Draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

)
Plaintiffs )

)
vs. )

)
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et. al., )

)
Defendants )

)
DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, ) CIVIL ACTION NO:
LOCAL #231, AMERICAN FEDERATION ) 35257
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, )

)
Defendant- )
Intervenor )

)
and )

)
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., )

)
Defendants- )
Intervenor )

______ )

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This action was commenced A.ugust 18 , 197 0, by plaintiffs, 
the Detroit Branch of the National Association for the Advance­
ment of Colored People and individual parents and students, on 
behalf of a class later defined by order of the Court dated 
February 15, 1971, to include all school children of the City 
of Detroit and all Detroit resident parents who have children of 
school age. Defendants are the Board of Education of the City 
of Detroit, its members and its former superintendent of schools, 
Dr. Norman A. Drachler, the Governor, Attorney General, State 
Board of Education and State Superintendent of public Instruction 
of the State of Michigan. In their complaint, plaintiffs attacked



a statute of the State of Michigan known as Act 48 of the 1970 
Legislature on the ground that it put the State of Michigan in 
the position of unconstitutionally interfering with the execution 
and operation of a voluntary plan of partial high school desegre­
gation (known as the April 7, 1270 Plan) which had been adopted 
by the Detroit Board of Education to be effective beginning with 
the fall 1970 semester. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Detroit 
Public Scnool System was and is segregated on the basis of race 
as a result of the official policies and actions of the defendants 
and their predecessors in office.

Additional parties have intervened in the litigation since 
it was commenced. The Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT) which 
represents a majority of Detroit public school teachers in 
collective bargaining negotiations with the defendant Board of 
Education, has intervened as a defendant, and a group of parents 
has intervened as defendants.

Initially the matter was tried on plaintiffs' motion for 
preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of Act 48 
so as to permit the April 7 Plan to be implemented. On that issue, 
this Court initially ruled that plaintiffs were not entitled to 
a preliminary injunction since there had been no proof that 
Detroit was a segregated school system. The Court of Appeals held, 
however, that any such interference by the state with a determina­
tion of a local school board to pursue the goals of racial 
equality was forbidden and that, at a minimum, the state must 
pursue a course of scrupulous neutrality and avoid steps whose 
effect can only be to heighten or maintain racial segregation.
433 F.2d 897(6th Cir. 1970).

2



The plaintiffs then sought to have this Court direct the 
defendant Detroit Board to implement the April 7 Plan by the 
start of the second semester in order to remedy the deprivation 
of constitutional rights wrought by the unconstitutional statute. 
In response to an order of the Court, defendants suggested two 
other plans in addition to the April 7 Plan which they contended 
would result in integration promised by the April 7 Plan. The 
Court, although concluding that in this context "nonaction is 
(or amounts to) prohibited action," rejected the Plaintiffs' 
arguments against the "magnet" plan at that time and approved 
it rather than ordering April 7 implemented. Again, plaintiffs 
appealed but the appellate court refused to pass on the merits 
of the plan . Instead, the case was remanded with instructions 
to proceed immediately to a trial on the merits of plaintiffs' 
substantive allegations about the Detroit School System. 438 
F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1971).

That trial began April-6, 1971 and concluded on July 22, 1971 
consuming forty-one trial days along with several brief recesses 
necessitated by demands upon the time of Court and counsel. 
Plaintiffs introduced substantial evidence in support of their 
contentions, including expert and factual testimony, demonstrative 
exhibits and School Board documents. At the close of plaintiffs' 
case in chief, the Court ruled that they had presented a prima 
facie case of state imposed segregation in the Detroit Public 
School:.; accordingly, the Court enjoined (with certain exceptions) 
all further school construction in Detroit pending the outcome of 
the litigation.

3



The Court has also denied the motion to dismiss filed by 
the state defendants at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case in 
chief. The proof adduced by the plaintiffs was not solely 
limited to the role played by the Detroit Board, its predecessors 
and employees, in bringing about the present highly segregated 
condition of the public schools. It also demonstrated inescapably 
that the State of Michigan and its agencies have by acts and 
omissions seemingly violative of its obligation under the 
Michigan Constitution, contributed toward bringing about this 
result. Furthermore, one of the intervening defendants has 
filed a motion to require 85 suburban school districts to partici­
pate in any school desegregation the Court might order.

On the basis of the proofs presented at trial and at the 
previous hearings in this cause, the Court makes the following

kfindings of fact and conclusions of lav/.

"P.X." and "D.X." references are to plaintiffs' exhibits 
and defendants' exhibits, respectively. Citations to the trial
transcript are in the form " ____ T r . ____" indicating the
volume and page numbers (e.g., 20 Tr. 2000). Citations to 
transcripts of previous hearings are preceded by the hearing 
date (e.g., 11/4/70 Tr. 100). Citations to depositions which 
have been admitted into evidence are in similar form.

4



FINDINGS OF FACT

1. During the 1970-71 school year defendant Detroit Board
of Education operated 2S2 regular attendance-area schools, enrol-

1/ling 277,573 students of whom 177,079, or 63.8%, were Negro.—
[P.X. 128B, 152A].

2. These figures compare with 251 attendance-area [herein­
after, "regular"] schools in operation in 1960-61 with an enroll­
ment of 275,021 of whom 126,273, or 45.9%, were black. [P.X. 128A, 
152A].

3. Of the 251 regular schools in operation in 1960-61, 171
or 68% were 90% or more one race (71 black, 100 white). [P.X. 150,
128A]. Of the 282 regular schools in current opc ation, 202 or 
71.6% serve student enrollments which are 90% or more one race 
(133 are black, 69 are white). [P.X. 150, 128B].

4. In 1960-61, 65.8% o:£ the total number of black students
in regular schools were in schools 90% or more black. In 1970-71 
the percentage of black students in schools 90% or more black had 
increased to 74.9%. [P.X. 129; 32 Tr. 3382-83].

5. Every school which was 90% or more black in 1960, and 
which is still in use today, remains 90% or more black. [P.X. 150; 
32 Tr. 3381-32].

—' In addition the Board operated 23 various non-attendance area
schools enrolling 8,130 students of whom 5,386 were black (P.X. 100J 
at p. 127). The Board also had 4,146 students, of whom 1,798 were 
blaclc, enrolled in special adulh programs. (P.X. 100J at p. 6).

5



6. In 1960-61 there were 9,884 teachers, of whom 2,366 or 
23.9% were black, assigned to regular schools. In 1970-71,
11,616 teachers, of whom 4,853 or 41.8% were blade, were assigned 
to regular schools. [P.X. 152B; cf. P.X. 100J at p. 2 showing 
all faculties 1960-61 to 1970-71.]

7. In 1963 there were 99 schools with instructional staffs
less than 10% black (of which 41 had no black staff members) and 
72 schools with instructional staffs 50% or more black. By 
1970-71 the Board had reduced to 12 the number of schools with 
less than 10% black faculties, but the number of schools with 50% 
or more black faculties had increased to 124. [P.X. 100J at p. 3].

8. The public schools operated by defendant Board are thus 
segregated on a racial basis. This racial segregation is t^e 
result of the discriminatory acts and omissions of defendant 
Board, which include the following:

A. Faculty

9. Prior to 1962 the Board operated an admittedly discrimina­
tory policy and practice of faculty assignment. [38 Tr. 4340].
Until 1955 the Board assigned black teachers to schools which were 
predominantly black, but never assigned black teachers to scnools 
which were 50% or more white. [20 Tr. 2185]. Until 1964 no 
black person was ever made Principal of a high school. [20 Tr. 

2185-36].

6



u

10. In 1962 the Board-appointed Citizens Advisory Coramittee

on Equal Educational Opportunities found:
As to placement of teachers, the subcommittee finds 
that, with only a few exceptions, Negro teachers 
are placed only where there are Negro children in 
attendance at school.

[P.X. 3 at p. 75; see also 20 Tr. 2132]. The EEO Committee further 
found, and the evidence demonstrates, "that there is a tendency 
for the proportion of Negro teachers in a school to increase as 
the proportion of Negro pupils increases." [P.X. 3 at 75]. For 
example, in 1955 Central High School was 70% white but incurred 
faculty integration for the first time with the assignment of a 
black counselor and a black teacher. But by 1970 Central was 
100% black and its faculty was 55.9% black [20 Tr. 2180; P.X. 130], 
whereas the system-wide faculty was only 41.3% black. [P.X. 1d2B]

See generally P.X. 3 at 76.

11. The 1962 EEO finding (P.X. 3 at 73)
that the Board of Education has followed a practice of ^
(1) assigning Negro teachers predominantly within certain 
districts where there are large numbers of Negro pupils, 
and (2) assigning Negro teachers chiefly to racially 
mixed schools, in many cases on a proportional basis.
If there are no Negro children in a school, no Negro 
teachers are assigned there; this rule has few exceptions
to date,

is clearly demonstrated by the testimony and exhibits. [P.^. 3 
at 72-79(esp. map facing p. 78), 92-134(appendices-esp. graphs on

pp. 93-106); P.X. 154A].
12. The EEO Committee further found "that placement of 

teachers by the Detroit Board of Education follows in general, 
and with some departures, a definite racial pattern. . . . [and
that] Data also show that Negro administrators are placed only

7



«

where Negro children and Negro teachers are in the majority."
[P.X. 3 at 79]. The Court finds that the discriminatory assignment 
of administrators persists, as is shown by the following table 
taken from the October 1970 racial census, P.X. 100J, p. 10-20 

(see also 22Tr. 2511-13):

Predominately
white
Constellations Administrators

Cody
Ford
Redford
Osborn
Denby
Finney

3 Negro 
3 Negro
1 Negro
2 Negro 
1 Negro 
8 Negro

55 white
41 white 
46 white
42 white 
30 white 
44 white

Predominately
blackConstellations Adm i n i s tr ators

King
Central
No r t hwestern
Northern
Northeastern

35 Negro
23 Negro 
25 Negro
24 Negro 
30 Negro

22 white
23 white
23 white
24 white 
29 white

13. The EEO committee further found, and the evidence 
demonstrates, discriminatory practices regarding the placement 
of ESRPs and probationary teachers. "[W]henever Emergency Sub­
stitutes or Probationary I's and II's are Negroes, they are 
assigned to only 5 of the 9 districts. 3 at 74] . Tue
Committee further found "that a large nun’ r o [ESRPs and

probationary teachers] are currently assigned to 3 [black] dis­
tricts - the Center, So t' east and East Districts • • • •" 3

at 83, 96-57].

