade structures would make it
difficult to incorporate the components con
tained in the Court's order and would make
the plan more difficult to monitor.
(e) Desegregation and Integration Guide
Translated Into Percentages and Racial Patios.
This guideline is derived from assessing the
I
practicalities confronting the Detroit School
System, such as a rapidlv increasing black student
' iy
population and meager financial resources.
it ~~ " r " ~Another factor that the Board may wish to consider m making
its pairings i.s the "Weighted Poverty Index" of each school
which varies in Detroit from 0.13 to well over 40. The soc.io
economic mix, as measured by the poverty index, is a significant
factor and should be considered along with the racial, mix. hs
far as possible, the Board should strive to have no school
with a poverty index greater than 15.
-00-
Schools with a res.i lent population in the
service area of between 30% and 55% black
shall be considered desegregated. If a school
is within this range, no change in pupil
assignment is necessary. Further pupils
need not be reassigned merely because a
school's racial composition exceeds 55%
black; the "practicalities" may dictate t
leaving the school alone. However, in no
event should a school' remain more than 7 0%
white. ' *
(f) Elementary Schools. Consistent with
the foregoing, elementary schools should be
f
desegregated by re-zoning if possible. An
elementary school with a resident population
in the service area of between 30-50% black
has achieved a permissible degree of desegre
gation. In those schools where a small change
in enrollment will bring the school within
these parameters, attempts should be made
to do so by using a satellite zone. In
selecting satellite zones, an appropriate
group of children to select would be a group
residing in an elementary service area that
includes a middle school to which the children
can walk. Transporting a child for his elementary
school career would be more equitable if the
child could later walk to a middle school.
-91-
Although it may be impossible to divide the
burden involved in a desegregation plan
equally, the Board must avoid gross inequities.
Particularly, there should not be great variations
. in the transportation burden falling on adjacent
areas because such variations will influence
residential patterns. The Board should further
avoid bussing children out of an integrated
service area.
Since K-5 grade structures will result
in excessive school capacity, the Board can
take antiquated school buildings out of
service. These closings and subsequent pupil
reassignments are intended to equalize facilities
and to further desegregation both by adjusting
racial composition and by facilitating a
non-discriminatorv construction program. The
Board may also consider closing some schools
temporarily if.further desegregation would
result.
Elementary schools that cannot be
desegregated by re-zoning or by satellite
zones shall be paired. If possible, the grade
structure at each paired school shall remain
K-5 provided the paired schools have approxi
mately equal enrollments. Pairings need not
be made one on one; for example, a C1 0 0-pupil
V-
-92-
school can be paired with a 300 and 600-
pupil school. If maintaining the grade
structure K-5 is not possible, the changing
of grade structures will be permitted.
Enrollments in schools can be re-structured
by adjusting the service area zone lines.
The paired schools will be desegregated
by exchanging pupils between the pairs.
One-half of the pupils in each grade from
each school will be bussed to the school
or schools in the p̂ .Li'. The classes will
be rotated annually or semi-annually so that
each child will attend his neighborhood school
at least .every other year. Teachers also may
be rotated so they can continue to teach the
same group of students. When the pairings
are completed, students should enter integrated
classrooms.
(g) Middle Schools. Middle schools will
serve Grades 6-3. To provide for the maximum
degree of desegregation, there will be two types
of middle schools: "zoned middle schools"
and "open enrollment middle schools." The
open enrollment schools will function similarly to
current magnet middle schools, but will have
a controlled racial mix generally 55-701 black.
The racial composition may exceed these parameters
-93-
1 •
\
where practicalities require, but in no
event should a school exceed 50i white.
L
The zoned middle schools need not have ahic
zones tnat correspond to elementary service mge
boundaries. In developing the zones, the
1
aintain
Board shall provide walk-in schools wherever awing —
possible. Although a zoned middle sc jiool 3
that is 30-55% black shall be considered • ability '
desegregated, the Board's target should be iesegre-
50% black enrollment'at this level. In aally
developing zones for middle schools, the Board
may consider satellite zones but such zones
the
should be avoided where it can be shown that e an
t
they would create housing instability resulting ivate
from differing treatment of adjacent neighbor- /
hoods. that
Generally, no child should be bussed for aessible
more than five of his first eight years. Any re- .
child that is bussed for desegregation at the aducation
elementary level for five years should not
be bussed for desegregation to a middle school.
tive
If the Board finds compliance with this guide
line impossible, the Board shall report the
awing
exceptions by numbers, race and location. ted,
(h) Summary. be believe these guidelines a
provide sufficient latitude to accommodate ng from
the practicalities needed to be considered % black
ted.
-94-
DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS
1975-1930
% Black
Enrollment
35
30
Year 1961 1965 1970 1974 1975 1980
*proj ected
•v. -
-96-
«. •
. (b) In providing further desegregation,
a 50-50 enrollment may be used as a starting
point for reassigning students, but no school
shall be less than 301 black.
(c) Pairings shall involve only schools
with enrollments under 301 or over 5 5%̂ black.
To minimize travel distances, pairings shall
be made between each white school and the near-
/ '
est predominantly black school.
(d) As far as possible, the schools will
maintain a uniform grade structure of K-5,
6 - 8 and 9-12.
(e) Elementary schools will enroll children
in Grades K-5. Classrooms or half classrooms
will be exchanged between the paired schools
on a rotating basis, permitting each child to
attend his home school at least every other year.
Not all elementary school children will attend
paired schools; some will reside in integrated
neighborhoods, and as many elementary schools
as possible will be desegregated by redesigning
attendance zones. Where possible, satellite
zones rather than two-way bussing will be used.
Where bussing is needed, bus trips will be as
short as possible. The change in grade structure
from K— 6 to K—5 will generate excess school
facilities, enabling a number of antiquated
schools to be taken out of service.
