Answers to Request of Court for a Joint Status Report

    # #

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., X
Plaintiffs,

•»
X•
• CIVIL ACTION

-VS- X
•
• NO. 35257WILLIAM J. MILLIKEN, Governor Xof the State of Michigan, et al., •

X
mDefendants.
X

ANSWERS OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE DETROIT BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, THE DEFENDANTS MILLIKEN, ET AL., AND 
THE DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AND CITIZENS 
COMMITTEE FOR BETTER EDUCATION TO REQUEST OF 

COURT FOR A JOINT STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to the Court’s orders of 
January 13, 1975, the following is submitted 
as a joint status report by the above parties. 
The responses of Citizens Committee for Better 
Education is included in the response of the 
Detroit Board of Education. Where the parties 
have been able to agree, a single response 
has been filed. Otherwise, separate responses 
have been set forth.

1. On what date and at what stage of the proceed­
ings did the parties last meet for conference with or without 
the Court?

The last conference of counsel was in chambers 
with the Court on August 15, 1973, pursuant to the Court's 
notice of such conference dated July 31, 1973. This confer­
ence occurred between the en banc decision of the Sixth Cir­
cuit Court of Appeals herein and the filing of petitions for 
certiorari by many of the defendants herein. Pursuant to 
this Court's orders of January 13, 1975 and January 31, 1975, 
counsel for the plaintiffs, the Detroit Board of Education, 
the Detroit Federation of Teachers and defendants Milliken, 
et al. met in Detroit, Michigan on February 1, 1975.



\ •  #

2. Is any further discovery anticipated?

Plaintiffs' Position:

The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion For Immediate 
Implementation Of Plaintiffs' Desegregation Plan, With 
Appropriate Updating Modifications dated September 12, 1974 
and the Detroit Board has filed an Answer and Cross-Motion 
in Opposition.

The Plaintiffs maintain that these motions repre­
sent the first priority in this matter. Plaintiffs anticipate 
further discovery on this point with respect to intra-city 
racial data and any alternative plans the Detroit Board is 
developing.

After an intra-city desegregation plan is imple­
mented further discovery may continue with respect to the 
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and area-wide violations.

Detroit Board Position:
Further discovery is necessary in order to deter-

*►mine the current viability of proposed desegregation plans 
and to develop possible new desegregation plans. Such 
relevant facts as the changes in the Detroit school system 
student racial composition and the success or failure of 
various desegregation methods in other school systems such 
as New York City and Denver will have to be determined to 
establish a viable desegregation plan.

Response of Defendants Milliken, et al.:
At this time, defendants Milliken, et al, do not 

anticipate any further discovery on their behalf. However, 
such defendants reserve the right to engage in further dis­
covery in this cause.

-2-



•  •

Motion for More Definite Statement and 
for Extension of Time
Motion to Quash Service of Process
Motion to Require Plaintiffs or the 
United States Government to Provide the 
Defendants with Copies of All Pleadings, 
Motions, Exhibits and Transcript Relat­
ing to any Proceedings in this Cause of 
Action, occurring prior to September 10, 
1973.

Fraser Public Schools 
Motion to Dismiss

Northville Public Schools
*

Motion for Enlargement of Time

New Haven Community Schools
5 Motions [same as for Utica Community S.D.]

Armada Area Schools
5 Motions [same as for Utica Community S.D.]

Anchor Bay School District
5 Motions [same as for Utica Community S.D.]

Van Dyke Public Schools 
Motion to Dismiss

Southgate Community School District 
Motion for Enlargement of Time

Clintondale Community Schools 
Motion to Dismiss

Birmingham School District
Motion for Enlargement of Time

Huron School District
Motion for Enlargement of Time

Romeo Community Schools 
Motion to Dismiss

4-



Huron Valley School District of 
Oakland and Livingston Counties

Motion for Additional Time

Avondale School District
Motion for Enlargement of Time

Professional Personnel of Van Dyke
Motion to Modify Composition 
of Desegregation Panel

Bradley, et al.
Motion for Immediate Implementation 
of Plaintiffs1 Desegregation Plan, 
with Appropriate Updating Modifications

Detroit Board of Education
Answer and Cross-Motion in Opposition 
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate 
Implementation of Plaintiffs' Desegre­
gation Plan, with Appropriate Updating 
Modifications

4. Does any party anticipate filing new motions? 
If so, what party and what type of motion?

1. After the Detroit Only-plan and after 
discovery on the present amended complaint, the Plaintiffs 
may file another amended complaint concerning new area-wide 
violations.