8



14. In 1963 the Committee on Schools of the Detroit Com­
mission on Human Relations reported to the Board its appraisal 
of "the regular opportunities of the administrative staff to 
place personnel on the basis of qualifications and preparation." 
The Commission "found that in 1960-61, 51% of the school personnel 
were involved in personnel transactions, and in the following 
year, 54% or 10,429 contract personnel were involved. Many of 
these changes represented significant opportunities to demon­
strate a pattern c r teacher assignment without regard to race."
[P.X. 177 at 2]. The Commission found that despite these oppor­
tunities the conditions reported by the 1962 EEO Committee
"remains virtually unchanged." Again, in 1964, the same group,
at the request of the Board, examined the 1963 racial count data.
Their findings reported to the Board and which are uncontradicted
in this record were (P.X. 178 at 2-3):

In October, 1963, Negro teachers were not assigned on the 
staff of 56 of the city's 281 schools. Not one of the 
city's 2,592 Negro teachers were assigned to 52 (or 25%) 
of the elementary schools and 4 of the junior high schools.
In October, 1963, those schools which had from 0 to 4 Negro 
teachers on their staff numbered 135, or approximately one 
half of the city's schools. In these 135 schools, a total 
of 182 (or 7%) of the Negro teachers were found. 3,428 
white teachers were on the faculties of these 135 schools.
In October, 1963, those schools which had 
teachers on their staffs numbered 146, or 
remaining one half of the city's schools, 
schools, a total of 2,410 (or 93%) of the 
were found. 3,759 white teachers were on

5 or more Negro 
approximately the 
In these 146 

Negro teachers 
these school faculties.

In March, 1969, it was found that as the number of Negro 
pupils in any particular school increased, the number of 
Negro teachers in that school also increased. . .

9

F



In the 135 schools with 0 to 4 Negro teachers on their 
staffs, 6% or 9,032 Negro pupils were found and 7%, or 132 
Negro teachers were found.
In the remaining 146 schools with 5 or more Negro teachers 
on their staffs, 94%, or 141,844 Negro pupils were found and 
93%, or 2,410 Negro teachers were found.
In October, 1263, 102 elementary schools were found in the 
category of from 0 to 4 Negro teachers on their staff.
Between March 30, 1963 and October 1, 1963, 385 placements 
were made in these 102 elementary schools. The result of 
these 385 placements was the net addition of only 35 Negro 
teachers to these faculties.
In October, 1963, 52 elementary schools had no Negro teachers 
on their staffs. 10 of these 52 schools which acquired no 
Negro teachers before October, 1963, expanded their faculties 
by a total of 33 additional teachers between March and Oct­
ober, 1963.

In the 4 new schools with predominantely Negro student 
bodies, a total of 144 teachers were placed. 79, or about 
50% of these 144 teachers were Negro teachers.
In the 3 new schools with almost completely white student 
bodies, 104 teachers were assigned. Only 5 of the 104 
teachers were Negro teachers. . .
15. On SEpteraber 18, 1964 , Judge Kaess entered "Interim 

Findings" in Sherrill School Parents Committee, et al., v . The 
Board of Education of the School District of the City of Detroit, 
Civ. No. 22092 (E.D.Mich.), recommending, inter alia, that

The Board should commit itself to the immediate and 
substantial reduction of the number of schools in 
which there are no Negro teachers and other professional 
personnel. Substantial integration of faculty and pro­
fessional personnel should be chievocl in al schools by 
the beginning of February, 196 term. [P.X. 6].

10



16. In 1968 the Board-appointed High school Study Commission

examined, among other things, the racial composition oi uhe
faculty at two black (Central and Northv/estern) and two white
(Cody and Bedford) high schools. In The Report of the Hign Scnool
Study Commission (P.X. 107), the Subcommittee on Personnel,
chaired by Deputy Superintendent Authur Johnson, found, witn

regard to these four high schools, that
The percentage of Negro teachers, while 
being very low in the "fringe" schools, 
approaches 50 per cent in the two "inner" 
schools. The percentage of Negro teachers 
corresponds to the Negro population of the 
student body.

[P.X. 107 at 294]. The Commission also found that "more experienced 
and older teachers are found in the fringe schools then in the 
inner schools" and that "[t]he« inner schools tend to have a 
larger percentage of relatively inexperienced, young teachers."

[P.X. 107 at 298].
17. Yet, this discriminatory pattern of faculty assignment 

persists at the present time. During the 1970-71 school year 
disproportionate numbers of black teachers were assigned to 
predominantly black schools and disproportionate numbers of white 
teachers were assigned to predominantly white schools; the pre­
vailing pattern of assignment is that the percentage black of 
school faculties substantially correlates with the percentage 
black of student bodies. [P.X. 154C; Joint X. FFFF-y 15 Tr. 1611-21,

2/
by defendai

Joint Exhibit FFFF was prepared and marked for identification 
Board, but made a joint exhibit when plaintiffs noted 

it and offered it. [40 Tr. 4613]. The exhibit shows a high corre­
lation between percentage black of faculties and percentage black 
of pupils in each school.



#

22 Tr. 2506-18 (Foster); 33 Tr. 4340(Johnson); see Finding 7 ,
supra; P.X. 161A-C, 162/i-C, 165/v-C, 166 (hourglass) ; 16 Tr.
1805 " 1 0  1• As Deputy Superintendent Johnson testified, this
persisting racial pattern of faculty assignments "is the result 
of discrimination." [38 Tr. 4340].

18. Additionally, ESRPs continue to be assigned more heavily 
to black schools than to white schools and teachers in the lower 
salary classes are disproportionately placed in black schools, 
whilte white schools are assigned a disproportionate number of 
teachers in the higher salary classes. [P.X. 161A-C, 162A-C;
16 Tr. 1779 - 91 ] .

19. Thus, the range of faculty distribution factors, including 
race, qualifications and experience, continues to reflect a 
discriminatory pattern.

B. Pupils

20. In 1962 the EEO Committee found (P.X. 3 at 61):
Numerous public schools in Detroit are 

presently segregated by race. The allegation 
that purposeful administrative devices have 
at times been used to perpetuate segregation 
in some schools is clearly substantiated.
It is necessary that the Board and its 
administration intensify their recent efforts 
to desegregate the public schools.

This finding is substantially corroborated by the evidence and
defendants have failed to present any compelling justification
for the policies and practices set forth below which had natural,
probable and actual segregafory effects.

12



21. An assistant superintendent, Charles WElls, testified
from the minutes of the EEO committee (P.X. 105 at p. 478) with 
respect to a letter presented to the Committee by the Citizens' 
Association for Better Schools (of which Mr. Wells was a member)
at an EEO meeting in 1960 attended by Mr. Wells, lifter outlining 
the hopes and dre£ims of equal educational opportunities of Detroit' 
black citizens, particularly the hopes inspired by the favorable 
millage vote in 1959, the Association stated:

Their [black people] first disillusionment occurred only 
a few months, but yet a few weeks after the passage of the 
millage •—  they were rewarded with the creation of the 
present Center District. In effect this District, with a 
few minor exceptions, created a segregated school system.
It accomplished with a few marks of the crayon on the map, 
the return of the Negro child from the few instances of 
an integrated school exposure, to the traditional predomi­
nantly uniracial school system to which he had formerly 
been accustomed in the City of Detroit . . . .  [Protestations] 
resulted in only rationalizations concerning segregated 
housing patterns, and denials of any attempts to segregate.
Wnen it was pointed out that regardless of motivation, 
that segregation was the result of their boundary changes, 
little compromise was effected, except in one or two 
instances, where opposition leadership was most vocal and 
aggressive.

[20 Tr. 2245-46]. These charges, joined in by Mr. Wells, were 
supported with statistical data showing the disproportionate 
size, inferior facilities and unequal resources relegated to the 
Center District. [See generally 20 Tr. 2243-52]. The Center 
District exemplified "a policy of containment of minority groups 
within specified boundaries." [20 Tr. 2247-48]. Its boundary line 
was described as "look[ing] like the coastline of the Eastern 
United States wher the Negro population is on one side and the 
white populatio on the other." [20 Tr. 2255] . 'This testimony is 
supported by the evidence in the record and was in no way questioned

by the defendants.



22. Deputy Superintendant Johnson acknowledged that there 
had been discriminatory practices and that "we still live with 
the results of discriminatory practices." [38 Tr. 4347].

23. During the decade beginning in 1950 the Board created 
and maintained optional attendance zones in neighborhoods under­
going racial transition and between high school attendance areas 
of opposite predominant racial compositions. [32 Tr. 3420-21, 
3423-28(Henrickson); 13 Tr. 1396-98, 1406-78(Foster); 1 Tr. 28-32 
(Former Board President Stephens]. In 1959 there were 8 basic 
optional attendance areas [P.X. 109A (1959-60 overlay)] affecting 
21 schools.-/ [P.X. 155A at p. 44; 15 Tr. 1667, 1677(Foster)].
The natural, probable and actual effect of the e optional zones 
was to allow white youngsters to escape identifiably "black" 
schools. [13 Tr. 1478-34, 15 Tr. 1677(Foster); 32 Tr. 3421, 
3423-28(Henrickson); P.X. 132; P.X. 109A-L, 78A-L, 136B and 136C].

-J Optional attendance areas provided pupils living within 
certain elementary areas a choice of attendance at one of two high 
schools. [32 Tr. 3420]. In addition there was at least one optional 
area either created or existing in 1960 between two junior hign 
schools of opposite predominant racial components. [13 Tr.
1474-78; 11 Tr. 1234]. All of the high school optional areas, 
except 2, were in neighborhoods undergoing racial transition
(from white to black) during the 1950s. The two exceptions were; 
(1) the option between Southwestern (61.6% clack in 1960) and 
Western (15.3% black); (2) the option between Denby (0% black) and 
Southeastern (3 .9% black). [P.X. 1287,]. With the exception of
the Denby-Southeastern option (just noted) all of the options 
were between high schools of opposite predominant racial compo­
sitions. The Southwestern-Western and Denby-Southeastern optional 
areas are all white on the 1950, 1960 and 1970 census maps. [P.X. 
136A-C, 109/;]. Both Southwestern and Southeastern, however, had 
substantial white pupil populations, and the option allowed 
whites to escape integration. [13 Tr. 1454-63, 1463-74].