-97-
(f) Middle schools, 6 - 8 , will be of two
types: "open enrollment" and "zoned schools."
In keeping with these guidelines, open enroll
ment schools will have racially controlled
enrollments. Where the practicalities permit,
middle schools will be 55-70% black, and no
middle school will enroll less than 50% black,
(g) The plan will involve the creation
i-iy
of vocational centers. Two high schools
may be converted into vocational centers;
students currently enrolled in these schools
will be reassigned to other nearby schools,
thus aiding desegregation. Although the
6
vocational centers will be open to all students
city-wide their racial compositions will be
controlled. Initially, no high school or
vocational center shall enroll less than 40%
minority. Thereafter, enrollments will be
controlled to conform to these guidelines. .
Curriculum studies will be necessary to adjust
the present city-wide schools such as the
Aero Mechanics High School.
See
14/
section on Vocational Education, infra.
-98-
2 . Reading and Communication Skills
. The development of proficient reading skills is
the most e sential educational service a school system can
deliver. VJhere a school lacks a successful reading program,
a child cannot be assured academic success or a beneficial
school exp. fence. Students who have not achieved^adequate
reading and communication skills cannot succeed in the main
stream of society. They are limited in their vocational
selection; their handicap necessarily precludes them from
entering the professional world. y?hile in school, they
cannot be fairly tested.
There is no educational component more directly
associated with the process of desegregation than reading.
Statistical data establish that minority youngsters lag
significantly behind their white counterparts in reading
skills, which in turn affects the ability of minority students
to follow written instructions, succeed on aptitude tests,
pass entrance examinations for colleges and universities
and compete in the world of arts, sciences, occupations
and skills. Moreover, when such conditions persist, there
is a direct effect upon the school environment. Students .
become disciplinary problems when in reaDity their problem
is directly associated with an inability to conceptualise
due to a .lack of proper reading and coinmunication skills.
As a consequence, teachers and staff assume that such minority %
students are uncducable, thus further deteriorating the school
environment for these students. To eradicate the effects of
v-99
past discrimination, a remedial reading program should be
instituted immediately to correct the deficiencies of those
mid-way in their educational experience.
The Court considers this component deserving
of top priority in a school district undergoing desegregation
Accordingly, the Court's order will direct that the develop
ment of such a program in the desegregative process be the
direct responsibility of the General Superintendent and a
iy
committee to be selected by him. We trust that such a
committee will include some of the expertise available in the
Michigan community. Detroit is fortunate in having a number
of people expert in developing learning techniques for
reading who are at the same time devoted to Detroit's
educational system. This court hopes that the General
Superintendent will personally pioneer this effort to
achieve excellence unequaled by any other school system.
1 1 / .
We direct th' General Superintendent's attention to the
Public report of the Education Task Force, as revised March
5, 1975. The recommendations with respect to development
of a reading program and suggestions contained therein
are endorsed herein.
-100-
\
- In-Service Training '
A comprehensive in-service training program is
essential to a system undergoing desegregation. A
conversion to a unitary system cannot be successful absent
an in-service training program for all teachers and staff. All
I
. . . !participants in the desegregation process must be prepared
to deal with new experiences that inevitably arise. The
order that follows pursuant to these guidelin. s requires
in-service training in such fields as teacher expectations,
human relations, minority culture, testing, the student code
of conduct, and the administration of discipline in a
desegregated system for all school personnel. The program
t
shall also include an explanation of the purpuse and nature
of each component in the desegregation order. It is known
that teachers’ attitudes toward students are affected by
desegregation. These attitudes play a critical part in the
atmosphere of a school and affect the pulse of the school
system. White and black teachers often have unhealthy
expectations of the ability and worth of students of the
opposite race. Moreover, it is knovm that teachers' expecta
tions vary with socio-economic variations among students.
These expectations must, through training, be re-oriented
i
to ensure that academic achievement of -black ,students in the
*
desegregation is not impeded. A comprehensive in-service
training program will ensure that all students are treated equally
in the educational process. The goal of a sound in-service
training program should be the awareness that there are neither
-101-
black' students or white s-udents, just students.
■ The Detroit Board of Education is advised that
Wayne State University and other universities have offered
their cooperation in this desegregation effort. Accordingly,
the Board shall request the Wayne State University College
of Education to assist in developing a comprehensive program
to provide in-service training. The court is of the view that
the program outlined in the Board plan will fulfill the
expectations of the court order. The Detroit Board is
further directed to seek assistance and funding from the-
Title IV Center at the University of Michigan, and upon
issuance of the court order, further submit proposals for
assistance to the United States Office Of Education for
Emergency School Aid Act. (ESAA) funds. Moreover, the
defendant Superintendent of Public Instruction is directed to
seek financial and personnel assistance from other state
institutions. The in-service training program as instituted
should be on-going, include all schools in the system and
be open to all personnel employed by the Detroit Board of
Education. Such in-service training sessions shall be conducted
during the school year and just prior to the opening of school.
The Board should discontinue payment to teachers for
l
attendance at such sessions on Saturdays.
\
situations in the business world. finally, it will equip
minority students with tae knowledge and ability essential
to enter occupational trades often foreclosed to them.
Accordingly, the court's order will require that
the defendants Detroit Board and State Board of Education
create vocational centers devoted to in-depth occupational
preparation in the construction trades, transportation and
health services. In addition, the order will require that
the defendants Detroit Board and the State Board of Educa
tion create two new technical high schools in which business
education will be the central part of the curriculum. * It
shall be the responsibility of the School Board and the
State Board of Education to fulfill their obligations
t
under the constitution and state law to ascertain that the -
four vocational centers created art of the highest quality.
Moreover, each of these vocational centers shall include a
Grade 13 providing advanced offerings both for those
students presently enrolled and for other students who have
left the system within the past three years.