2. The Detroit Board anticipates that it 
will file a Motion to Modify the Pending Construction Injunc­
tion. This Motion will be necessary unless Plaintiffs Ronald 
Bradley, et al., and the Detroit Board can agree to a workable 
solution.

The Detroit Board also anticipates that 
it will file separate motions regarding the viability of 
various current and any newly proposed desegregation plans. 
These motions will present information accumulated through 
the efforts of the Detroit Board's Office of Desegregation,



an instrumentality of Board which is assisting its members 
in the preparing of viable desegregation plans.

3. Any party may file formal discovery 
motions in the event that informal discoveyr breaks down.

4. Defendants Milliken, et al., intend to 
file a Motion to Dismiss at approximately the same time 
as this status report is filed with the Court.

5. The Plaintiffs intend to file Motion 
for Costs and Attorney Fees.

♦ *

6. The Detroit Board of Education intends to 
file a Motion in Opposition to any Motion for Costs and 
Attorney Fees.

7. Objections to Plans to be filed by various
defendants.

8. All parties reserve the right to file 
other motions as the case develops.

5. Which parties have intervened in this action? 
On what date was intervention granted?

The following parties intervened as defendants 
on the following date:

Denise Magdowski, et al.
Detroit Federation of Teachers 
Local 231, American Federation 
of Teachers, AFL-CIO
Allen Park Public Schools
Grosse Point Public Schools
School District of the City 
of Royal Oak
Southfield Public Schools 
Kerry Green, et al.

9-3-70

11-4-70
3-15-72
3-15-72

3-15-72
3-15-72
3-15-72

-6-



Professional Personnel 
of Van Dyke 7-16-73

6. Are all of the intervening defendants 
still parties to this lawsuit?

Yes.

7. Which Orders of the Trial Court, if any, are 
still viable?

Plaintiffs* and Detroit Board Position:

Ruling on School Plans Submitted, dated 
December 3, 1970. Order, dated December 3, 1970.

Ruling And Order On Motion For Construction 
Injunction Pendente Lite, dated June 8, 1971.

Amended Ruling And Order On Motion For Con­
struction Injunction Pendente Lite, dated June 9, 1971.

Order (For Modification Of The Construction 
Injunctive Pendente Lite Issued on June 9, 1971), dated 
February 7, 1972.

Findings of Fact And Conclusions Of Law On 
Detroit Only Plans of Desegregation, dated March 28, 1972.

Ruling On Desegregation Area And Order For 
Development Of Plan Of Desegregation, dated June 14, 1972.

Order Modifying Order For Development Of 
Plan Of Desegregation, To Add Additional Panel Members, 
dated June 30, 1972.

Order, dated June, 1973, joining all 
suburban school districts, their superintendents and board 
members.

September 27, 1971 Opinion of Stephen J.
Roth, Ruling on issue of Segregation Order dated June,

-7-



•  •

1973 in regard to amended complaint.

Response of defendants Milliken, et al.:

Ruling on School Plans Submitted, dated December 
3, 1970. Order, dated December 3, 1970.

Ruling and Order on Motion for Construction 
Injunction Pendente Lite, dated June 8, 1971.

Amended Ruling and Order on Motion for Construc­
tion Injunction Pendente Lite, dated June 9, 1971.

* '
Order (For Modification of the Construction 

Injunction Pendente Lite issued on June 9, 1971), dated 
February 7, 1972.

The trial Court's Ruling on Issue of Segregation,>
reported at 338 F.Supp. 582 (E.D. Mich., 1971), is still 
viable but only as to the Detroit defendants. See Milliken 
v. Bradley, U.S. ; 94 S.Ct. 3112, n.18 at 3124, 3131;
41 L .Ed.2d 1069, n.18 at 1087, 1095-1096 (1974).

Response of Detroit Federation of Teachers:

The DFT doubts the viability of the Order of 
June 14, 1972 and June 30, 1972.