14



[There had also been an optional zone (eliminated between 1S56 
and 1959, 32 Tr. 3385) created in "an attempt acted out . . .  to 
separate Jews and Gentiles within the system" (26 Tr. 2322), the 
effect of which was that Jewish youngsters went to liumford High 
School and Gentile youngsters went to Cooley (32 Tr. 3384) . See 
also Drachler Deposition de bene esse (6/28/7lXat pp. 36-37]. 
Although many of these optional areas hao. served their purpose 
by I960—^ due to the fact that most of the areas had become 
predominantly black [P.X. 136B(1960 census map)], one optional 
area (Southwestern—Western affecting Wilson Junior High graduates) 
continued until the present school year (and will continue t,o 
effect 11th and 12th grade white youngsters who elected to escape 
from predominantly black Southwestern to predominantly white 
Western high s c h o o l ) [32 Tr. 3425-27; P.X. 132, 138]. i<r. 
Henrickson, the Board's general fact witness who was employed in

— Mr. Henrickson admitted, however, tnat even in 1959 some of 
the -optional areas "can be said to have frustrated integration cmd 
continued over the decade." [32 Tr. 3421].
§/ The Board had eliminated the other optional areas by 196d

___ .... . , i _ t___ ___ r. I'Ji nf
(p .: 109G). With regard to two such areas (Sherrill and nter-
halter-McKerrow) the effect by 1960 was that blacn students were 
electing to attend white high schools. In botn instances the 
Board initially proposed to eliminate the optional area by 
including it in the black high school zone. Botn proposals 
resulted""in community opposition and one resulted in the 
Sherrill School lawsuit. [20 Tr. 2256-57(Wells)].

15



E

1959 to, inter alia., eliminate optional areas, noted in 1967 
that: "In operation Western appears to be still the school to
which white students escape from predominantly Negro surrounding 
schools." (32 Tr. 3390; P.X. 133 at p. 12). The effect of 
eliminating this optional area (which affected only 10th graders 
for the 1970-71 school year) was to decrease Southwestern from

C / 1 /86.7% blade in 1969 to 74.3% black in 1970.— (P.X. 128B].—
24. The Board, in operation of its transportation to 

relieve overcrowding policy, has admittedly bused black pupils, 
past or away from closer white schools with available space to 
black schools. [32 Tr. 3405-06, 3413-15, 3856-63, 3872-78;
14 Tr. 1489-1507; 15 Tr. 1621-42; 20 Tr. 2253] This practice

_/ The effect, in numbers, was that some 300 white pupils who 
had been escaping Southwestern throughout the decade were now 
required to attend a predominantly black high school. The 
elimination of this optional area was part of the Board's 
April plan: "The changes [under the April 7 plan] affect 18
junior high school feeder patterns out of 55 and wi11 influence 
12 senior high schools.' The changes on the sheet, indicate all 
graduates from Wilson will be going to Southwestern. . . ." 
[D.X. F, Board Minutes of April 7, 1970 at p. 504 (Drachler's 
presentation of the April 7 plan)].
—  The Board failed to present any valid, not to mention com­
pelling, justification for its optional attendance policy and 
practice. Dr. Foster found no valid administrative reasons for 
creation or maintenance of any of the optional areas. [13 Tr. 
1406-85]. The Board spent much time talking about the relative 
capacities of the various high schools involved in options.
Even if there were capacity problems, this is an insufficient 
administrative justification, for it is clear that capacity 
problems are more easily and predictably eliminated by estab­
lishment of firm attendance boundaries, rather than the use of 
the more unpredictable technique of creating options.

16



M

has continued in several instances in recent years despite the 
Board's avowed policy, adopted in 1367, to utilize transportation 
to increase integration. [10 Tr. 1133-48, 1150-61; 11 Tr. 1187-90, 
1198-1202; 32 Tr. 3402; 15 Tr. 1629, 1633-41; Drachler deposition 
de bene esse at 50-51]. Even when the Board, prior to 1962, 
bused black pupils to white schools, it did so under its 'intact 
busing" (busing by grade, class and teacher) practice which kept, 
black youngsters segregated in the receiving schools. [8/28/70 
Tr. 140-41; P.X. 3 at 62; 15 Tr. 1622-24]. These practices had 
natural, probable and actual segregatory effects and denied 
black children equal educational opportunities. [38 Tr. 4347 

(Johnson)].
25. With one exception, (necessitated by the burning of a

white school), defendant Board has never bused white children to
predominantly black schools.—^ [32 Tr. 3403(Kenrickson); 20 Tr.

8a/1401(Kennedy)].

—/ One of the most flagrant discriminatory uses of busing occurred
in the transportation, from 1955-1962, of black junior high pupils 
from the black Jeffries public housing project to black Hutchins 
Junior High in another high school constellation, rather tnan 
allow them to walk across the street to the majority white 
Jefferson Junior High. Although Jefferson Junior High was at 
capacity, the Board could have assigned white students from the 
Tildcn Elementary area in the northern-most part of the Jefferson 
zone (and much closer to Hutchins than Jefferies project) to 
Hutchins, thereby making available space for the Jeffries project 
youngsters at Jefferson. [P.X. 10911 (small overlay); 14 Tr.
1489-1507(Foster); 32 Tr. 3407, 3872-73(Hcnrickson)].
8a/ The Board has persisted in refusing to bus white pupils to black schools 
despite the enormous amount of space available in inner-city schools. [35 
Tr. 3901-07; P.X. 181 (small under capacity overlay)]. There are 22,961 
vacant seats in schools 90% or more black. [P.X. 131].

17



26. Prior to 1966 defendant Board operated under an open 
enrollment policy, which permitted any pupil to transfer to any 
school in the system with available space. [8/27/70 Tr. 50-52 
(Drachler); 15 Tr. 1644-54 , 22 Tr. 2519-20 (Foster); 35 Tr.
3910-11(Henrickson)]. On September 18, 1964, Judge Kaess entered 
,!Interim Findings" in Sherrill School Parents Committee, et aL,. 
v._ The Board of Educ. of the School District of th^_City_of 
Detroit, Civ. No. 22092 (E.D.Mich.), concluding, inter alia,

that:
The present "Open School" program does^not 
appear to be achieving substantial stuaent 
integration in the Detroit Scnool System 
presently or within the foreseeable futur>~. 
Accordingly, the Board should commit itself 
to devise and propose other methods of 
speeding up the racial integration oj. 
students. The goal should be the achieve­
ment of substantial student integration in 
all High Schools and Junior High Schools 
by the beginning of the February, 1965 
term. [P.X. 6]

The Board, with one member dissenting, expressed complete agree­
ment with these findings on April 20, 1965. [P.X. 6A]. Yet xt
was not until September, 1966, that the open enrollment policy 
was modified to require that any transfer thereunder have a 
favorable effect upon integration at the receiving school. [3d 
Tr. 3910; P.X. 133 at 9 and 11]. Although some black pupils had 
elected to go to predominantly white schools, "the greater effect, 
of the policy to that date [September, 1966] had been to draw 
white students away from inner city schools." [P.X. 138 at 11;
35 Tr. 3910-11]. Even under the post-1966 policy the favorable 
effect on integration has been negligible, with some black students

IB



continuing to elect predominantly white schools, but almost no 
white students opting for predominantly black schools. [32 Tr. 
3411; 35 Tr. 3913-14; 13 Tr. 1401]. The policy continues to focus 
on the receiving school and permits white students to transfer 
from black schools to schools which are less black. [20 Tr. 
2190-92; 13 Tr. 1401]. Furthermore, pupil transfers for obviously 
racial reasons have been and continue to be regularly allowed.
[17 Tr. 1870-72, 1881-1900(Edmundson); P.X. 168; 32 Tr. 3388-91 
(Henrickson); P.X. 138 at pp. 2 and 12].

27. The Board has created and altered attendance zones, 
maintained and altered grade structures and created and altered 
feeder school patterns in a manner which has had the natural, 
probable and actual effect of containing black and white pupils 
in racially segregated schools. [14 Tr. 1489 to 15 Tr. 1610, 
1680-81(Foster)]. The Board admits at least one instance 
(Higginbotham) where it purposefully and intentionally built and 
maintained a school and its attendance zone to contain black 
students. [35 Tr. 3926(Henrickson); 20 Tr. 2253-50(Wells);
14 Tr. 1523-26(Foster)]. Numerous similar examples have been 
presented, and the Board has failed to carry its explanatory 
burden.--^ And even next year the Board plans on removing the

As long ago as 1967 IJr. Henrickson pointed out various obvious 
examples (e.g. , Burton-Franklin area; Wilson-Mcllillan Junior High 
area) where boundary lines separated white and black school zones 
which could easily be integrated by simple boundary line revisions. 
[32 Tr. 3435-40; accord 14 Tr. 1507-11, 15 Tr. 1699-1707(Foster)]. 
The Board has changed the Vandenburg-Vernor (14 Tr. 1513-1518), 
Jackson Junior High (14 Tr. 1534-36), Davison-White (15 Tr. 1590-95) 
Parkrnun (15 Tr. 1596-1601), Sampson (15 Tr. 1600-10) and other 
zone lines and feeder patterns in a manner which has created and

/

10



last predominantly white elementary school (Ford) from the blacx 
Mackenzie high school feeder pattern, the only justification being 
that the regional board so willed. [32 Tr. 3417(Henrickson)].
Even in two of the 8 changes (including elimination of 3 optional 
areas) during the decade which the Board points to as improving 
integration, subsequent changes negated or modified the meager 
r e s u l t s . [35 Tr. 3863-71 (Henrickson) ] . Throughout the last

9/ continued. . .
perpetuated racial segregation in the schools. [15 ir. 1680]. 

The Board has created and maintained the Higginbotham (14 Tr. 
1513-18), Hally (14 Tr. 1528-29), and Northwestern-Chadsey 
(15 Tr. 1603-08) attendance areas in a segregatory manner. 
Defendants respond to these and similar examples generally ay 
pointing out capacity problems and the desire to maintain 
articulated feeder patterns. These proffered justifications are 
unconvincing, if for no other reason because of the inconsistency 
of their application. For example, the Board attempts to justify 
the removal of the white Parkman elementary from the black 
Mackenzie High feeder pattern by pointing out that the receiving 
white high school (Cody) was much less overcrc ned than 
Mackenzie. Yet, at the same time Cooley (predom'.nantely black) 
was similarly less overcrowded than white Bedford, but the board 
made no change in the feeder patterns. [32 Tr. 3415-19]. Tne 
articulated feeder pattern'principle has not been, nor is it now, 
a valid justification for maintaining or failing to alleviate 
segregation. This principle was violated in feeder patterns such 
as the Custer in 1959-61 (35 Tr. 3865-67) and the Davison in 
1969-present (35 Tr. 3368-71), which had the effect of creating 
and perpetuating segregation. And the concept was wholly 
disregarded in the feeder patterns proposed in tne April 7 plan.
[35 Tr. 3853-56(Henrickson)].
10/
to

The two negative changes were the return of 
the black Central High feeder pattern (35 Tr.

black Custer 
3865-63, 3871-72)

and the return of black Davison from the white Osborn feeder
pattern to the predominantly black Pershing feeder pattern. 
[35 Tr. 3868-71].

f

20



decade (and presently) school attendance zones of opposite racial 
compositions have been separated by north-south boundary lines, 
despite the Board's awareness (since at least 1962) that drawing 
boundary lines in an east-west direction would result in signifi­
cant integration. [P.X. 105 at p. 450(Minutes of EEO Committee); 
Drachler deposition de bene case at 156-77; 11/4/70 Tr. 38(Drachler); 
35 Tr. 3853-56(Henrickson); P.X. at 7; 15 Tr. 1699-1707(Foster)].
And although the Board was specifically aware, since at least 
1967, of contiguous attendance zones which could be paired or 
altered to accomplish integration, it has failed to act. [32 
Tr. 3435-40; P.X. 138]. The natural and actual effect of these 
acts and failures to act has been the creation and perpetuation 
of school segregation.