As an immediate desegregative effort, the
Detroit Board of Education and the State Board of Education
are directed to create two such vocational centers as promptly
as circumstances permit. In order to eliminate the need for
»
new construction, two existing facilities may be selected;
♦t.he court's experts suggested that Cooley and Kettering be
utilized as vocational centers. Accordingly, the Detroit Board
-104-
4 . Vocations.1 Education - Technical High Schools
Ope 1 association with other students of varying
races, cultures and religions forms the most basic ingredient
in a student's learning experience. Children living, learning
and playing together convert a building into a human insti
tution with a pulse and personality. Students, parents
and teachers come together to live, learn and work in an
atmosphere imbued with human warmth. In this atmosphere, the
attachments born of a classroom become the most durable. A
segregated system deprives students of this interpersonal
learning experience and injures them in a lasting way. The
resulting isolation destroys the atmosphere and pulse of
a school system and, eventually, the quality of the educa
tional services rendered. Minority students in segregated
settings often lose interest in education, eventually believ
ing they have no stake in the system. This inevitable result
is reflected both in the school system's dropout rate and
in the number of students who graduate without being able to
read or spell. Thus, a segregated school system fails to
provide relevant and diversified programs to meet the needs
of the students it serves.
Vocational education is given high priority in these
guidelines because while it is able to compensate for past
■ discrimination, at the same time it serves as an effective %
tool for desegregation. It can both offer an immediate desegre
gated setting and help re-establish quality education. Voca
tional education is easily assimilated into the Magnet Program
now in effect in' this system and offers attractions that exceed
those currently available. It can serve to combat the drop
out rate successfully and prepare students for specific work
shall immediately submit a olan conforming to the following
guidelines:
(a) The plan shall indicate where student
presently assigned to Cooley and Kettering will
be re-assigned and the effect of such
reassignment upon desegretation. The plan
should minimize the inconvenience to students
who would otherwise enroll at these schools.
The Board may wish to consider the feasibility
■ of not enrolling students at either Cooley
- or Kettering in the September 1975 school term.
(b) The Board shall submit maps depicting
the new high school zones that result from the
elimination of the Cool y and Kettering
attendance areas.
; (c) The. plan shal,_ contain detailed
curricula for Cooley- and Kettering High Schools
(d) The vocational centers at Cooley
and Kettering shall be city-wide schools and
shall have a racial mix that, considering the
practicalities at hand, approaches a ratio of
60% black and. 40% white.
(e) The Detroit Board and the State
Board should immediately confer and submit a
»
, plan to the court not later than three weeks
%
from t ic issuance of the court's order. The
plan should include a time and cost schedule
for modifications necessary to convert Cooley
and Kettering High Schools into vocational
■ centers, and should also include proposals
for two additional centers. The parties are
-105
directed to ensure that these vocational centers
are equal in quality to the best vocational
schools in the country.
As an immediate desegregative effort, the Detroit
Board shall, as promptly as circumstances permit, undertake to
j
create two additional technical high schools, which arejto be
modeled after the program at Cass Technical High School. The
Board shall select sites for such technical high schools that
afford the maximum degree of desegregation. In keeping with
this desegregative effort, the Detroit Board of Education and
the General Superintendent shall commission a study of the
16 /curricula to be established at the two technical high schoolsT
r
The study shoulc determine what duplications might exist
between offerings at the technical high schools and the
vocational centers or the academic high schools. After formu
lation of the joint plan for creation of the vocational center,
the State Board of Education shall submit such plan for review
and evaluation to an appropriate evaluation panel such as a
vocational education expert at an institution of higher
learning. When the joint plan is submitted, it shall include
the evaluation made by such expert and modifications suggested
as a result of such evaluation.
TS/ : ;------------------------
• The Board's plan as submitted does not distinguish clearly
between courses to be offered at the vocational centers and
the technical high schools. The study should identify the
offering of courses duplicating those at other high schools,
duplication might detract from the magnet programs instituted
at the two new technical high schools. The study should
further determine the effect of duplication of courses at
different locations upon desegregation and the quality of
education.
-10G-
Testing
Of great importance to a system undergoing
desegregation is the assurance that tests administered to
students are free from racial, ethnic and cultural bias.
Black children are especially affected by biased testing
procedures. As a result of such procesures, they may find
themselves segregated in classrooms for slow learners, which
will thereafter impede their educational growth. Moreover,
the discriminatory use of test results can cause resegrega
tion .
The Detroit Board and State Board of Education
are constitutionally mandated to eliminate all vestiges of
discrimination, including discrimination through improper
testing. Thus, the Detroit Board and the State Board of
Education must devise a program that will ensure tnat
testing design, content and procedures are adaptable to a
desegregated school system. The plan should include provisions
dealing with staffing and osts involved. We have examined
the Board's testing component carefully and have found it
to be sufficiently comprehensive to serve as a model for
such a testing program.
-108-
Upon recommendation of the court-appointed experts,
the■order of tne court will direct, as a further desegregative
effort, that the Detroit Board of Education undertake a study
evaluating an alternate form of education following the
Parkway Concept. The court's experts have suggested that
Northern High School could be used for such a project.
Accordingly, the defendant School Board is directed to sub
mit plans for such a program, including an evaluation of its
feasibility and the contribution that such a program might
make to desegregation. The Board shall further seek and obtain
a professional evaluation of such concept from outside the
School Board's present administrative staff. if the evalua
tion is favorable, the Board shall thereafter submit plans
and costs schedules for implementation of such concept.
It has been brought to the attention of the court
that the Detroit School Board is presently ineligible for
full funding from the state to operate the proposed voca
tional education programs because certain contractual provi
sions between the Detroit School Board and the Detroit Federa
tion of Teachers which require that a school day not exceed
7-1/4 hours and impose a maximum of 25 teaching periods per
week, conflict with regulations promulgated by the State
Board of Education. The court, however, has stated that
vocational 'education programs must be instituted pursuant
to a desegregation mandate. Accordingly, the parties shall
appear in court for a hearing and subsequent order that will
set aside either the State Board of Education regulations
or the contractual provisions. The date for the hearing
shall be set upon motion to be filed by the Detroit Board
of Education.
