Pre-trial Statement of Plaintiffs

    I
\)

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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs,

I
vs.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

\ \ Defendants,
, ■ and
V

No. 35257

' DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, )

'J \
' i

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

Intervening Defendant.

PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS
» * ' • » ! '  • M i l *  * I 1

f
Plaintiffs submit the following as their pre-trial statement

i < 11 i 111 , t \ 11. i i . t ii
herein:

1 i ■

I.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS' AND THEORIES OF PLAINTIFFSu i I i i i

{> *

The Detroit public schools are being operated in a manner
i - i i

which violates the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 
Constitution of the United States.
j  ■ i i i i i i , .  i i < • i i i i ,  11

i * The Detroit School System operates schools which are racially<»i r , 11 i i i i
identifiable as "Negro" and "White" schools, which schools are

I i i v  • I i i • j I *•*• ) • i i < I i > I

inherently unequal, and which deny plaintiffs equal educational 
opportunities.

i i i .  T i l  . i i i

A school system which operates schools as set out in the pre­
ceding paragraph is under an affirmative duty imposed by the

. , 1 1 11  i i i 1 1 1 . i n i i i i

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to remove the racial identi- 
fiability of the schools in its system by desegregating the student 
bodies of the individual schools and by assigning and/or reassign-l i 1 ‘ . 1 , it.'
ing faculty members to each school in accordance with the system-

i i i i  i r • 11 t i n11  ■ i i i

wide ratio of black and white faculty members/ and by planning and
t I • ( i l l  I I I t i l  , , | » t | I , 4

making facility additions in a manner which will promote and main-
* •'  < i • 111 i < 11 i < i i i i .  H i  i i i i i i

tain racially non-identifiable schools.
I l l  1 ><■ • i ' > I I ‘ I I > i I I l l  I . I , . , , I

III. Ill I I 1 . | | I | I »;, II i ■ i j i Mil. I II . I I .1 . . .  I if »
I I I I I > I M i l /  t I I I  l l | 1 I I I n i l  , , | , l  I I ■ I I l I I



# %

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has complied with 

its admitted affirmative Constitutional duty to operate a public 
school system without "Negro" and "White" schools, but just 
schools?

2. Whether the defendant Detroit Board maintains a public 
school system which denies equality of educational opportunity to 
Detroit's public school children on the basis of race?

3. Whether the pupil and faculty assignment policies of the 
defendant Detroit Board have failed and do fail to provide all 
persons with the same right to the full and equal benefit of all 
laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as 
is enjoyed by white citizens, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 and 
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments?

4. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has instituted and/or 
utilized pupil assignment and transfer policies which have aided 
the creation and maintenance of racially identifiable schools?

5. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has established, 
perpetuated and/or maintained pupil attendance zones and pupil 
feeder patterns which result in the existence of racially identi-

■ • 1 • - i  • ; ■ 1 « , . i

fiable schools?
! i ,

6. Whether the defendant Detroit Board's open enrollment 
policies, optional attendance zones, transportation and/or other 
administrative policies have had the effect of aiding the creation 
and/or maintenance of racially identifiable schools?I i

7. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has constructed new
t i t  i . t . , i . i

schools and made additions to existing schools in a manner that 
has resulted in the establishment, existence and/or maintenance of

. l i . , i i : , . » *

racially identifiable schools?; i
8. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has purchased and/or 

placed additional school facilities of any type, including, but not 
limited to, transportables, mobile units, and rented relief space 
in a manner which has aided in the creation, existence and/or main-

. i t . . :  | | . , I t  * , i , ’

tenance of racially identifiable schools?> i ■ I • • ■ I ; ' I
Wli> I i.‘ it. i * , ,

II.

I Hi  . i I ,



*

9. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has and does assign 
racially identifiable faculties to correspondingly racially 
identifiable student bodies, thereby aiding in the creation and/or 
maintenance of racially identifiable schools?

10. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has instituted 
teacher assignment and/or transfer policies which have aided in 
the creation and/or maintenance of racially identifiable schools?

11. Whether teacher contracts, collective bargaining agreements 
or any other employment custom or practice may be relied on or 
utilized to delay, impede or otherwise restrict the total desegre­
gation of the faculty and staff of the Detroit School System?

12. Whether the Detroit Board has by act or omission failed 
to avail itself of opportunities to eliminate or diminish the 
racial identifiability of the schools in its system, or to prevent 
the increase or creation of racially identifiable schools?

13. Whether a policy of neutrality as to any facet of school 
administration, including pupil and teacher assignments, satisfies 
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment obligations of the defend­
ant Detroit Board to provide equal educational opportunities to the 
school children in its system?

14. Whether the defendant Detroit Board's student and faculty 
assignment practices have impermissibly segregated students and 
faculty by race, by reason of the underlying racially segregated 
residential patterns?

15. Whether the defendant Detroit Board has built upon or 
does build upon racially segregated residential patterns in the 
assignment of students and faculty?

16. Whether the policies and practices of public officials 
with respect to location, building or expansion of public housing 
units, and tenant admission and assignment thereto, have aided 
and/or contributed to the creation or existence of racially segregated 
residential patterns within the City of Detroit?

17. Whether the policies and practices of public officials 
with respect to the sponsorship, insurance, guarantee or subsidy of

3



*

private housing has aided and/or contributed to racially segregated 
residential patterns?

18. Whether any other policies and practices of public 
officials have contributed to the racially segregated residential 
patterns in Detroit?

19. Whether the opportunities of blacks and whites for private 
housing have been restricted on the basis of race by the practices 
and policies of various public, quasi-public and private persons 
and organizations?