28. There has never been a feeder pattern or zoning change 
which placed a predominantly white residential area into a pre­
dominantly black school zone or feeder pattern. [32 Tr. 3404] .

29. Every school which was 90% or more black in 1960, 
and which is still in use today, remains 90% or more black 
[P.X. 150; 32 Tr. 3381-82].

30. Whereas 65.8% of Detroit's black students attended 90%
or more black schools in 1960, 74.9% of the black students attended 
90% or more black schools during the 1970-71 school year. [P.X.
129; 32 Tr. 3332].

C. School Cons I- ion
31. Between 1940 and 1953 the Board constructed 36 new 

elementary schools and 4 new high schools, and additions to 55 
elementary schools, 1 junior high school and 3 high schools, for



a total additional capacity sufficient to house 69,000 students. 
[33 Tr. 3507-03; P.X. 101 at p. 233]. The new school construction 
during this period was located largely in accordance with general 
site designations set forth in the Detroit Master Plan of 1946, 
which was developed by the City Plan Commission in conjunction 
with school authorities. [33 Tr. 3509-10, 3513-14].

32. in 1953 Board-appointed Citizens Advisory Committee on 
School Needs pointed up inadequacies in school plant facilities. 
[P.X. 101]. in 1959 the Board designated a $90 million dollar 
nuilding program; $30 million came out of the millage package 
and the remaining $60 million from the first bond issue the Board 
had ever placed before the public. [Drachler deposition de bene 
essee (June 23, 1971) at p. 25]. The 1959 building program was 
specified in a "priority list" of projects; this list was trans­
mitted by the school authorities to the City Plan Commission which 
resulted m  joint conferences between these tv/o agencies and other
ci-cy agencies, such as the Department of Parks and Recreation, for 
the purpose of determining site locations. [33 Tr. 3515(Henrickson)] 
Many of the proposed attendance areas were designated in 1959 and 
specific site locations were thus determined within the confines 
of tne established attendance areas; by 1962 all attendance areas 
and site expansions were designated for the school construction
proposals on the 1959 priority list and published in The Price of 
^ellcnce (P.X. 72A) . [35 Tr. 3891-92 (Henrickson) ] Many of these
attendance areas were drawn in such a manner that tne Board knew 
or snould have known that the schools, when constructed, would 
open as segregated schools. [15 Tr. 1682-98]. For example:

22



(a) The 1959 building program included a replacement for
Eastern High School, which was constructed prior to the 
turn of the century. The Price of Excellence (P.X. 72A- 
map folowing p. 105) reveals that the attendance area 
would remain the same(except that portion north of Mack 
to be included in Kettering) for the new high school 
which was designated to be built some 1-2 miles southwest 
of the old school. [See also D.X. Y]. The 1960 census 
map (P.X. 136B) reflects that the proposed attendance 
area encompassed a residential section of the City which 
was overwhelmingly black, although there were substantial 
areas of white population immediately to the east and 
west of the proposed attendance areas. The 1960-61 
racial count (P.X. 100A) reflects that old Eastern High 
enrolled 2290 black and only 151 white students that 
school year. The new Eastern was constructed around the 
middle of the decade and it was renamed King High School 
in 1963. Since the 1960-61 school year the school (old 
and new) has never enrolled over 50 white students (P.X. 
100A-J), and this past 1970-71 school year the school 
enrolled only 3 white pupils out of a total enrollment 
of 1,878. [P.X. 1C0J]. The inescapable conclusion is
that the Board knew, or failed to know only through 
wilful ignorance, that they were building a segregated

23



11/black high school. [See generally 35 Tr. 3391--95] .
(b) Kettering was another high school proposed in the 1959

building program. The Price of Excellence (P.X. 72A-map 
following p. 134) and Defendants' Exhibit Y show that 
the designated attendance area included the northern half 
of the Northeastern High zone and the northern portion 
of the Eastern High zone. The 1960 census map (P.X.
136B) reveals that the portion of Northeastern to be 
included in the Kettering zone was about evenly devided 
between black and white residences, and that the portion 
of Eastern to be included in the Kettering zone was 
overwhelmingly black in population. The proposed zone 
did not encompass, as it easily could have, the 
Southern portion of the white Osborn High school area. 
[See P.X. 136B(census map) and 109A(overlay)]. The 
1960--61 racial count (P.X. 100A) reflects that North­
eastern enrolled 437 white and 1648 black students 
that school year, while Eastern had only a handfull of 
white students, as previously noted. Even if all of 
the Northeastern white students lived in that portion 
of the zone to be included in the Kettering zone, it is

— The Board's only response to this compelling set of 
circumstances is that there were charges from the black 
community in 1960 that the Board was building a new high 
school for the whites in Lafayette Park and Elmwood (the 
only white residential areas in the Eastern zone). These 
charges, howevm , stemmed from the previous experience of 
the l tek com lity with the segregation of Hiller High 
School (35 Tr. 3882-87 , 3893), an;, do . ot negate the obvious 
and predictable results of the Board's actions.

t



clear that there was little likelihood that Kettering 
would have a substantial number of white students when 
it opened. Although the 1960 and 1970 census maps 
(P.X. 136B and 136C) show that about 1/3 of the pro­
posed Kettering area encompasses white population 
areas, the Board knew that a large portion of the pupil 
population areas, the Board knew that a large portion of 
the pupil population in this area attended then and now 
parochial schools. [35 Tr. 3900-01]. Furthermore, the 
Kettering site, designated in 1960 (35 Tr. 3395) was 
located in the black population portion of the zone to 
the south of the white residential areas, rather than 
the center of the zone. [P.X. 72A(map following p. 134) 
and P.X. 136B (1960 census map)]. Not surprisingly, 
Kettering opened in 1965 with an enrollment of 803 
black and only 295 white students. [P.X. 100E]. In 
1970-71 Kettering'enrolled 3,372 black and only 38 white 
students. [P.X. 100J]. The Board knew or should have 
known that the natural, probable and actual effect of its 
actions would be the creation of a segregated black high 
school. [See generally 35 Tr. 3895-3901]

(c) Finney High School was also constructed pursuant to
the 1959 building program. Its boundary was designated 
to encompass an all white population area which was 
the northern half of the Southeastern area [D.X. Y(overlay) 
P.X. 109A (overlay)]. The attendance zone, as designated, 
excluded the black residential areas of the Southeastern



zone. [P.X. 13613] . Finney High opened in 1962 with

an enrollment of 1048 white and only 4 blade pupils, 
while Southeastern had an enrollment that school year 
of 1436 black and 1220 white students. [P.X. 100B]. 
Although the original site selection was the Clark 
Elementary site, the location was subsequently changed 
to place the high school at the existing Finney Junior 
High site, even farther from the black population 
areas in the Southeastern zone. [35 Tr. 3881-82;
P.X. 72A(map following p. 112); P.X. 136B(census map); 
P.X. 109A and D.X. Y]. Although a boundary change in 
1967 added black students to Finney High, the school 
remains disproportionately white with an enrollment of 
1,669 white students and only 973 black students in a 
system which i 63.8% black. [P.X. 100J, 152A].

(d) Comparison of the census maps and Defendants' Exhibit AA 
(junior high school construction and attendance area 
overlay) reveals a similar systematic segregatory 
pattern of cons ruction at the junior high level unaer 
the 1959 building program. 17 junior highs were con­
structed under the 1959 program; the following ta.ole,
taken from Defendants' Exhibit NN, demonstrates the 
Board's knowledge of the natural, probable and actual 
segregatory effects of this construction:

26



f

Junior High PERCENT BLACK
School (1959 Date When 12 , When
Bldg, program) Opened Authorized—  Opened 1970-71

1. Brooks 1962 0.0 0.0 1.5
2. Butzel 1964 88.0 91.3 93.1
3. Condon 1963 90.0 92.7 91.8
4. Earhart 1965 10.0 13.6 8.6
5. Farwe11 1964 30.0 21.8 b / . 8
6. Joy 1964 75.0 92.1 98.8
7. Knudsen 1963 98.0 98.7 98.9
8. Lessenger 1963 0.0 0.0 8.3
9. McMillan 1962 50.0 53.2 48.1
10. Ilurphey 1963 , 0.0 0.7 9.8
11. Pelham 1963 50.0 69.1 99.5
12. Ruddirnan 1962 .5 2.1 19.4
13. Spain 1962 100.0 100.0 100.0
14. Taft 1962 0.0 0.0 0.7
15. Webber 1963 99.0 99.4 99.7
16. Wilson 1963 2.0 1.7 2 • 1
17. Winship 1963 0.0 0.0 / 0.3

Of these 17 junior high s;chools, only 3 (Farwell,
McMillan and Pelham) had designated attendance areas
(see D.X. AA) which were estimated by the Board to be
substantially integrated when authorized in 1959, and
2 of these (Farwe 11 and V.LcMillan) have remained integrated.
Of the remaining 14 junior high schools authorized in
1959, 3 had designated attendance areas estimated by the

Board to be white when authorized and 6 had designated

attendance .areas estimateid by the Board to be black. Each
of these 14 schools, as anticipated, opened as black or 
white junior highs, and each has retained its racial 
identity to this date. The Board's defense that they

— / The column showing % black when authorized was estimated by 
Mr. Henrickson from existing schools in the area at the time 
authorized. [30 Tr. 3212].



were surprised and overtaken by population shifts in the 
interim period between authorization date and completion 
date is not borne out by the facts, nor is it supported 
by the Board*s own exhibits, which not only demonstrate 
a segregatory construction program but also demonstrate 
scienter on the part of the Board. The evidence reflects 
long delays between the initial designation of projects 
and actual steps toward construction. In such instances 
the board was free to change its plans for many reasons 
including the demonstrable reason that if built in 
particular locations it would be a segregated school.