-107-
V
6 . Student Rights and Responsicillti.cs
By previous orders this court has demonstrated the
high priority that it places on student rights and responsibili
ties, which the court has refered to as a Uniform Code of
Conduct. We have also said that children living, learning and
. ' j' I
playing together convert a building into a human institution. ' _ 1
with a pulse and personality, and that when students, parents
and teachers come together to live, learn and work the school
develops an identifiable environment. It is this environment
that the Detroit Board is constitutionally bound to protect
in order to assure that every student can enjoy a right to a
(*)
happy, healthy, and rewarding school experience. Moreover,
(
we have adopted the plaint cfs' assertion that "[n]o violence. ,
whether against person or property, will be allowed to impede
the implementation of the desegregation process. Both
students and teachers must feel secure in their person and
in their ability to perform their respective functions without
fear of undue and unnecessary disruption."
It is the court’s intention that from the commence
ment of the 1975-1976 school year the Board must not tolerate
violence in any school in the system. Moreover, the court
order will require that the Uniform Code of Conduct bei
administered uniformally without regard' to regional lines. All
regions will be obliged to follow proscribed forms and uniform
procedures to be devised by the Central Board and approved by
See this court's order of July 3, 1975.
-109-
«. •
the court. The court will not, of course, attempt to substitute
its judgment for the discretion of school administrative
personnel in dealing with student violations of the Code. The
court will ensure, however, that all Detroit students are
afforded minimal right of due process consistent with Goss v.
Lopez , 419 U.S. 565 (1975). While the court is concerned that
violence and vandalism do not impede the desegregative process,
the court is equally concerned that the rights of the students
are fully protected. In a system undergoing desegregation,
black and white students will be subjected to teachers of both
races who may apply the Code in a discriminatory manner. Staff
members must be made aware of the rights of due process set
forth in the Code. Moreover, students must be advised not
only of the conduct proscribed, but also of their right to
due process when involved in disciplinary procedures. The Code
therefore, must simultaneously protect the rights of students
against arbitrary and discriminatory exclusions, suspensions
or expulsions and assure that disruptions in the school or
classroom will be dealt wita every instance. The court has
recently received the Board’s second draft of the proposed Code.
Since the court has not had an opportunity to study this draft,
the Board will await further directions from the court.
- 1 1 0
v -
The importance that the court places on this
component is evident from the July 18, 1975 communication
requiring the Detroit Board to submit a detailed plan for a
community relations program, which the court has not yet
had an opportunity to examine in detail. We agree with
plaintiffs that an acceptable community relations plan
should include provisions for school-community liaison and
parental involvement. The school-community relations program
should give real meaning to the decentralization anticipated
by the Michigan Legislature and provide an effective vehicle
for true community involvement in all the schools. To
achieve maximum community participation, the program should
depend upon parental support; participants should be
selected voluntarily and serve without compensation., An
effective community relations program must develop a
partnership between the community and the schools and must
co-operate with traditional groups such as parent-teacher
organizations and local school advisory boards. There should
be a cooperative flow of information from the school to the
community and from the community to the school. Open and
free discussion and participation in the desegregation
i
process should be encouraged. The school-community relations %
organization should receive complete encouragement, budgetary
support, direct assistance and a free flow of information
from school authorities.
* School-Community Relations (Parental Involvement:)
-Ill-
The school-community relations component shall
be a subject of a separate order of this court. The portion
of the Board's plan that includes a monitoring provision
in the suggested community-relations component is rejected.
-112-
. Counseling and Career Guidance
School districts undergoing desegregation inevitably
place psychological pressures upon the students affected.
Counselors are essential to provide solutions to the many
problems that result from such pressures. Moreover, the
success of the vocational and technical schools created ĥerein
depends upon the effort of counselors whose guidance is
essential to students seeking a career. Counselors can
accomplish much to shape and guide the academic experiences of
students. They assist student self-development and further
can acquaint students with the vocational training possibilities
available in the system. It will be essential that the
counselors be trained so that they may become fully acquainted
with the vocational and technical offerings created herein.
Accordingly, the order issued pursuant to these guidelines will
require that the Detroit Board provide guidance and counseling
services including career counseling to the junior and senior
• . . 1 7 / high students in the Detroit System. The Board is hereby
directed to submit a career guidance and counseling plan.
It is not for the court to determine how this program ought
to be staffed. We note, however, that we cire unaware of any
school system that has deemed it beneficial to assign full-time
counselors at the elementary school level. Some school systems
have found that classroom teachers who are afforded appropriate
in-service training make the best: counselors at the elementary
level. '
-113-
V
Co-curricular Activities
Co-curricular activities are essential supportive
programs in a system undergoing desegregation. Co-curricular
activities further desegregation by providing student-to-
student contact and interplay in a desegregated environment.
The co-curricular program should include a provision for a
limited junior high school consortium; which also encourages the .
sharing of educational experiences among students of both races.