•  •

8. Are any proposed desegregation plans heretofore 
submitted to the Trial Court still viable? If so, summarize 
the positive and negative aspects of each plan.

Plaintiffs1 Position:

The Detroit Board’s argument on this point although
lengthy can be briefly summarized.

1. The trial Court and the Court of Appeals in 
choosing between city-only and metropolitan relief found the 
plaintiffs’ city-only plan insufficient.

2. That despite Judge Roth's findings of insuf­
ficiency, even for Detroit-only purposes, of the defendants1 
magnet school plan they still urge an unconstitutional choice 
of that plan.

3. Despite the order of the United States Supreme 
Court expressly directing the implementation of a Detroit-only 
plan, this Court should effectively ignore that express com­
mand just as the Detroit and State defendants seem determined 
to do.

Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the city-only 
desegregation plan submitted by them remains viable provided 
the defendants are required to update the statistical informa­
tion and with the assistance of plaintiffs1 experts make such 
reasonable modification as may be required.

The positive aspects of such a plan are that it, to 
the extent feasible within the Detroit school district, will 
eliminate the constitutional violations found aud redress in part 
the constitutional wrong and remedy the racial insult to black 
Americans. It will also eliminate discriminatory patterns, to 
the extent feasible, in all aspects of the operation of the 

system.
Its negative aspects are only those associated with 

any process of change and dislocation together with the oppor­
tunity it may present to racists of all types and political

-9



opportunists to pander to public fears and myths and to 
exploit existing misunderstandings. We submit that a full 
analysis, with the aid of the transportation department of 
the State Board, will disclose far less transportation costs 
than originally projected at the short hearing before Judge 
Roth. In any event segregation has always been an expensive 
habit and its cure may well require some additional cost 
which the State defendants should bear special responsibility 
for providing.

Detroit Board Position:

The Detroit Board believes that the only viable 
desegregation plan is a metropolitan plan. In the meantime, 
however, the Office of Desegregation has been established, and 

attempting, within the framework of the changing Detroit 
School System student population, to assist the Detroit Board 
members in developing a sufficient plan or plans for presenta­
tion by the Detroit Board to the Court.

For the convenience of the Court, the Detroit Board 
is attaching a copy of the October 22, 1974 resolution estab­
lishing the Office of Desegregation and its guidelines. It 
is with these guidelines in mind that the Detroit Board is 
formulating a plan or plans for presentation to the Court 
within a reasonable time.

The December 3, 1970, Detroit-only plan ordered by 
the Trial Court as an interim plan is still operating and may 
be viable. The Detroit Board Plans A and C may be viable 
depending upon updating consistent with current facts including 
student racial composition in the Detroit School System.

The Plaintiffs’ proposed plan is not viable. The 
Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on 
Detroit Only Plans of Desegregation, dated March 28, 1972,

- 10-



point out that at that time none of the plans, including
Plaintiffs' plan, were viable. In fact, the Trial Court 
specifically pointed out that Plaintiffs' plan would "ac­
centuate racial identifiability of the district as a black 
school system and would not accomplish desegregation." It 
was further pointed out that "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." These findings were affirmed by the 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 484 F.2d 242-245 (6th 
Cir. 1973) and were not specifically overruled by the United 
States Supreme Court.

The Trial Court found that Plaintiffs' plan was
insufficient in the following particulars:

"2. We find further that the racial composition 
of the student body is such that the plan's 
implementation would clearly make the entire 
Detroit public school system racially identifi­
able as Black.
"3. ...The plan contemplates the transportation 
of 82,000 pupils and would require the acquisition 
of some 900 vehicles, the hiring and training of a 
great number of drivers, the procurement of space 
for storage and maintenance, the recruitment of 
maintenance and the not negligible task of designing 
a transportation system to service the schools.

* * *

"5. It would involve the expenditure of vast sums 
of money and effort which would be wasted or lost.
"7. The plan would make the Detroit school system 
more identifiably Black, and leave many of its 
schools 75 to 90 per cent Black.
"8. It would change a school system which is now 
Black and White to one that would be perceived as 
Black, thereby increasing the flight of Whites 
from the City and the system, thereby increasing 
the Black student population.
"9. It would subject the students and parents, 
faculty and administration, to the trauma of 
reassignments, with little likelihood that such 
reassignments would continue for any appreciable 
time."