(e) Defendants' Exhibit Z and the exhibits used in the
foregoing examples, together with the same methods of 
comparison therein utilized, reveal the same results 
with regard to elementary school construction under the 
1959 Building program: The Board, with knowledge of
the natural, probable and actual effects of its actions, 
constructed and maintained segregated black and white 

elementary schools.
33. In addition to the 84 projects undertaken pursuant to 

the 1959 Construction Program (see P.X. 75), the Board has, 
during the last decade, undertaken additional construction with 
its normal millage authority (recently increased to 5% to equalize 
Detroit's capital outlay authority with that of the rest of the 
state). [See P.X. 77]. Defendants' Exhibit NN reflects that the 
Board has completed construe'ion of and additions to 91 schools 
since 1959. According to defendants' own exhj.oit (NM t 48 of

28



these schools were to serve areas which were over 80% black in 
pupil population when the construction was authorized, all of 
which opened over 80% black and remain so; 14 schools were m  

areas over 80% white (by the Board's own estimates) when 
authorized, opened over 80% white and have remained so. Plaintiffs 
Exhibit 79 shows the construction of 63 new schools since 1960.
44 of these schools opened over 80% black in student enrollment, 
and 9 opened less than 20% black. This new school construction 
is depicted on overlays (P.X. 153, 153A and 153B); when the 
overlays are compared to the 1960 -and 1970 census maps (P.̂ .
136B and 136C) and the percentage black when each school opened 
(P.X. 79), it appears beyond peradventure that the Board, with 
few exceptions, has knowingly embarked upon and continued a 
course of new school construction which had the natural, probable
and actual effect of creating, perpetuating and maintaining 
racially segregated schools in Detroit. [15 Tr. 1682-98(Foster);

33 Tr. 3519-21].
34. In 1966 the defendant State Board of Education and the

Michigan Civil Rights Commission issued a Joint Policy statement
on Equality of Educational Opportunity (P.X. 174), requiring tnat

Local school boards must consider the factor of 
racial balance along with other educational con­
siderations in making decisions about selecuion^ 
of new school sites, expansion of present facili­
ties . . . .  Each of these situations presents 
an opportunity for integration.

Defendant State Board's ''School Plant Planning Handbook" (P.X. 70

at p. 15) requires that

29



*

Care in site location must be taken if a 
serious transportation problem exists or 
if housing patterns in an area would resul 
in a school largely segregated on racial, 
ethnic, or socio-economic lines.

Yet, defendant Board has paid little, if any, hoGd to the
truth of these statements and guidelines, as the foregoing
findings regarding school construction and site location clearly
demonstrate. The State defendants have similarly failed to tc.se
any action to effectuate these policies. [33 Tr. 35221.
Defendants' exhibit NH reflects construction (new or additional)
at 14 schools which opened for use in 1970-71; of these 14
schools, 11 opened over 90% black and 1 opened less than 10% blac!
School construction costing $9,222,000 is opening at Northwestern
High school which is 99.9% black, and new construction opens at
Brooks Junior High, which is 1.5% black, at a cost of

13 /$2,500,000.—  [P.X. 151].
35. Since 1S59 the Board, with the obvious knowledge that 

small schools ''defeat' the' intended objective of large service 
areas with heterogeneous social and racial composition [P..,.
138 at p. 5; 35 Tr. 3909-10], has constructed at least 13 small
primary schools with capacities of from 300 to 400 pupils.
[35 Tr. 3907-08]. This practice negates opportunities to inte 
grate "contains" the black population and perpetuates and com­

pounds school segregation.

— 7 The construction at Brooks Junior High plays a dual segrega 
tor- role- not only is the construction segregated, it will 
result°in a feeder pattern change which will remove the last 
majority white school from the already almost a
kensio high School attendance area. {3Z ir. ---
number 27, supra].

30



#

36. Furthermore, the Board, through school construction, 
has advantaged itself and built upon the racial segregation in 
public housing projects (v/hich segregation resulted from the 
discriminatory policies and practices of federal and state 
housing agencies, see Findings 43 ~ 44__ t infra), by con­
structing new schools and additions within or near such segre­
gated projects. [P.X. 147, 148, 149; 23 Tr. 2571-76] The 
Board knew or must have known that such construction created or 
perpetuated school segregation. (See, e.g., school official s 
reference to using "colored church" to relieve school over­
crowding caused by black housing projects, P.X. 147 at p. 17,

23 Tr. 2574). [See Finding 46; infra]

D. Magnet Plan

37. The integration results predicted for the magnet high school plan 

have failed to materialize; the plan has resulted in but a few black 

students electing to attend predominantly white high schools and almost no 

white students choosing predominantly black high schools. [31 Tr. 3323-46 

(Della Dora); 35 Tr. 3912-14 (Henrickson)]. The magnet plan retains too 

many of the defects inherent in "open enrollment" and "free choice" 

techniques (already proven ineffective in Detroit, see Finding 26, supra) 

to have any realistic prospects of achieving substantial desegregation of 

Detroit's high schools. [35 Tr. 3910-14 (Henrickson); 15 Tr. 1644-54 
(Foster)].

31



E. Alternatives Available

38. The District long has been aware of the racial segregation of pupils 

and faculty in the Detroit Public School System. Numerous complaints have 

been made to the Detroit Board of Education and its staff to remedy the 

situation. Among the examples are the reports of Citizens Association for 

Better Schools in 1960 [20 Tr. 2245-2246; P.X. 105 p. 478], the 1962 report 

of the Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity [P.X. 3], the Sherrill 

School Case [P.X. 6 and 6A], the studies by the Commission on Community Rela­

tions in 1963 on continuing discriminatory patterns and practices of the 

District [P.X. 177-178]; the joint statement of the State Board of Education 

and Michigan Civil Rights Commission in 1966 [P.X. 174], and the report of the 

High School Study Commission in 1968 [P.X. 107]. Board minutes are replete with 

repeated requests by many individuals and groups, including Plaintiff Detroit 

Branch of the N.A.A.C.P., for effective action to eliminate existing segrega­

tion. [D.X. RR].

39. Several such complaints suggested reasonable and feasible means of pupil 

and faculty assignment which would reduce the substantial racial imbalance; 

other proposals to remedy the school segregation were also made. Among the 

other examples are Defendant Drachler's acknowledgement in 1961 to the EEO 

committee that drawing attendance zones East-West instead of North-South 

would effect substantial integration [Drachler Statements, Deposition 6/28/71 

pp. 156-157; P.X. 105, p. 405]; the various suggestions by District planner 

Henrickson, in 1967 [P.X. 138] , and the various desegregation proposals of a 

number of District staff groups in 1970 [P.X. 11-13]. Defendants, including 

the State Board of Education, admitted the educational benefit of integration 

for both black and white pupils and the denial of equal educational oppor­

tunity inherent in existing school segregation [P.X. 174(State Boare); 19 

Tr. 2049-2051 (State Beard); P.X. 1 (Drachler Statement)]. As admitted by 

defendant Board member Stewart, the District has "a mor-.1 as well as a legal 

responsibility to undo the segregation it helped to create and maintain."

32



2350-2353
21 Tr. ____ / [See also admissions of Deputy Superintendent Johnson, 41 Tr. 4334-
4348].

4 0 . The District had the power to and regularly did alter attendance zones, 

build new schools and additions, and alter student and faculty assignments.

Yet, with some exceptions, most notably the April 7 plan of partial high 

school desegregation, the District has failed to act effectively to end the 

prevailing pattern of school segregation because of "imagined or real community 

pressures based on race alone." P.X. 3 p. 74 (1962 EEO Report) [See also 

P.X. 173 p. 11(Former Board President Grace Deposition, 7/24/64)]. Those 

fears of the white community's active hostility to effective action to end the 

prevailing pattern of school segregation were born out by the quick response 

and recission of the April 7 plan by the State and recall of Board members who 

favored that modest start. [41 Tr. 4675 (Drachler)].

33



!

F. School and Residential Segregation

41. The City of Detroit is a community generally divided by racial 

lines. Bradley v. Milliken, C.A. No. 35257 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 3, 1970) (Slip. Op. at 3). 

Residential segregation within the City of Detroit and throughout the metropolitan 

area is substant.i ■ 1 , pervasive and long-standing. The credible evidence in this 

cause —  exhibits and testimony of expert and fact witnesses —  shows that 

black citizens have been contained in separate and distinct areas within the 

City and largely excluded from other areas within the City and throughout the 

suburbs; that pattern and practice persist. [P.X. 184, 2, 16A-D, 136A-C (census 

maps);48 (map of racial covenants); 1 Tr. 144 et seq. (Marks); 3 Tr. 342 et seq. 

(Taeuber); 2 Tr. 200, et seq., 3 Tr. 398, et seq., 5 Tr. 522 et seq. (Bush) ;

6 Tr. 686 et seq. (Price); 7 Tr. 720 et seq. (Bauder); 7 Tr. 766 et seq. (Tucker);

5 Tr. 591 et seq., 5 Tr. 608 et seq., 5 Tr. 617 et seq., 6 Tr. 630 et seq.,

6 Tr. 636 et seq., 6 Tr. 665 et seq. (Black Real Estate Brokers)] That 

evidence stands uncontradicted by the State or any other defendant.

42. Chance, the racially unrestricted choices of black persons, and 

economic factors are not now and have never been the major factors in this 

pattern of residential segregation; nor is it primarily an ethnic phenomenon.

[1 Tr. 146-148, 150-153, 176-177 (Marks); 3 Tr. 349-350, 357-363, 371-377,

386-389, (Taeuber); 7 Tr. 775-779, 787 (Tucker); P.X. 183B, pp. 1-2]. Rather, 

the pervasive residential segregation throughout the metropolitan area is 

primarily the result of past and present patterns, practice, custom and usage 

of racial disc, imination, both public and private, which now restricts and al­

ways has restricted the housing opportunities of black people. [1 Tr. 151-154, 
1 6 7 - 1 6 8 (Marks); 3 Tr. 358, 363-364, 373, 386-387 (Taeuber); 7 Tr. 766-767 (Tucker);

7 Tr. 727-28 (Bauder), P.X. 122], As evidenced by the uncontroverted (1) testimony 

of officials or former officials from the Detroit Commission on community 

Relations (Marks and Bush), Detroit Housing Commission (Price), the Michigan 

Civil Rights Commission (Bauder), United States Commissi i on Civil Rights 

(Sloane), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Tucker)(all of 

which are responsible for monitoring and in some instances combatting housing

34



discrimination) (2) probative findings of these agencies and the former

commissioner of the Michigan Corporation and Securities Commission, (3) the

testimony of local black brokers and (4) a variety of documentary evidence,

the collective experience of black home seekers throughout the metropolitan

area always has been and is still largely that of racial discrimination,

restriction, exclusion, and sometimes insult or worse.1— ^ The testimony of

these witnesses is credible, informed and stands unrebutted and uncontradicted 
by the State or any other defendant. This proof was properly conceded

by Counsel for the District to be a "tale of horror . . . degradation and de­

humanization." 5 Tr. 607 [See also 6 Tr. 672, 680-681 (District); 4 Tr. 505 

(Intervening Defendant Detroit Federation of Teachers)].