In addition to aiding desegregation, the co-curricular program
can acquaint students with many fine institutions available
in the Detroit area, which have indicated their interest in
aiding the court providing quality education to Detroit
school children. The junior high school consortium will-enable
students to share experiences while acquiring knowledge of
such institutions as the Art Insti-tute, the Detroit Public
Library, the Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University
and Shaw College. The court has reviewed the provision
for co-curricular activities in the Board's plan and has
concluded that it contains imaginative programs. The court's
order will, therefore, require that the Detroit Board
develop for the court's approval, a specific plan for co-curricular
activities including an analysis of the costs involved. )
-114-
10. Bilinguaf/Muiti-Ethnic Studies
Multi-ethnic studies are essential elements of the
curriculum of any outstanding school system; desegregation
serves only to emphasize the need for inclusion of these
studies. Moreover, by state law school districts are re-
i .
quired to provide adecmate programs for bilingual and bi-
. . ! ,cultural instruction. See Mich. Comp. Laws §§340.360, 390,
391. The court order will further provide for these programs.
Currently, these programs are funded by Titles III
and VII of ESAA. The Board is directed to re-apply for such
funds to continue its program and in such application shall
include provisions for in-service training for teachers in
volved in offaring such programs. ,The School Board is
further directed to see): the cooperation of Wayne State
University1s Ethnic Learning Resource Center to participate
in and develop a resource program for comprehensive multi
ethnic instruction.
The Board shall submit finalized programs for each
of these studies to the court including provisions for in-
18/
service training of the teachers involved.
18 /
While we endorse the inclusion of these programs in a de
segregation plan, we draw no conclusions with respect to the
budget submitted by the Board in its plan, which appears to
us to be excessive. Even assuming 163 bilingual teachers are
needed, there should be a corresponding reduction in the
number of regular classroom teachers.
-115-
1 1 . Faculty Assignmcnts
The Detroit Board s plan contains a component
dealing with reassignment of faculty, providing for a 50%
ratio in every school. It has been noted that the teacher
population in Detroit is now 49.5% black and hence totally
ki~^acial. However, no evidence was presented at this
remedial hearing dealing -with faculty segregation. Thus,
it would be inappropriate for this court to order any reassign
ment of faculty at this time.
However, notwithstanding the prior holding of this
court, affirmed on appeal, that the Detroit Board had not
committed de jure acts of segregation of faculty, certain
reassignments will be necessary to implement the desegrega
tion order. Reassignments of faculty will be necessitated by
the reassignments of students. Such reassignments are inci
dental to the desegregation plan and shall be made with the
purpose of further integrating the faculty. The Detroit
Board and the Detroit Federation of Teachers shall immediately
begin negotiations concerning reassignments necessitated by
other components of this plan. Of course, in conducting these
negotiations, both parties will no doubt be mindful of the
federal requirement for racial composition of faculty and
staff in a school system, undergoing desegregation contained
•in USCFR 185.44(d)(3), supra.
V -
-116-
. Thereafter, both p^lrties shall submit a report
listing every school, student enrollment by race, the projected
student enrollment by race following application of the plan,
the present number of teachers in each school by race and the
projected number of teachers by race following application of
the court's order. These reports shall be submitted to the
court prior to an evidentiary hearing to be^set by the court.
-117-
12 . Monitoring
. The court's order will provide for a court-created
monitoring system to audit efforts made to implement the
court's desegregation orders. The monitoring system created
by the court shall provide for broad citizen participation.
The monitoring group shall reflect the city's racial and
ethnic composition so that the court can receive input from
a broad spectrum of the city's population.
. Because it is the court's constitutional obligation
to audit efforts to implement its orders the monitoring .
commission shall report directly to the court. The parties
may for the court's consideration nominate citizens as appointees
to the monitoring commission. The cdurt is of the view, however,
that the state, to whom the Fourteenth Amendment is addressed,
has an equal obligation to oversee the efforts put forth and
results achieved through implementation of the desegregation
order. Accordingly, the court will order the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction to seek the assistance
of available state institutions to provide the supervisory
and expert support staff needed to analyze and report the
information thus obtained. The State Superintendent of Public
Instruction shall suggest to the court a plan that includes
the assistance of state-supported institutions such as the
Title IV* Office of the University of Michigan.
In the court's view the .monitoring of its orders
is an essential part of a desegregation effort. The court
-118
recognizes that an effective monitoring procedure will
require careful evaluation of the input from citizens'
groups appointed. These groups shall be requested to
develop) meaningful criteria for evaluation and to suggest
and recommend methods for developing a uniform basis of’
reporting. It shall be the obligation of the State
Superintendent and the institutions selected by him to
collect and analyze all such data submitted and to provide
sufficient staff to supervise the work-of the monitoring
committee. . ,
-119-
VI. CONCLUSION AND APPENDICES
In developing these guidelines, this court has
not intended to usurp the School Board's administrative
authority. Neither has this court intended to substitute
its authority for the authority of elected state and local
officials to decide which educational components are bene
ficial to the school community. We are especially reluctant
to do so in view of the fact that the school officials are
willing to desegregate the school system. Their plan evi
dences their desire to co-operate in the desegregative effort
Pursuant to an order of this court, they submitted a compre
hensive desegregation plan which did not attempt to rely
solely upon their Magnet School Program for voluntary de
segregation, but instead included the forced transportation
of a large number of students. Thus, we have taken into
account that the 11 good faith conduct on the part of any
litigant in any court, especially a court of equity, and
more particularly, in the sensitive area of desegregation,
is a vital element for appropriate consideration."
Montgomery County Board of Education v. Carr, 400 F.2d 1, 2
(5th Cir. 1968).
Moreover, even after a finding of segregation
has been made, it is the affirmative duty of the local
i
school board to repair the effects of segregation by con
structing a unitary system. But, at the same time, once the
state has been found to have discriminated against a class
of plaintiffs, it is the constitutional obligation of the
court to assure that the denial of equal educational opportu
nity through segregation is fairly ancl justly remedied. Thus
-120-
\
the Board must remember that once it begins to desegregate,
"the courts have a' solemn obligation to determine whether
the structure designed by the school board will house a
unitary system. This obligation is unremitting. . .
Accordingly, any imprimatur of judicial approval must be
entered with a caveat that until construction of a unitary
system is completed, change orders, when appropriate, will
be issued to ensure that the designed structure in fact
accommodates a unitary system and not a bifurcated one."
Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 429 F.2d 382,
306 (5th Cir. 1970). It is in this context that the court
issues these guidelines. It is for the court to declare
constitutional standards applicable in a particular school
district. The Board is free to do more than these announced
standards require, so long as they demonstrate that their
additional effort will have a salutory effect upon desegre
gation; it is the role of the court to ensure that they not
do less than what we have detailed here.
A successful desegregative effort will require
co-operation and support from the entire community. Because
Detroiters have always volunteered community support to
advance worthwhile causes, and because Detroiters know
that the vitality of their city depends upon the excellence
and stability of their school system, this court has already
received expressions of support from the community. Many
of Michigan's institutions of higher education, business
corporations, labor unions and other organizations, public
and private, have pledged their support and assistance to
-121-
1 •
assure the successful development of quality education in
the newly desegregated Detroit School System. (See
appendices for sample letters.)
For example, Wayne State University, in co-opera
tion with other institutions, can undertake prime responsi
bility in developing and conducting the in-service training
19/
program, which has received a high priority from this court.
Wayne County Community College has volunteered to consult
with the Board and assist it in the development and evaluation
of the Board's proposed multi-ethnic component. They will
further help with an orientation program for academic and
guidance counselors. Additionally, labor and industry have
demonstrated an active interest in the quality of education
in the Detroit Schools. Both sectors of the community have
assured the court of their willingness to co-operate and
assist in this effort. Labor and industry can be of in
valuable assistance by bringing their expertise to the
vocational and technical high schools created herein. They
can generate jobs for young people and possibly provide
equipment needed by the school district. They can also
provide an opportunity for on-the-job training. It is hoped
that the Board will succeed in matching colleges, universities,
labor and industry with selected schools or
19/
We are informed at this writing that the Governor of the
State of Michigan 'is aware of Detroit's need for this
component. We have reason to believe that, consistent with
his abiding interest in Michigan's educational system, he
will approve necessary budgetary provisions to enable Wayne
State University to participate.
-122-
programs to further enhance the attractions available in
the school system. The Board, with the aid of the court's
experts, should enter into specific agreements with these
organizations in order to spell out precisely the roles
they will play in assisting the Detroit schools. These
institutions will not, of course, be solicited for finan
cial contributions, nor do they intend to interfere with
the administrative authority of the Detroit Board. These
institutions want to be of assistance to Detroit school
children; they have no lesire to participate in the adminis
tration of the school system. Thus, our guidelines provide
the seeds to generate community support.
The guidelines also continue the Magnet System
to which the school community has devoted so much time
and funds. "-’e have sought to strengthen those programs
now in existence and have also provided for the creation of
additional schools and added attractions, including the
anticipated matching of schools with colleges, universities,
business organizations and labor unions. As strengthened,
these Magnet Programs will provide an opportunity for the
occurrence of voluntary desegregation. Magnet Programs,
as a desegregation tool, have been approved by the Federal
Education Acts of 1974, P.L. 93-380, §214(f), 20 U.S.C.§1713(g)
and as strengthened by she court's guidelines will be suffi
ciently attractive to serve the dual purpose of providing
quality education and voluntary desegregation. However, it
must be remembered that the primary goal of these Magnet
Schools is to operate as desegregated schools within the
practicalities we have deemed constitutionally permissible.
Although these Magnet Schools play an important
role in the court's guidelines, this court recognizes
Ithat total desegregation cannot come about through Magnet
I
Programs alone. Since 1972, the Magnet Program alone has
proven inadequate to desegregate the Detroit Schools.
However, while some transportation may be essential, we
believe that the guidelines proposed have substantially
reduced the number of students transported from the number
involved in either the plaintiffs' or the Board's plan.
The co-operative effort of the entire community
will assure a school system capable of fulfilling community
aspirations. Such community support will provide the
Detroit schools with an opportunity to make a fresh start.
Those once deprived of equal opportunity by past discrimina
tion will be assured that their schools are unequaled else
where; they will be assured that the injury from segrega
tion, sometimes intangible, will be eradicated. With the
support of the community, the court's order will create a
unitary school system and assure that past discriminatory
practices will neither inflict further injury nor occur
i
again. A school system must evolve that is concerned not
with black children or white children, but just children.
-124-
APPENDIX A
W A Y N E S T A T E
C O L L E G E O F E D U C A T I O N
UNIVERSITY
D E T R O I T . M I C H I G A N 4 0 2 0 2
O F F I C E O F T H E D E A N
July 2, 1975
The Honorable Robert E. DeMascio
United States District Judge *
Room 257, Federal Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Dear Sir:
I was pleased to participate E our meeting of June 18 to discuss the
services that the College of Education at Wayne State University could
provide to the Detroit Public Schools. As I mentioned at that time,
our College has placed much effort on the importance of in-service
training to upgrade the skills of teachers throughout the metropolitan
area.^ Cur recent proposal to the Legislature indicates that in-service
training is a major focus of the College of Education. We feel that we
could be of great assistance to the Detroit Public Schools and to the
children of Detroit in this particular area. .
In addition we have had a strong Vocational Education program in our
College for some time. Dr. Fred Cook lias been instrumental in working
with the Michigan Department of Education in several of their funded
projects. Recently he received two sizeable grants from the Department
for the development of field tested vocational education materials to be
used with teachers throughout the State. In the area of Vocational
Education our expertise could be of great assistance to the Detroit
Public Schools.
For the past three years Career Education has been a major component of
our program in the College of Education. Dr. George Leonard, President
Elect of the American Vocational Guidance Association, and Dr. Howard
Splete have been instrumental in providing a variety of career education
services to school districts in tlie metropolitan area. In addition, we
have three projects currently funded by tlie Michigan Department of
Education that involve the development of career education materials by
members of our staff.