- 11-



Since March 28, 1972, the date of the Trial Court 
findings, the Detroit School System has undergone a consider­
able student population shift. Its current non-white/white 
student population ratio is now 73.6 non-white vs. 26.4 white. 
In October of 1970, the ratio of 65.2 to 34.8. In October of 
1971, the ratio was 66.7 to 33.3. Plaintiffs' plan was not 
viable in the Spring of 1972. Given the shift in student 
racial composition, it is even less viable in 1975.

Response of Defendants Milliken, et al. :
No. •

Response of The Detroit Federation of Teachers: 
The viability of any plans previously proposed is 

dependent in part on present position of proponents thereof.

9. Does any party intend to submit a new plan(s) 
for desegregation? If so, what party and when?

Plaintiffs' Position:
We note that the Detroit Board of Education indi­

cates it is preparing a plan of desegregation. We agree 
that the initial burden of preparing desegregation plans is 
to be placed upon school authorities. See Swann vs. Charlotte 
Mecklenburg, 402 U.S. 1. However, the Board in this case had 
defaulted on that obligation in two ways: (1) its initial
default before Judge Roth by failing to come up with an ef­
fective Detroit-only plan; (2) by the criteria adopted in its 
answer to No. 8, the Detroit Board has clearly stated that its 
own planning process is geared toward an unconstitutional 
result and is based upon a premise which the Supreme Court re­
fused to accept; i.e., it can’t be done. If the Detroit Board 
continues in its default and refused to work with plaintiffs 
in a modification of the plaintiffs' plan, then plaintiffs may 
have no alternative but to seek the assistance of the Court 
in obtaining data and updating the plan on their own to the 
ultimate expense of the Detroit Board and the State defendants 
We submit that the State defendants may not sit idlely by but 
have a coequal responsibility to act in the face of a default



by the Detroit Board.
Note: The Board's anticipated completion date

of June 30, 1975 of its own "non-plan" is calculated to 
set up a position whereby the Supreme Court's order would 
be disobeyed by the Detroit Board's default and create the 
necessity of drawing up a new plan which would be difficult 
to implement by September, 1975. Therefore, all plans must 
be submitted so that the Court can reach a decision in time 
for implementation no later than September, 1975.'

Detroit Board Position: *'

Yes. The Detroit Board is developing a sufficient 
desegregation plan or plans consistent with the current rele­
vant facts such as the school system's present student racial 
composition. These efforts by the Detroit Board are in con­
formity with the accepted judicial precedent that the burden 
of providing a desegregation plan is upon the effected school 
district.

In regard to this burden, the Detroit Board notes 
that the Supreme Court has stated in Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1; 281, Ed. 2d 554, 
91 S. Ct. 1267 (1971) , that the primary responsibility for 
the formulation of desegregation plans lies with the local 
board.

"Because these are class actions, because 
of the wide applicability of this decision, 
and because of the great variety of local 
conditions, the formulation of decrees in 
these cases presents problems of considerable 
complexity♦" Brown v. Board of Education, 
supra, at 495, 98 L.Ed. at 831, 38 ALR2d 1180.

None of the parties before us questions 
the Court's 1955 holding in Brown II, that 
[S]school authorities have the primary respon­
sibilityfor elucidating, assessing, and solving 
thllsiTlbroblemsl courts will have to consider 
whether the action of school authorities consti­
tutes good faith implementation of the governing 
constitutional principles. Because of their 
proximity to local conditions and the possible 
need for further hearings, the courts which 
originally heard these cases can best perform 
this judicial appraisal. Accordingly, we believe 
it appropriate to remand the cases to those courts."

-13 -



402 U.S. at 12, 28 L.Ed. 2d at 564. (Emphasis 
added). Accord, Davis v. Board of School 
Commissioners of Mobile County, 402, U.S. 33,
37, 28 L.Ed. 2d 577, 581 (1971).
See also Green v. County School Board of New Kent 
County, 391 U.S. 430, 20 L.Ed. 716, 88 S.Ct.
1689 (1968).

The State of Michigan has proposed six plans known 
as Plans A through E through which are still before the 
Court.

The Desegregation Panel appointed by Judge Roth on 
June 14, 1972 and enlarged on June 30, 1972 is still intact 
and may be of assistance to the Court.