43. Governmental action and inaction at all levels— federal, state and'

local— is ful1y implicated in the subsidization, development and maintenance of 
racial restrictions on housing opportunities and is substantially responsible

for the present residential restrictions and pattern of residential segregation 

throughout the metropolitan area. [Tr. 153-156, 177-178 (Marks); 2 Tr. 200, 

et. seq. (Bush); 6 Tr. 694-693 (Price); 7 Tr. 766-796 (Tucker); 7 Tr. 722-750 

(Bauder); 4 Tr. 445-473, 496-490 (Sloane) ; and P.X. 25 (Report of the Commission 

on Community Relation); P.X. 122 (Statement of the Michigan Civil Rights Commis­

sion) j p .x . 37 (Report U.S. Commission on Civil Rights); P.X. 38 (Statement

of the Secretary of HUD)]. As. testified by Martin Sloane, Assistant Staff 
Director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, one of the most

formidable factors has been the history of the Federal government's aggres­

sive promotion of discrimination and subsidization of new housing, especially

— - In the words of one witness, this pattern of containment "is just as
effective a barrier as if a wall were built in the community." [1 Tr. 163 
(Marks)]. This witness then noted that on the edge of an historic black 
pocket in the 8 Mile-Wyoming area, a builder, who had title to property adjacent 
where these Negroes were living, "actually put up a cement wall, brick, mortar 
and brick wall, which for years was a symbol in [Detroit] of the way in 
which the Negro was an undesired neighbor." (1 Tr. 163 (Marks); Tr. 
(Hendricson)]



in the suburbs, on a racially exclusiv basis. The effects of these 

discriminatory policies, and the scope of the activity of F.H.A. and later 

V .A . [4 Tr. 445-456, 490-494, 496-498(Sloane)], on the present location 

and racial occupancy of housing throughout the metropolitan area, particularly 

in subdivision development, affixed a pattern of racial separation which was 

closely conjoined with new school construction within the City and the 

white bedroom communities of the suburbs Present governmental inaction

has failed to reverse this pattern of housing discrimination and segregation 

which it did so much to create and now perpetuates by failing to exercise 

its power. [P.X. 184 (census map); P.X. 37, 57(Statements of U .S.Commission on 

Civil Rights); P.X. 38(Statement of Secretary of HUD); P.X. 183A pp. 5-6 

(Plaintiffs' Answers to Requests for Admissions); 4 Tr. 453-455, 496-498 

(Sloane)].

15/—  In building racially exclusive communities for the outmigration 
of whites, "white" schools were a necessary precondition to "stable" 
and "desireable", i.e. white, neighborhoods in the formerly stated view 
of the F .H.A.:

"Of prime consideration to the Valuator is the presence or lack 
of homogenity regarding types of dwellings and classes of people living 
in the neighborhood....Distances to the schools should be related to 
the public or private means of transportation available from the location 
to the school. The social class of the parents of children at the 
school will in many instances have a vital bearing.... Thus...if the 
children of people living in' such an area are compelled to attend 
school where the majority or a good number of the pupils represent a 
far lower level of society or an incompatible racial element, the 
neighborhood under consideration will prove far less stable and desire- 
able than if the condition did not exist. In such an instance it might well 
be that for payment of a fee, children of this area could attend another 
school with pupils of the same social class." [P.X. 56B, 1936 F.H.A. Manual 
§§ 252, 265, 266]

"PROTECTION FROM ADVERSE INFLUENCES... Important among adverse influences 
[is] infiltration of inharmonious racial or nationality groups. [P.X. 56,
1935 F.H.A. Manual S§ 310]

"Protection from Adverse Influences . . . .  Recorded restrictive covenants 
should strengthen and supplement zoning ordinances and to be really effective 
should include... [p]rohibition of the occupancy of properties except by the 
race for which they are intended." [P.X. 56 A, ?,938 F.H.A. Manual, § 980 (3) (g)

36



44. The City of Detroit, with the assistance of federal agencies, built 

and maintains public housing on a racially segregated basis [1 Tr. 156 (Marks)

7 Tr. 781 (Tucker); 4 Tr. 457-459, 463-464 (Sloane); P.X. 18A (Public Housing 

Occupancy Statistics by Race, 1951-1971; 6 Tr. 697 (Price)] . Until declared 

unconstitutional by this federal district court in 1954, Detroit maintained 

segregation as an official policy: tennants were assigned on a racial basis

and projects located so that existing racial characteristics of any area would 

be maintained. [1 Tr. 156 (Marks); 2 Tr. 221, 226, 247, 254-256, 263-265(Bush); 

(Detroit Housing Commission Exhibits: P.X. 17; 18B p. 1; 19 Annual Report 1935,

p. 10; Annual Report 1943 p. 9; Annual Report 1945, p. 29) 6 Tr. 697 (including 

urban renewal) (Price)]. Racially discriminatory tennant assignment practices 

continued through 1968 [6 Tr. 697-698 (Price); 7 Tr. 781-786 (Tucker); 2 Tr.

284, 291-292, 5 Tr. 589 (Bush);P.X. 18A p.32; P.X. 21 — . 25-35 (1959 Study 

of Tennant assignment)]. The policy of modified free choice then adopted has 

not been effective in desegregating projects originally designated for black 

occupancy. [P.X. 18B, pp. 15-18 (Tennant Assignment Policy 1/2/69);7 Tr.

781-786 (Tucker)]. They r>' aain virtually all black [P.X. 18A p. 3; 2 Tr. 297].

The discriminatory practice of locating projects persists. There has been a 

continuing pattern of rejection’of proposed public housing projects which are 

feared to be open to tennants of all races and located in white areas of the city.

[1 Tr. 177-178 (Marks); 1 Tr. 266-274, 2 Tr. 293-307,(Bush); 6 Tr. 706-708 (Price)]. 

As a result since 1954, there has been very little construction of additional 

public housing [P.X. 18A; 6 Tr. 706 (Price^ all of which has been located 

in black or changing areas. [1 Tr. 178 (Marks); P.X. 23 (Map of public housing 

constructed and rejected); 7 Tr. 731-732 (Bauder); P.X. 123 (Statement of the 

Michigan Civil Rights Commission to the Detroit Common Council, 3/30/70)].

This continuing pattern of government action and refusal to act contributes 

substantially to the pervasive residential segregation. [1 Tr. 155-156, 177-178 

(Marks); 4 Tr. ' 7  (Sloane); 7 Tr. 743-744 (Bauder); 7 Tr. 779 780 (Tucker)].

37



For a long period the affirmative policy of the major associations

of white real estate agents to exclude blacks from white neighborhoods [P.X. 60

p. 5, 6 Tr. 643 (Real Estate Codes of Ethics)] was explicitly sanctioned by the
16/State agency responsible for licensing and regulating real estate agents 

[P.X. 59 pp. 22, 25; 5 Tr. 525] and openly promoted and subsidized by the 

F.H.A. and other federal agencies [P.X. 56, 56A, 56B (F.H.A. manuals); 4 Tr. 

445-452 (Sloane); 6 Tr. 705 (Price); 7 Tr. 767, 770 (Tucker)]. By policy and 

practice various banks and lending agencies, chartered and regulated by state or 

federal agencies, financed residential choices to preserve and build racially 

homogeneous neighborhoods [6 Tr. 702-705 (Price); 4 Tr. 464-467 (Sloane)]. 

Racially restrictive covenants, long enforceable in State court, effectively 

excluded blacks from all but a few areas in the City and suburbs identified 

for open and black occupancy; these covenants helped establish a pattern and
17/practice of racial containment and exclusion which persist. [P.X. 48, Tr.

235-238 (map of restrictive covenants); P.X. 48A and Tr. 186-196 (Affidavit and

testimony of Chief Title Officer of Burton Abstract and Title Company, Parmalee v

Morris, 218 Mich. 625 (1925), Northwest Civic Association v. Sheldon, 317 Mich.

416 (1947, Sipes v. McGee, 316 Mich. 614 (1947, rev'd 334 U.S. 1 (1948); 1 Tr. 
153-154 (Marks); P.X. 2, 16A-D, 184 (census maps); 7 Tr. 778-779, 796

(Tucker)]. The pattern of racially discriminatory marketing practices in

the organized real estate industry, although possibly less rigid and

openly stated then in the past, persist and are still effective. [1 Tr.

154 (Marks); 3 Tr. 363 (Taeuber); 5-6 Tr. passim (Real Estate

—  After hearings and investigations in 1961 Commissioner Gubow attempted 
to halt the pervasive discriminatory practices of its licensed real estate 
brokers which Commission policy had previously helped develop and maintain.
Thai. effort was frustrated by act of a superior state agency. (P.X. 183A-G)
17/—  Restrxctive covenants continued to be included in the abstracts and title in­
surance policies of the largest title company in the Detroit metropolitan area be­
cause of its opinion that they had some continuing effect until Jones v. Mayer,
392 U.S. 409 (1968); upon a request by the Justice Department on November 26, 1969 
made pursuant to Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the title company 
began eliminating such restrictions from all policies and commitments. (P.X. 48A; 
2 Tr. 196].

38



Brokers)], By credible and uncontroverted evidence in this record, both

past and present mechanisms of housing discrimination have been described and 
18/documented. [1 Tr. 152-153 (Marks); 3 Tr. 363, 386, 391 (Taeuber); 7 Tr.

768-770 (Tucker); 5 Tr. 531-534, 536-568 (Bush); P.X. 24 (harassment); P.X. 27-29

(advertising); P.X. 25; 5-6 Tr. passim]. The understatement of one young black

broker, who works on behalf of black clients who seek better housing which happens

to be located in white residential areas, describes the current situation: "I

do it only on bright days when I have good shoes because there is a great deal
19/of hostility in the white areas." Tr. 671.

46. The defendants had full knowledge of this situation. From 1943 

until his employment by the District in 1959, the chief school planner, Mr. 