The Honorable Robert E. DeMascio - page 2 July 2, 1975
A foui'th area of service of interest to our College involves the
monitoring and evaluation of the educational programs in the Public
Schools. Drs. Don Marcottu and Maureen Sie lead a team of young,
extremely capable researchers who have provided evaluation services on
many state and federally funded projects. This group of evaluation
experts can provide valuable services in the evaluation of educational
outcomes in the Detroit Public Schools. .
We in the College would be pleased to be of assistance to the Detroit
Public Schools in these areas.
Q-} n r o r o 1 \r ^
Edward Simpkins
Dean
ES/jb
cc: President Gulden
Provost Bohn
Executive Vice President Cushman
APPENDIX B
po* iNTtA-uKrvxjtsrry cokxxifondence
T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I C H I G A N
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
July 8, 1975
Dean Wilbur J. Cohen
School of Education
The University of Michigan
1110 School of Education
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
F ««
dUll 1 6
m
" ' < & CnD‘̂ c , o
Dear Wilbur:
The University of Michigan will be pleased to do whatever
it can, within the limits of its resources, to be helpful to Judge DeMascio
in implementing the quality education components of such order as he
may issue in the Detroit Board of Education case.
In mai CuimĜ '.iuii, Vice President Rhodes and I have asked
Associate Vice President Richard English to be the point of contact with
our offices in working with you in this matter.
Sincerely,
R. W. Fleming
gmc
cc: Vice President Frank H . T . Rhodes
Dr. Richard English
APPENDIX C
4
o/licc of (he President 4001 W. McNichols Road, Detroit, Michigan 48221 Telephone: (313) 927-1455
June 26, 1975
Dean Wilbur J. Cohen
School of Education
University of Michigan '
Ann Arbor Mi. 48104
Dear Dean Cohen:
The University of Detroit will be very pleased to join
other Michigan colleges and universities in a program to
foster quality education in Detroit. It is our intention to
cooperate with the court in every way possible to achieve
that goal. ■
Thank you for inviting us to participate.
MC/lm
cc: Dr. Arlene iNowak
YN
f
>*
\
APPENDIX D
O F f T C E O F T H E P R E S I D E N T
W A Y N E S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y
D E T R O I T , M I C H I G A N 4 8 2 0 2
1
June 20, 1975
Dr. Wilbur J. Cohen
Dean
College of Education
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Dear Wilbur:
6UU 2 6 1975
t-
i'
RO BER T L .DeMASCIO
U nited S ta te s D istr ic t Ju d g e
Thank you for Inviting me to take part in the discussions on
the University's role in assisting the City of Detroit in its
efforts to come to terms with the Supreme Court s desegrega
tion mandate. I found the meeting informative and I am
pleased to pledge Wayne State's support.
We look forward to assisting you and the Court in any way
that we can be useful. I think that there are at least three
or four areas in which we can help. I am sure that Dean
Simpkins will discuss :hese areas with you. Feel free to
call upon me as often as there is a need to do so and I shall
do my best to lend support to your efforts.
Sincerely ypurs,
CL<—
Ceorge E. Gullen, Jr.
President
APPENDIX E
<JUN 2 6 19/5
Memll-iPahm'r
f President 71 Easl F erry A v e n u e • D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n 4 8 202 • (313) 875-745'
Wilbur J. Cohen •
Dean, School of Education
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Dear Dean Cohen:
Pursuant to the recent meeting in Judge DeMascio's chambers, this
will affirm the commitment of the Merrill-Palmer Institute to cooperate in
any way we can in assisting the Detroit Board of Education in its efforts to_
provide quality education. Indeed, within recent years our staff has worked
closely with the school system in a number of ways.
Both Mrs. Kispert and I were very impressed with the efforts the
Judge is making to broaden the base of support for the difficult challenges
confronting the Detroit school system. We pledge our assistance within the
staffing and economic constraints that confront us during these difficult times
for small private institutions of higher education.
Of the twelve programmatic components you enumerated, the Merrill-
Palmer Institute is uniquely suited to offer assistance as a training and demon
stration resource in the interrelated areas of early childhood education and
parental involvement in child development.
The Merrill-Palmer Institute has been in existence since 1920 as a
privately-supported institution of higher education. Since the Institute's
early beginnings, there has been a strong conviction that, of all the areas
' worthy of study, none are more important than the fields of human development
and family life. This commitment, in part, has enabled the Institute to make
significant contributions to the study of human growth, particularly in the area
of child development. The Institute is internationally recognized as a pioneer
ing and leading academic center devoted to the multidisciplinary study of human
behavior. Its journal, The Morrill-Palmer Quarterly, is widely read and ac
claimed as one of the outstanding scholarly periodicals in the behavioral sciences.
Wilbur J. Cohen - 2 - June 23, 1975
There are a number of specific program components that would appear
to be particularly germane to cooperative arrangements between Merrill-Palmer
and the Detroit Public Schools. Permit me to cite just one for illustrative pur
poses only. *
A cooperative school system-Merrill-Palmer program for example, might
focus upon the training of teachers of young (preschool) children to work with par
ents. While little research data dealing with parent-teacher relationships at the
preschool level are available, research findings from studies of parent-teacher
relationships in elementary and secondary school settings indicate that some teach
ers tend not to be sensitive to parental concerns and expectations, and function quite
independently of parents. At the preschool level'in particular it is important that
the adult care-giver or teacher not deal with (he young child with minimal considera
tion for the influential parent-child relationship. Recent developments suggest that
in the near future there will be a significant amount of activity in the retraining of
elementary school teachers for preschool or child-care positions due to this coun
try's urgent child care needs and economic and political realities which will make
the public schools D m major delivery system for early childhood education. It is
important that the attitudes of some public school teachers toward parents not be
carried over into the young child setting where the relationship with parents appar
ently lias an effect on the child's development. Some states (i.e., Michigan) recog
nize that preschool teachers should function with concern for parents, and are begin
ning to tentatively translate such areas into credentialing structures. Yet there is a
dearth of information on the training of teachers to work with parents of young child
ren, and a program development activity in this area could work with a cluster of
Detroit school teachers who wish to work with young children. Objectives of this
activity could be to (1) identify altitudinal factors related to parents and teachers,
and (2) develop a training program that provides teachers with competencies to work
effectively with parents.