In the most recent pronouncement by the Sixth Circuit 
on the duty and authority of a school board to present a 
remedy plan, Circuit Judge Harry Phillips stated in Brinkman, 
et al. v. Gilligan, et al., Nos. 73-1974-1975, (Sixth Circuit, 
August 20, 1974):

"Once the plaintiffs-appellants have shown 
that state-imposed segregation existed at 
the time of Brown (or any point thereafter) 
school authorities automatically assume an 
affirmative duty...to eliminate from the 
public schools within their school system 
'all vestiges of state-imposed school 
segregation.' Keys, supra, 413 U.S. at 
200w (Sixth Circuit Review, Vol. 3, No. 15 
at 10). (Emphasis added). See also, Monroe 
v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450,
459, 20 L.Ed. 2d 733, 729 (1968) wherein the 
U.S. Supreme Court required the school board 
to formulate a new plan to convert to a 
unitary system in light of the constitutional 
inadequacy of the board's previous "free- 
transfer" plan.

Throughout this litigation, the Detroit Board has always come 
forward with sufficient desegregation plans and has consistently 
met its burden of developing viable and sufficient desegregation 
plans.

Response of Defendants Milliken, et al.:

Defendants Milliken, et al., do not intend to submit 
any new desegregation plans to the Court.

14



Response of The Detroit Federation of Teachers:

The Detroit Federation of Teachers does not pro­
pose at this time to submit a plan. Reserves right to 
comment on or object to plans submitted by others.

10. Is any party presently developing a current 
desegregation plan(s) for the Court's consideration?

Plaintiff's Position:

See Plaintiffs' Answer to Question No. 9.
«

Detroit Board Position:

Yes, as described in the answer to Question 9 
above, the Detroit Board is currently developing a new deseg­
regation plan or plans for presentation to the Court within a 
reasonable period of time.

Response of Defendants Milliken, et al.:

Defendants Milliken, et al. are not presently 
developing any current desegregation plans for the Court's 
consideration.

Response of The Detroit Federation of Teachers:

The Detroit Federation of Teachers is not presently 
developing a plan and is unaware of actions of other parties.

11. If Question 10 is answered affirmatively, what 
party? Are there objections to the plan?

Plaintiffs's Position:

From the point of view of plaintiffs, the plans which 
the Detroit Board has indicated it will or is developing, are, 
as far as we can ascertain, without legal basis and therefore 
will be objected to by plaintiffs.

15-



Detroit Board Position:

The Detroit Board believes that there will be no 
objections to the sufficiency of its proposed plan, or 
plans. However, the plans are still in the development 
stage. Thus, the Detroit Board cannot assert with certainty 
that there will be no objections to its plan or plans by 
Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al.

Response of Defendants Milliken, et al.;
• '

It is impossible for defendants Milliken, et al., 
to respond to Question 11 for the reason that they have not 
been given copies of any current desegregation plans being 
developed by any other parties to this case. Based on 
Mr. Roumell's letter of January 22, 1975, apparently defen­
dant, Detroit Board of Education, is developing current 
desegregation plans through its newly created Office of 
Desegregation.

Response of The Detroit Federation of Teachers:

Depends on submitted plans. The Detroit Federa­
tion of Teachers reserves the right to object to proposed 
plans.

1G-



12. Have the parties at any time concurred in 
a plan for desegregation?

Plaintiffs' Position:
An area-wide or metropolitan plan would 

undoubtedly be more effective. However, limited at this 
time to a Detroit-Only Plan, it is the Plaintiffs' position 
that an update of the Foster plan would be the desirable 
Detroit plan.

Detroit Board Position:

The Detroit Board and Plaintiffs Ronald 
Bradley, et al., have concurred on the necessity for a 
metropolitan plan of desegregation. The parties, however, 
have not concurred on a Detroit-Only plan. The Detroit 
Board believes that by advocating a metropolitan plan, 
Plaintiffs have essentially concurred with the position 
that a Detroit-Only plan is not viable.

Response of defendants Milliken, et al.,
And the Detroit Federation of Teachers:
No.

13. Would a Pre-Trial at this time serve a 
useful purpose? What date would the parties suggest for 
ordering a Pre-Trial?