Hendrickson, was employed by the Detroit City Plan Commission and worked on the 

master plan which, with modifications, is still in effect and included generally 

existing and proposed school locations. [33 Tr. 3507-3513 (Hendrickson)]. The 

District acts jointly with city planning officials, public housing authorities, 

and federal agencies in the acquisition and sale of land and location and con­

struction of schools, [P.X. 147-148; 167; 19, Detroit Housing Commission Annual 

Report 1942, p. 37; 33 Tr. 3514-3518 (Hendrickson)]. The State Board of Education 

and Michigan Civil Rights Commission directed that school authorities in their 

school construction and student assignment practices avoid imposing segregation 

in the schools. [P.X. 174]. Yet, the District, with the sanction of the defendant 

State Board of Education and support of State bonding authority, built upon 

and advantaged itself of the pattern of residential segregation to create,

18/— The discriminatory mechanisms of the organized real estate market operate to 
restrict the choices of whites as well as blacks. Whites and blacks are sorted 
and separated, guided by the real estate industry on a racial basis to different 
residential areas in the metropolitan area. [1 Tr. 146-148, 151, 170 (Marks);
5 Tr. 548, 557-558, 582 (Bush)].
19 /—  Another older black broker testified movingly about the long history of dis­
crimination he and his clientele experienced, his own recent difficulties in pur­
chasing a home for his family in the suburbs, and his decision to stop attempting 
to seek homes for black persons in white areas: "I've been licked, and I just don't
like wasting my time and my effort. And, I don’t like taking people, like a Doctor 
I took out in Livonia...able to buy and pay cash for a piece of property. And 
walk to the door and the man is there. And when you start to go in, he comes out, 
closes the door and said "we're closed!... I told you we're closed!"

"And this kind of thing was not bad for me because I'm immune to it, but 
it was so embarrassing to [the Doc Lor]." 5 Tr. 604-605

39



maintain, magnify, and perpetuate pupil and faculty segregation in the public

schools as set forth more fully in findings 1 to 36 supra. For

examples, as the major area of black containment expanded West (after a

decision by white realtors to open the area) in a pattern of neighborhood

succession from Woodward to Livernois to Greenfield [P.X. 2, 184, 16B-D, 136A-C

(census maps); 1 Tr. 147-148, 170 (Marks); 3 Tr. 364-370 (Taeuber); 5 Tr. 569

(Bush); Tr. (Hendrickson)], school boundaries were either altered, [see
21,27

finding §/, supra], made optional zones [see finding 23 supra] , or maintained in

a generally North-South direction [see finding, 27 supra]. Such actions had the

natural, probable and actual affect of maximizing school segregation and identifying
20-30schools as "black" or "white". [See Findings /supra]. For example, defendant^

built and maintained Higginbotham as an admittedly "black" school for residents
20/of an historic black pocket in the 8 Mile-Wyoming area: [See Finding 27 supra].

The Higginbotham school boundaries were built upon the actual physical barriers

erected by neighboring whites intent on keeping blacks out. [See Findings 27,42

supra]. By various assignment, transfer and transportation practices, Higgin-
24 27botham has been kept a "black"school. [See Findings* /supra]. As examples, 

many schools were built for public housing projects designated "black" or 

"white"; sometimes these schools were located on the site of the public housing 

project. [P.X. 147-148; 19, Detroit Housing Commission Annual Report 1942, 

pp. 32, 37; and see finding 36 supra]. By various student and teacher 

assignment, transportation and transfer practices, many of these schools were 

opened and thereafter maintained as "black" or "white" schools. The original 

"black" housing projects, and their schools, remain virtually all black, the 

result of past and present discriminatory practices. [P.X. 149].

20/ That pocket had been built up by temporary war housing [P.X. 19, Detroit 
Housing Commission Annual Report 1943, p. 71], designated for black occupancy, 
and extended beyond the City limits into Oakland county and the old, almost 
all-black Carver School District. [P.X. 184 (census map); Drachler depositions, 
3/31/71 p. 13, 6/28/71 p.48]. The small Carver school dis rict lacked high school 
facilities. The District accomodated these students by busing them past "white" 
schools to "black" schools in the inner city. [8 Tr. 885 (Green); 11 Tr. 1259-60 
(1959 Boundary Guide Book); Drachler depositions, 3/31/71 p. 13, 6/28/71 p. 48]. 
The Carver school district finally was split and merged into the Ferndale School 
District and Oak Park School District. [Drachler Deposition 3/31/71 p. 13; P.X. 
184 (census map); P.X. 185 (Summary of Suburban Schools)]. In these districts 
at the elementary level in the 1968-69 school year, the students from this still 
black residential pocket [P.X. .184 (census map)] were assigned to two virtually 
all black schools. [P.X. 185 (Summary of Suburban Schools)].



Indeed, identifiably "white" schools often were constructed and main­

tained on lands with covenant restrictions against Negro use or occupancy; and 

in one instance at least in 1954, such racial covenant was continued pursuant 

to a special agreement between the seller of the land and purchaser Detroit 

Board of Education. [See generally, 20 Tr. 2164-2176; P.X. 172, 172W, 172A-Z].

This record shows many other examples of defendants' pattern and practice of 

taking advantage of and building upon residential segregation to create, main­

tain, intensify, and otherwise impose segregation in the public schools. A 

summary of the pattern and practices, as set forth more fully in findings

31-36 supra, is evidenced by defendants own exhibit NN: Since 1960 most
21/new schools were authorized, opened and remain 80% black or 80% whiter—

And these schools were built to contain pupils from residential areas with high 

black or white concentrations. [P.X. 153, 153A-B (location of new school const­

ruction); 136 B-C (census maps£.

As noted, with the exception of a few historic areas of black occupancy,

Negroes are largely excluded from most areas and schools outside the City. For

example, approximately 20,000 blacks work in Warren, but only a handful live

there. [7 Tr. 751-752 (Bauder); 7 Tr. 775-780, 792-796 (Tucker); P.X. 38; P.X.

184]. When viewed in light of the other credible evidence on patterns and

practices of discrimination throughout the metropolitan area, the records supports

the finding that blacks are systematically excluded from living in Warren, con-
22/tained primarily in the areas open to black occupancy in the City. The

uncontradicted evidence also shows that blacks generally are not employed as 

faculty by the Warren public schools. [7 Tr. 752 (Bauder); P.X. 181 p. 672

21/—  Between 1940 and 1958 most new classrooms were built in the outlying 
parts of the City to accomodate the growth in student population, white, in 
the Northwest and Northeast. [33 Tr. 3510; P.X. 101, p. 233],
22/—  The Secretary of HUD appearing before the Select Committee on Equal Educational 

Opportunit noted that the City of Warren "had an obvious practice of [housing] 
discrimination" [P.X. 38, p. 2786]. The evidence in this record supports that 
finding.



(HEW school statistics)]. This example is just one of many in this record

of how governmental instrumentalities within and without the City act to main­

tain "white" schools. [P.X. 185, 181, 182, 128B]. For example plaintiffs' 

exhibit 185 summarizes a number of "black" schools which are immediately con­

tiguous to virtually all white suburban schools and districts. [See also P.X.
181 and 182]. When viewed in conjunction with a map [P.X. 184] of the metropolitan 

area by race, the sharp racial demarcation between the contiguous, substantially 

disproportionate, opposite race schools and districts is apparent.

'48. By so creating and maintaining a pattern of schools identifiable 

as "black" or "white" schools, defendants directly accomodated and supported 

racial discrimination in housing. [P.X. 56, 56A-B (1938 F.H.A. Manual); 4 Tr.

449, 502 (Sloane); P.X. 183A, Plaintiff's answers to request for admissions, 

pp. 5-6; 8 Tr. 865-866, 919 (Green)]. Moreover, by maintaining school seg­

regation over the history of the metropolitan area, defendants necessarily 

taught the experience of segregation to succeeding generations of pupils who

thereafter acted out what they had learned in public and private capacities.
(Green)[9 Tr. 960-967, 1025-26/;7 Tr. 766-767 (Tucker); Drachler Deposition 6/28/71 

p. 109]. This too had an unmeasurable but substantial effect on the racial 

discrimination which is primarily responsible for segregation of residences 

and schools. [9 Tr. 960-967, 1025-1026 (Green); 7 Tr. 774 (Tucker);

Drachler Deposition 6/28/71 pp. 108-109.] Thus, defendants' actions in 

relation to the creation and maintenance of state-imposed school segregation 

also operated substantially to create and perpetuate housing discrimination and 

residential segregation.

42



G. Equal Educational Opportunity

49. When viewed in conjunction with all the other evidence in this cause, 

plaintiffs' "hourglass" exhibit 166 [16 Tr. 1807] dramatically demonstrates 

what by now should be clear, that black and white children attend school 

largely with pupils of their own race and disproportionately with teachers 

of their own race. Put simply, most children in the District receive basically 

a racially separate educational experience. Both the white and black 

communities generally perceive the "white" schools as superior and "black" 

schools as inferior. [37 Tr. 4154 et seq. (Guthrie); 8-9 Tr. passim 

(Green)]. For example, Dr. Drachler noted that after the April 7 plan 

had been adopted, but before its recision, a group of black parents 

supporting integration "were worried that their children [would] not be 

able to compete educationally with the youngsters in the new school. I 

had to show them that their children's scores were higher than some of the 

children in the school that they [were] about to enter. The self-image 

that they had of themselves is that if a school is totally black, then 

its students are not doing as well. I do not blame the parents. Segre­

gation, attitudes of whites, instructional materials all contribute to 

this image." [41 Tr. 4677-4678. See also 8-9 Tr. passim (Green)].

Both white and black children understand that they are largely contained 

in racially separate schools and a stigma of inferiority attaches to 

"black" schools. [3 Tr. 4154-4156(Guthrie); 8 Tr. 863-871, 885-886,
895, 920-921]. In fact, as measured by standard achievement test scores, 

predominantly "black" schools are not doing as well as "white" schools.

[ P.X. 134A, 134C; 8 Tr. 872 (Greon)]. Although almost all schools in the 

city are below the nation-wide norm, predominantly black schools by the 

eighth grade are on the average two or more grade levels behind pre­

dominantly white schools. [P.X. 134A, 9 Tr. 1008-09 (Green)].

43



50. There is absolutely no indication that this disparity results from

some inherent inferiority of black children as a group relative to white

children. Rather, as a group and on the average black and white children

arrive in school with the same potential and much the same levels of tested

achievement. [8 Tr. 874-876m 933 (Green)]. (Of course different background

produce a range of achievement levels in all students. [8 Tr. 879-880

(Green)]) Only thereafter, with the experience of school segregation, does
23 /this tested achievement disparity appear and grow.— - [8 Tr. 874-876

(Green); P.X. 134A]. Defendants suggest that this disparity results from

either test bias or socio-economics status. Both, however, are conceded

by Dr. Guthrie, the District's expert, to be surrogates for past or present

racial discrimination insofar as blacks are concerned. [37 Tr. 4148-4154,

4160,4173,4174 (Guthrie); See also 8 Tr. 928, 935-936 (Green)]. Beyond

mere standardized test scores, the final result is systematically inferior

education for black children relative to white in the District, and per-
. , , . 24_.petuation by the defendants of the ills of our society on a racial basis.