20. Whether such restrictions on housing opportunities, and 
their persisting effects, have contributed to racially segregated 
residential patterns?

21. Whether the racially segregated residential patterns in 
the City of Detroit have had any effect upon pupil attendance and 
faculty assignment patterns in the Detroit public schools?

22. Whether the Detroit Board is and has been under an 
obligation to select from the available alternatives that method 
of operation which minimizes the effect of such residential segre­
gation?

23. Whether there is any relationship between residential 
segregation and school segregation in Detroit, including whether 
Detroit Board policies and their persisting effects such as loca­
tion and size of schools, pupil assignment policies, teacher assign­
ment policies, feeder patterns, transportation, open school policies 
and pupil and teacher transfer policies, have caused, aided or 
contributed to racially segregated residential patterns or have 
failed to counteract the effect thereof; and, conversely, whether 
racial restrictions upon residential choices, and their persisting 
effects, have caused, aided or contributed to racial identifiability 
of the Detroit Public Schools?

24. Whether or not there exist or have ever existed in the 
Detroit School System patterns of school, classroom or course 
assignment to "tracks", "levels" or so-called "ability groups" 
which have the effect of denying equal educational opportunities 
to Detroit school children?

4



25. Whether the Detroit Board, having initiated a partial 
plan (i.e., April 7th plan) for providing equal educational 
opportunities to some of the high school students in the Detroit 
system, is under a duty to provide complete equality of educational 
opportunity to all Detroit Public School children by instituting
a complete plan of school desegregation?

26. Whether the obligation to remove the racial identity of
ij the schools in its system requires the Detroit Board to immediately 
\ modify an existing partial plan of desegregation, such as the
April 7th plan, so as to achieve as much desegregation as possible 
pending preparation and implementation of a complete plan of 
de s e gre gat i on ?

27. Whether the three-year stair-step approach of the April 
7th plan complies with the Detroit Board's Thirteenth and Fourteenth 
Amendment obligations to eliminate the racial identifiability of 
its schools at once?

28. Whether a provision in a school desegregation plan (such 
as the April 7th plan), which exempts from the attendance require­
ments thereof any student who has a brother or sister enrolled in 
some school other than that school which such student would other­
wise attend under the plan, complies with the Detroit Board's 
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment obligations to remove the 
racial identifiability of its schools, where the effect of such 
plan is the continued enrollment of such students at racially 
identifiable schools?

29. Whether the Detroit Board should be required to immediately 
reassign and/or assign individual school instructional personnel in 
accordance with the system-wide ratio of black and white instruc­
tional personnel?

30. Whether the construction or purchase of additional school 
facilities should be enjoined pending the adoption of a complete 
plan of desegregation by the Detroit Board?

31. Whether Section 2A of Act 48 is unconstitutional as 
applied in that it established school administrative regions, which

5



m#

as implemented, have the effect of impeding racial integration of 
the schools?

32. Whether the requirements of compact and contiguous 
regions and the drawing of racially separate regions of school 
administration by a state agency and the adoption of guidelines 
by the defendant Detroit Board have the effect of making more 
difficult the desegregation of the Detroit schools?

33. Whether, because of the state-established eight racially 
separate administrative regions, the Detroit Board is prohibited 
from any delegation of authority to regional boards which diminishes 
the authority and responsibility of the Detroit Board of Education 
to desegregate its public schools, including, if necessary, actions 
which cross regional boundaries?

34. Whether or not the state defendants have met their 
admitted constitutional duty with respect to the creation and 
operation of racially desegregated schools in the City of Detroit?

35. [Pursuant to.agreement of all parties and subject to 
approval of the court, plaintiffs reserve the right to state 
further issues as perceived.]

III.
STIPULATION OF FACTS

Plaintiffs stipulate and agree to the following:
1. This court has jurisdiction over all parties hereto and 

issues presented herein.
2. The pupil and faculty ratio counts testified to by the 

Superintendent on November 4, subject to errors in compilation or 
computation.

3. All past published racial counts of the defendant Detroit 
Board.

4. Pupil attendance areas for all years as set forth in the 
published boundary guidebooks.

5. All published achievement data reports of the Detroit 
Board.

6. [As discovery approaches completion, plaintiffs expect

6



to Stipulate other facts and will state the issues of fact remain­
ing to be litigated at that time.]

IV.
WITNESSES

Plaintiffs will call the following named or designated 
witnesses:

Dr. Gordon Foster 
Dr. Robert Green 
Dr. Karl Taeuber
Various School Board Officials and Personnel (to be 
designated after completion of discovery)
Various Persons Familiar With Housing Patterns and 
the Housing Market in Detroit

[Upon completion of discovery, plaintiffs may desire to call 
other witnesses not hereinabove named or designated but will 
provide reasonable notice to all opposing counsel.]

Respectfully submitted,

Louis R. Lucas 
William E. Caldwell 
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee
Nathaniel Jones, General Counsel 
N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
E . Winther McCroom 
3245 Woodburn 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207
Bruce Miller and Lucille Watts, 
Attorneys for Legal Redress Committee 
N.A.A.C.P., Detroit Branch 
3426 Cadillac Towers 
Detroit, Michigan, and
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7



#

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Pre-Trial 

Statement of Plaintiffs has been served by United States mail,
postage prepaid, this 14th day of November, 1970, as follows:

Mr. Theodore Sachs 
1000 Farmer Street 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Mr. George E. Bushnell
2500 Detroit Bank and Trust Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Mr. Eugene Krasicky 
Assistant Attorney General 
725 Seven Story Building, Station B 
Lansing, Michigan 48902

8