A pre-trial would be desireable in the 
instant case. This pre-trial should occur fifteen days 
after the presentation of a Detroit-Only plan by the 
Detroit Board, but in any event, no later than April 15,f
1975.

Response of defendants Milliken, et al.:

The Court, by its order of January 31,
1975, has ordered a pre-trial herein to be held on February 
18, 1975, at 2:00 p.m.

-17-



•  #

Response of the Detroit Federation 
of Teachers:

14. The Detroit Federation of Teachers are 
agreeable to pre-trial at such time as the Court or other 
parties propose.

If a pre-trial is ordered by the Court
»

pursuant to Rule XI of the Local Rules for the U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which orders, 
portions of the transcripts, etc., should be given priority 
by the Trial Court in preparing for the pre-trial?

Plaintiffs 1 Position:

Since priority is in implementing a Detroit- 
Only plan the following are necessary:

1. Ruling on Issue of Segregation,
September 27, 1971.

2. The Detroit Board's Progress 
Report on the Magnet School 
Program.

3. The Plaintiffs’ response to 
the Magnet School Program.

4. The ruling on the Detroit-Only 
plans.

5. All volumes of the transcript of 
the hearings on Detroit-Only plans.

Detroit Board Position:

1. Ruling on School Plans Submitted, 
dated December 3, 1970 and Order dated December 3, 1970.

2. Ruling on Propriety of Considering a 
Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation of the 
Public Schools of the City of Detroit dated March 24, 1972.

3. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law
on Detroit-Only Plans of Desegregation, dated March 28, 1972.

4. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
in Support of Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development Of
Plan dated June 14, 19 72.9 ^.

18-



5

5. Ruling on Desegregation Area and Order<
for Development of Plan of Desegregation, dated June 14, 
1972.

6. Order Modifying Order for Development 
of Plan of Desegregation, To Add Additional Panel Members, 
dated June 30, 1972.

Pleadings:

1. Defendant Board of Education’s Response 
To Plaintiff's Motion For Order Allowing Plaintiffs To

*

Present Desegregation Plans At The Board's Expense, dated 
December 17, 1971.

Trial Court Transcripts:

November 4, 1970 Hearing Re: April 7,
Plan Implementation:

p. 5 - Enrollment projections on 
April 7 Plan

p. 12 - Increased racial isolation
p. 16 - Disruption of student program
p. 18; 42-43 - Disruption on students

moving
p. 23-25; 37 - Board discusses attend­

ance change with community
p. 40 - Problems of modifying April 7

re: new and changing conditions
p. 42 - Plan in Spring for modular units 

in Fall, Court Order of November 
6, 1970 for Plan

November 18, 1970 Hearing Re: McDonald Plan:
p. 7 - Two plans: Magnet and Magnet

curriculum
p. 8 - Description of Magnet
p. 10 - Chart 2 reflects paired regions 

for Magnet High School
p. 12 - Magnet Jr. Fligh or Middle School

-19-



»

Re: Carol Campbell:
p. 73 - Plan 2 or B - Magnet curriculum 

plan devised by Campbell
p. 77 - Regional boundaries will change 

with census data
p. 80 - Could enroll 2,100 students in 

month and a half in Plan B.
p. 87 - Vocational electives
p. 89 - Most high school classes are 

electives
p. 101-102 - Integrate some students

always
p. 108-110 - Relative merits of Plan A

and B

Complete Testimony of Various Witnesses:

Witness: Date Beginning Page
Patrick A. MacDonald 11/18/70 P- 5

11/19/70 P- 180
3/14/72 P- 15

Betty Ritzenhein 3/16/72 P- 266
3/15/72 P* 219

Stuart C. Rankin 6/23/71 P* 3777
6/25/71 P- 4217
3/30/72 P* 398
3/31/72 P* 536
4/ 4/72 P* 478
4/ 5/72 P- 639
4/12/72 P- 1323

James W. Tuthrie 6/25/71 P- 4076
3/17/72

Court of Appeals Decision:

P- 444

484 F.2d 242-245

Response of defendants; Milliken, et al.