This illustration reflects the type of activity wliich we feel would be useful
to the Detroit schools in both the early childhood and parenting areas. The joint
expertise of the Detroit school staff and Merrill-Palmer's child development
specialises could generate a demonstration program that could serve as a proto
type for school systems tnroughout the nation.
I trust llmt this letter adequately reflects in both general and specific terms
our desire to provide wliatevcr assistance we can. -
Wilbur J. Cohen - 3 - June 23, 1975
May I extend to you, Dr. Finger, and Mr. Keppel our best wishes
for success in your difficult and most important assignment.
With best personal wishes.
MDU:af
Michael D. Usdan
President
\
APPENDIX F
/
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
cii r o n k. W h a rt on, jr. ■ i*risidi:nt June 23, 1975 KASa*l.-ANfl£G -,4 U p iIG A N ■ -18821
/ c " r '
JUN 2? id 70
1»
R0BERI&MASC.O
Dear Dean Cohen: U n ite d S t A % j l ) l s t r i c t JucgO« *„ i
Dr. Gloria Smith and Dean Keith Goldhammcr have reported to me about
the meeting which you called on Wednesday, June 18, relative to the
potential assistance of institutions of higher education in the pending
desegregation order affecting the Detroit Public Schools. I want to
affirm Dean Goldhammer's pledge that Michigan State University will
continue to cooperate in efforts by the Detroit Public Schools to
improve the quality of their educational program. Through our College
of Education, in particular, we have engaged in a number of activities
in cooperation with the Detroit Public Schools and the Detroit Education
Task Force. Other plans are being discussed by administrators of the
Detroit Public Schools and the College of Education. These plans can
be extended and other units of the University can be involved, limited
only by the availability of our resources and capabilities.
Dean Goldhammer will correspond with you within a few days relative to
the specifics of the Detroit educational plan. He will also initiate
discussions with deans of other colleges to alert them to the elements
of the plan which may require their cooperation, along with that of the
College of Education. We will await further information from you
relative to expectations for our participation.
Sincerely,
President
Dr. Wilbur Cohen
Dean, Schoql of Education
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
cc Dean Goldhammer
Dr. Cantlon
Dr. Gloria Smith
Mr. Carr
f A
A P P E N D I X G
M E T R O P O L I T A N A F L - C I O
T h o m a s T u r n i h Jo h n K. G o u r l a y
P R E S I D E N T S t C H t T A f t Y - T R E A S U H L R
R i c h a r d W . C o r o t z R a l p h L i b e r a t o
V I C E P R E S I D E N T V I C E P R E S I D E N T
‘2 3 10 C A S S A V E N U E
D E T R O I T . M I C H I G A N 4 6 2 0 1
P H O N E : 9 6 3 - 4 2 3 3
August 14, 1975
Honorable Robert E. DeMascio
United States District Judge
257 Federal Building
Detroit, MI 48226
Dear Judge DeMascio:
RECEIVED
AUG 1 4 1975
RO BERT E. DeMASCIO
' U nited S ta te s D istrict Ju d g e
* f
We wish to inform you that the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO Council, as 'well as
the National AFL-CIO have adopted a resolution in support of the quality and careei
education components that you might include in your desegregation order. The
willingness of the labor movement to support the quality education aspects of your
order is precipitated not only by our interest in children of union members but for
all children in the school system, black and white.
We anxiously look forward to the opportunity of participating in a program designed
to better prepare the school children of Detroit for job opportunities at decent wag
which in turn gives us the assurance that they will become better union members
because of their increased knowledge and skills and better citizens generally.
Enclosed you will find a resolution adopted by the forty-two international unions
affiliated with the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO Council. We view this case as
providing a significant opportunity for the court through its process of creative
chinking to produce a result that will be non-devisive, prevent polarization of our
community and at the same time insure the common objective of all well-meaning
citizens that children, regardless of race, receive the kind of equal educational
opportunity that is theirs by birthright and the constitution of the United States.
We are pleased to be able to join with you in that effort.
TT/mlh
ope in //42afl-cio
llli () I I I( I A l V O II o i i n i a m i ii, ir « v V A l i i • A. I- i ( r i l l , h i
ksus
Ci
V
The following table demonstrates that various schools
were included in Plaintiffs' plan despite the fact that
only insignificant changes occurred in their racial
composition:
Plan
‘age SCHOOL 1974 PROPOS
1 McCulloch 99.7 89.8
14 11 ene 99.5 89.2
14 King 99.2 88.9
29 Duffield 99.2 88.4
8 Columbian 99.6 88.2
8 Columbian Primary 100.0 87.3
27 Bell 99.7 87.3
25 Marxhausen Primary 98.8 86.8
12 Ruthruff 99.2 86.5
5 Angel Primary 98.8 • 86.4
1 Joffe Primary 100.0 86.3
2 Sampson 99.7 86.1
2 7 Berry 99.8 85.8
13 Guest Primary 97.5 85.7
11 Noble 98.8 85.5
12 Herman 85.8 85.4
25 Campbell 100.0 85.3
30 Bunche 100.0 85.0
11 Sherrill 99.9 84.7
9 Parker 97.6 84.6
11 Courtis 99.6 84.6
24 Marsha11 84.6 84.4
11 Barton 100.0 84.2
32 ‘ Tend l or 95.3 83.6
30 I , i n<|emai m 7 2.3 8 3.4