[8 Tr. 939-940, 950-952, 9570969 (Green)]- in the testimony with respect

23/
— ■ Presumably on the average "SES" of the child (and income of the parent, 
see 8 Tr. 926 et seq. (Green)) remain approximately the same during his 

progress from K through 8. Although there was dispute between the witnesses 
as to the initial differences all agreed the disparity increased as the 
number of years in a segregated school increased. And the experts do agree 
that schooling does and can made a difference. See, e.g. 8 Tr. 937 (Green).

So called part-time shared-learning experiences and multiracial text­
books and curriculum simply cannot overcome the adverse racial effects of 
segregated education. In the words of Dr. Green, "these kinds of experiences 
can be wiped out by newscasts of a black robbing an elderly white person 
Downtown Detroit. These kinds of experiences can be readily wiped out 
completely . . . .  It can be wiped out by the fear of suburban parents 
who come into Det? it for a movie on Friday evening. However, ongoing 
sustained interpersonal relationships are not wiped out by a mugging of an 
elderly white woman by a black man." 9 Tr. 957-958.

44

!



to "social class" or SES and its role in explaining the systematic differences 

between students in schools 90% black 'and those 90% or more white both 

plaintiffs and defendant District conceded that whatever the differences 

in their views, racial discrimination, past and present resulted in 

disproportionate, adverse affects on disproportionage numbers of black 

pupils. The effect was observable in schools in general and in particular 

in schools of the city of Detroit. [37 Tr. 4148-4154 (Guthrie); 8 Tr.

874-76, 928-936, 951-967].
51. Similarly, the segregated educational experience has cumulative effects 

on the attitudes and behavior of the children; but the benefits of integrated 

and harm of segregated education are entrenched in the early years when the 

children are most impressionable. No witness disputed this point. [See, 

elg. 9 Tr. 960 (Green); 37 Tr. 4149-4150, 4180 (Guthrie); 35 Tr. 3909 

(Henrickson)].
52. The District, on its own effort, systematically discriminates against 

black childr n and "black" schools in the provision of objectively measurable 

educational resources. For example, although teacher pupil ratios are the 

same [163A-C, 164A-C, 163AA-CC, 164AA-CC], more emergency substitutes, fewer 

highly paid and experienced teachers, and more inexperienced and low paid 

teachers are assigned to "black" schools than "white." [P.X. 161A-C, 162A-C, 

164A-C; D.X. NNN]-^ In the allocation of the District's own funds}£>~' the

&  variety of calculations have been made by experts for the District and 
the plaintiffs. Although the figures vary depending on the particular data 
and method of calculation used, they are in substantial agreement in both the 
extent and consistency of the disparity in resources allocated by the District 
to black children and schools compared to white.
2-̂ -/ Exclusion of federal and state compensatory funds is required in order to 
fairly summarize the District's own efforts and determine whether it is 
discriminating against black children and "black" schools [4.1 Tr. 4666-4667 
(Smith); and see Hobson v. Hanson, order of May 25, 1971.] The compensatory 
funds are supposed to be added onto an already equal local resource allocation 
effort. [37 Tr. 4181-4182(Guthrie)]. In this District that is not the case.

45



average expenditure per pupil in "black" schools is between $50 and $40 

less than in "white" schools [P.X. 163A-C, 164A-C, 163AA-CC, 164AA-CC]; 

and the average salary of teachers assigned to black schools is between 

$1800 and $1400 less than the average salary of teachers assigned to white 

schools [P.X. 163A-C, 164A-C, 163AA-CC, 164AA-CC, D.X. NNN]. In its 

allocation of its resources, the finding is therefore compelled that the 

District is discriminating against Negro children in a pattern of "systematic 

differentiation paralleling racial lines." [41 Tr. 4665-4666(Smith)].

53. The High School Study Commission found in 1968, despite denial by the 

District, that "rigid ability grouping across classes [or tracking] is a 

basic part of educational planning in Detroit at the high school level" 

and "that grouping is quite rigid." [P.X. 107A, pp. 5,8.] The District 

witnesses agreed with plaintiffs that tracking within schools serves no 

educational purpose and often operates to segregate black.- children from 

white in separate classrooms within the same school. [37 Tr. 4151-4153 

(Guthrie); Drachler Deposition 6/28/71 pp. 159-160; see also 8 Tr. 889-894, 

896-897,909(Green)]. And. the District's educational expert conceded that 

tracking between schools with different curricula or ability levels has the 

same effect, namely segregation of black and white pupils for no educational 

purpose. [37 Tr. 4153 (Guthrie); Drachler Depositions, 6/28/71 p. 81,

3/3/71 pp. 11-12.].

54. Similar disparity in the allocation of education resources occurs between 

District pupils and other pupils in the metropolitan area: fewer dollars

per pupil, identification as black, the stigma of inferiority attaching are 

tie lot of plaintiff children in the District. [37 Tr. 4136-4142, 4156-4157 

(Guthrie); 31 Tr. 3309-3310 (Della-Dora)]. In short, black children in the 

District face a double dose of discrimination resulting from both economic 

and racial discrimination. [41 tr. 4676 (Johnson)] Irrespective of good

46



or bad faith, a pattern of systematically discriminatory practices perpetu­

ating segregation and inevitably identifying schools as black or white 

clearly persists in the District and throughout the petropolitan area. It 

is that pattern which perpetuates the twin cancers of racism and segregation 

in our society and denies plaintiff children an equal educational opportunity.

47



H. State Involvement

55. The state and its agencies, in addition to their general responsi­

bility for and supervision of public education, have acted directly to 

control and maintain the pattern of segregation in the Detroit schools.

[See: 37 Tr. 4140,4141]. The state refused, until this session of the 

legislature, to provide authorization or funds for the transportation of 

pupils within Detroit regardless of their poverty or distance from the 

school to which they were assigned, while providing in many neighboring, 

mostly white, suburban districts the full range of state supported trans­

portation. [19 Tr. 2058-70] . This and ofsr financial limitations, such

as those on bonding and the working of the state aid formula whereby suburban

districts were able to make far larger per pupil expenditures despite less

tax effort, have created and perpetuated systematic educational inequalities.

[41 Tr. 4575; 37 Tr. 4187, 4156(Guthrie); 31 Tr. 3309-10 (Della Dora)]. The

amount of State aid to local school districts in 1970-71 was three-fourths

of a billion dollars. [19 Tr. 2043]. An additional $29 million is spent

by the state for pupil transportation [19 Tr. 2065]. The state-wide trans­
portation cost, including local funds, in 1966-67 amounted to $40,339,296.00.

[19 Tr. 2070].

5 6 . The State, exercising what Michigan courts have held to be its 

"plenary power" which includes power "to use a statutory scheme, to 

create, alter, reorganize or even dissolve a school district, despite

any desire of the school district, its board, or the inhabitants thereof," 

acted to reorganize the school district of the City of Detroit. Act 244 

and Act 48 created in the Detroit metropolitan area eight new school 

boards with certain powers and duties. Each of these new districts was 

as large or larger than any other school district in the state. The 

eight new districts remain subject to the central Board of Education 

having broad control over all school affairs. As early as July, 1969,

48



during the period between Act 244 and Act 48, the president of the Detroit 

Board, pointing out the racial segregation of Detroit when compared with 

the suburbs and the financial disparity between Detroit and the sur­

rounding districts, called upon the State to end this confinement of 

Detroit. [P.X. 189 at p. 4].
57. The state acted through Act 48 to impede, delay and minimize racial 

integration in Detroit schools. The first sentence of Sec. 12 of the act 

was directly related to the April 7, 1970 desegregation plan. The remainder 

of the section sought to prescribe for each school in the eight districts 

criterian of "free choice" (open enrollment) and "neighborhood schools" 

("nearest school priority acceptance"), which had as their purpose and 

effect the maintenance of segregation—  The state legislature acted with 

great dispatch in blocking the April 7 integration plan. Within two 

days the first changes in Act 244 cleared the state House of Representatives. 

[41 Tr. 4675 (Drachler)]. The ultimate statute contained one of the 

features contained in the first version to pass the House. [I 2(a) of 

Act 48]. It changed the 7 racially integrated regions drawn by the 

pre-call Detroit Board and set up a formula of 8 regions, with criteria, 

which in the con ext of the passage of the Act and in particular the 

more obvious provisions of Sec. 12, were designed in the words of 

Superintendent Drachler to provide "decreasing opportunities for 

integration." [41 Tr. 4675].

27/
—  Section 12 of Act 48 which was before the Court of Appeals was held by 
that Court to be "unconstitutional and of no effect as violative of the 
14th Amendment." Bradley v. Milliken, 433 F.2d 897 (6th Cir. 1970).

49



Testimony throughout the record, in particular that of Mr. Aubrey 

McCutcheon, indicate some of the impediments which either have arisen or which 

may make integration more difficult. [36 Tr. 3993-3999 (McCutcheon);

32 Tr. 3417 (Henrickson); see Finding 27, supra].

58. if integration on any substantial bases were to occur, the new 

districts or regions as drawn by the State would result in the abandon­

ment of any effective "community control" or the supposed benefits of 
"decentralization." These two concepts, as described by Dr. Green and Dr.

Della-Dora, do not call for particular geographic areas, but rather speak 

to a "community of people," parents, students, teachers and staff assigned 

to a particular school or set of schools. [31 Tr. 3308 et seq. (D lla-Dora);

8 Tr. 912-13 (Green)]. However, the Court finds that the State's imposed 

boundaries for these districts impedes efforts to desegregate. [See: 31

Tr. 3368, 3369]. The eight regions as drawn were designed as a limitation 

upon the assignment of students to schools outside of "their regions."

[See 9/1/70 Tr. 322-23] . The regions establish dual school districts in 

the Detroit area. [Compare P.X. 143B (April 7 regions) with 144 (present 

regions)]. The Court further finds that integrated regions similar to those 

established by the pre-recall Board or as shown in the 1969 proposal of the 

then Board president, including schools in the greater Detroit community 

(P.X. 189), would enable both the concept of integration and of community 

control, as defined by these witnesses, to occur. The Court takes judicial 

notice however of the practical problem of harmonizing any theory of 

"community control" with larger population and the facts of urban life.
See: Mogk v. City of Detroit, No. 35020 (three-judge court) (E.D.Mich.

July 22, 1971) (slip op. p. 6).

50



I. "State-Imposed Segregation

5 9 . Under the circumstances set forth in the foregoing findings, the 

present school segregation did not just happen, and is not adventitious

—  it is "state-imposed.