Defendants Milliken,et al, respectfully sub­
mit that, in preparing for the pre-trial, the Court should 
give priority to the Ruling on Issue of Segregation, reported 
at 338 F.Supp. 582 (E.D. Mich., 1971), as it related to the 
Detroit defendants, and the United States Supreme Court 
decision herein, reported at U.S. ; 94 S.Ct. 3112;

- 20 -



•  •

41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974), which decisively rejects any multi­
district relief in this case and remands this case for a 
Detroit-only remedy. Defendants Milliken, et al., also 
respectfully submit that, in preparing for the pre-trial, 
the Court should give priority to reviewing the pending 
motions to dismiss filed on behalf of many of the school 
district defendants and defendants Milliken, et al., with 
a view to establishing, at the pre-trial, a hearing date 
for such motions.

Response of the Detroit Federation of Teachers

Supreme Court Decision
Last Court of Appeals Decision
September 27, 1971 Ruling on Segregation
All prior orders and relevant transcripts
on Detroit only plans.

15. Please attach a bibliography of authorities, 
including Law Review articles, books and other materials 
critigueing desegregation plans implemented in similar cases.

To be provided by each party at a later date.

Response of defendants Milliken, et al.

Defendants Milliken, et al., suggest the 
following bibliography for the Court’s consideration:

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971)

Keyes v. School District No.l, Denver,
Colorado, 412 U.S. 189 (1973)

Milliken v. Bradley, U.S. ;
94 S.Ct. 3112; 4l L7Ed. 2d 10 69“ (19 74)

Higgins v. Board of Education of the City 
of Grand Rapids, Michigan, (W.D. Mich.
CA 6386), Slip Opinion, July 18, 1973, 
aff'd (CA 6, No. 73-2198) Slip Opinion 
December 6, 1974, Petition for rehearing 
denied.

-21-



*

Davis v. School District of the City 
of Pontiac, Inc. 309 F.Supp. 734 
(E.D. Mich. 1970), aff'd 443 F.2d 
573 (CA 6, 1971), cert. den. 404 
U.S. 913 (1971)

Goss v. Board of Education of City of 
Knoxville, Tennessee, 482 F.2d 1044 
(CA 6, 1973) cert. den. 414 U.S. 1171 
(1974)

Northcross v. Board of Education of
Memphis City Schools, 489 F.2d 15 (CA 
6, 1973)

"The Evidence on Bussing," David J. 
Armor, The Public Interest, No. 28 
(Summer 1972)

Respectfully submitted,

LOUIS R. LUCAS
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

JOHN A. DZIAMBA 
746 Main Street 
P.O. Box D
Willimantic, Connecticut 06226

NATHANIEL JONES,
General Counsel 
N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
PAUL DIMOND 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Lawyers' Committee For Civil
Rights Under Law
733 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 520
Washington, D.C. 20005 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

-22-



DETROIT BOARD'S EXHIBIT TO THEIR 
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 8 

o 0 
k(1 LyBA0RDSED GUIDELINES

OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION
October 22, 1974

fact //' fo  3A -C S C{ico IJ

Rationale ‘ •.
'■ During the current school year there will be a need for 

information for staff and community about the desegregation 
case .and a need for desegregation plans to be developed, linen 
an agreement or order is made, the implementation activities: 
of many offices of the. school system must be coordinated for 

optimum success- . .. , . : ; V
. : % . • • • i

The Office of Desegregation is established to carry out ^
these functions within the policies of the Board- This office 
will try to ensure that desegregation .is planned and imple-

, *Z. , •

mented effectively and that citizens’ concerns receive prompt .

attention- ’ . • * . •' ‘
A Committee on Desegregation will be established to suggest 

and help design criteria and optional plans for .desegregat:lcp.. - 
It will consist of three persons from each region, to be named 
by the region board; three persons city-wide, appointed by the 
City-Wi.de Schools Committee; several representatives of organi­
zations and students, named by the General Superintendent. The

#
Committee will work first with the Office of Dcisog r eg a fc ion hut 
may retake recommendations directly to the General Superintendent



i

#

or to the Central Board if it deans such action necessary.
The General Superintendent will make other Detroit staff avail-

>
able as consultants. The Committee may later help formulate 
effective methods for implementing a desegregation plan.

Charqe
1* The'Office of Desegregation will prepare a plan for

its own operation which will be reviewed for approval by the 
■■ General Superintendent. ' ' ' •

2. The Office of Desegregation will establish an informa­
tion system designed to ensure that citizens, staff, region
and central board members and attorneys for the board can *
obtain the information they need about the development of 
desegregation plans- The Office of Desegregation will collect, 
create, organize, store, and disseminate desegregation informa­
tion. - . .

3. The Office of Desegregation will develop desegregation 
plans for consideration and approval by the Detroit Board of 
Education.

4. The Office*"of Desegregation will invite and consider 
ideas from citizens, staff, and board members and furnish any 
needed information for them. The plan development process shall 
include several -steps, (listed below), each of which shall 
assure involvement of the Committee on Desegregation.

a. Development of: criteria
Among the i Leras to be considered are extent

BBSS!?? i a .  flpMWrniMII q w BIMWyfWMI



space, educational merit, costs, feasibility.
b . Devel :nt of alternatives

. * - A  full range of options should be generated
and an outline of key features prepared for each, 

c. Narrowing of options
/ I'll. . \ Upon instructions from the Board, a few

alternatives will be. more fully developed 
f '■ for final consideration.

5. The Office of Desegregation will continue the Desegre­
gation Seminars so that all persons who are interested in the
desegregation planning, but who are not serving on the Committee**■ ~ .

on Desegregation, will have, an opportunity to be informed about 
progress and to make suggestions.

6. The Office of Desegregation will make appropriate use
of existing community resources, such as the Michigan Department 
of Civil Rights, the Detroit Department of Human Rights, and 
other competent groups. • '

,7. . The Office of Desegregation will coordinate detailed 
plan development and implementation. The Board1s choice will 
be fully developed with regard to pupil assignment; personnel 
assignment; calendar; transportation; orientation and training 
for citizens, parents, board members, staff and students; school 
reorganization; effect on federal and state programs; curriculum; 
budget; school construction and modification; and cooperation



J

w zl'cn o tnar aqencir> q The Committee on Desegregation will be
asked.to make suggestions for each of these planning areas.

These tasks will require the involvement of all other 
central and regional offices. The function of the Office of 
Desegregation includes the effective coordination of these 
efforts and keeping the General Superintendent fully informed 
of progress and .problems in planning. • -.:

; The Office of Desegregation will have a similar role at 
the time of implementation, •

crganization *
* 'The Office of Desegregation will be established at once 

and will be assigned administratively to the Office of the 
Superintendent for the duration of the project.

The Office of Desegregation will be comprised of four - 
staff members, including persons from both the present public, 
schools’ staff and outside. The Director of the Office of 
Desegregation will be a person from inside or outside present 
staff who has an established abil.ity to provide leadership in 
this area. Secretarial staff will be assigned as needed.

Space for the Office of Desegregation will be arranged 

at the Schools Center by the Office of School Housing.



drrct E stim ate

3 School Administrators or equivalent
(10 lionth / Pr in. or A . P - level i or 2i

1 Researcher
(10 Monch, Res. Asst . or Assoc.)

X Secretary .:
' (10 Month, Level .'4/ 5, or 6)

1 Clerk-Typist h v ’‘ .
' {10 Month) •. ; ;

F r i n g e  1 2 .77%

. Total Personnel

$ 63,400

1 8 , 7 0 0

9 , 2 0 0

7 , 1 0 0

$ 1 0 3 ,4 0 0 .  

V 1 3 , 2 0 0  ' 

$ 1 1 6 , 6 0 0
<-' -h'

ûi'oraent 2 , 1 7 5
(2 typewriters @$350, adding machine $125,. 
•12 filing cabinets @$100,. 2 supply cabiner 
$75, furniture n/c)

Contracted Services _ #
(Computer service, $500? printing, cup-ica^ 

" ’ : 5.ng- and publication, $16,000; consulranvs
:.;$2,500} • . - ;

Travel (in city) .I.
'Orientation Workshops ' ' .

- ($4,000/ reg. for time, materials,
• consultants, space) A: •• .

Supplies
Communication (Phone and Postage)

.•1 Total Annual Cost

. 1 9 , 0 0 0

450

3 6 , 0 0 0

1 , 5 0 0

*7 r~ n / O

$ 1 7 6 , 4 7 5



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing 
Joint Status Report has been served on all counsel of 
record by depositing same to them at their offices by
United States mail, 
of February, 1975.

postage prepaid, this

LOUIS R. LUCAS

■23-

■