Defendants Propose Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following Hearings on Detroit-Only Remedy

    R i l e y  a n d  Ro u m e l l
A T T O R N E Y S  A N D  C O U N S E L O R S  A T  L A W

7 t_h FLOOR FORD BUI LD IN G

W A L L A C E  D. R I L E Y  

G E O R G E  T. R O U M E LL ,  J R .  

D O R O T H Y  CO M ST O CK R IL E Y  

J A N E  K E L L E R  SO U R IS  

L O U I S  D. B E E R

DETROIT, MICHIGAN <48226 T E L E P H O N  E 

(313) 962 -  8255

K. P A U L ZO S E L

March 24, 1972

The Honorable Stephen J. Roth 
United States District Court 
Federal Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Re: Bradley v. Milliken
Case No. 35257

Dear Judge Roth:
We hereby enclose an original and two

copies of Defendant Detroit Board of Education
and Other Defendants Propose Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law Following Hearings on 
Detroit-Only Remedy.

Very truly yours

GTR: L 
Enclosures
cc: Counsel of Record



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al, )
)

Plaintiffs, )
v. , )

)
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, )

' )
Defendants, )

and )
)

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL ) 
#231, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, ) 
AFL-CIO, )

)
Def end.ant-Intervenor, )

and )
)

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al, )
)

Defendants-Intervenor )

Civil Action 
No. 35257

DEFENDANT DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION AND OTHER 
DEFENDANTS PROPOSE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS-- 

OF LAW FOLLOWING HEARINGS ON DETROIT ONLY REMEDY

On September 27, 1971, this Court rendered a "Ruling on Issue 
of Segregation". Subsequently, the Court held a pre-trial on Monday, 
October 4, 1971, wherein the Board of Education for the City of 
Detroit was ordered to submit an evaluation of the so-called Magnet 
Plan within thirty days and was ordered within sixty days to submit 
a plan for the desegregation of its schools. An Order to this effect 
was entered on November 5, 1971.

The Board of Education did file an evaluation of the 
so-called Magnet Plan and did file by December 3, 1971, what it 
termed as Plans A and C for the desegregation of schools within the 
City Limits of Detroit. The Board also took a oosition in favor of 
a Metropolitan Desegregation Plan. Objections to both the evaluation 
of the Magnet Plan and the Board's Plans A and C were filed by the 
Plaintiffs. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs' filed a plan for the 
desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools within the City Limits 
of Detroit, to which the Board of Education has filed objections.



The Board advised the Court that it has now gone on 
record at putting first priority on the Metropolitan Detroit Plan 
and suggested to the Court that there be no hearings on a Detroit-only 
plan. This Court did order a hearing on Detroit-only plans commenc­
ing March 14, 1972.

The hearings were conducted on March 14, 15, 16, and 17 
and 21, 1972, at the conclusion of which the parties were ordered 
to file proposed finding of facts and conclusions of law. The parties 
were also ordered by March 22, 1972, to file briefs as to the legality 
of a Metropolitan Plan.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. On September 27, 1971, this Court found, in part,
£

"In school year 1960-61, there were 285,512 students 
in the Detroit Public Schools of which 130,765'were 
black. In school year 1966-67, there were 297,035 
students, of which 168,299 were black. In school
year 1970-71, there were 289,743 students of.which
184,194 were black. The percentage of black students 
in the Detroit Public Schools in 1975-76 will be 
72.0%, in 1980-81 will be 80.7%, and in 1992, it will 
be virtually 100% if the present trends continue."

The above trend has continued with the so-called fourth 
Friday count in October, 1971. That count revealed the following 
Detroit school population:

Date White Negro Other Total

10/71 96,269 33.3% 187,966 64.9% 5,222 1.8% 289,457

2. The Detroit Metropolitan Area contains approximatelv 
one million school children of whom approximately 80% are white 
(Tr. 591) .

3. Absent any impact from*any desegregation plan it is 
a reasonable pro-action that the Detroit School System will open 
at 68% black in September, 1972.

- 2-



4. Absent same plan, some 35 of the schools operated in 
Detroit will open with school populations roughly approximating the 
racial proportion of the metropolitan area, the majority will open 
as predominantly black schools and the remainder will open as pre­
dominantly white schools (P.C. 8).

5. Plan A, proposed by Defendant Detroit Board of 
Education will provide upon full implementation an effective, 
genuine desegregated school experience directly for some 24,800 
pupils (Tr. 20, 249, 55, 608).

6. There is not sufficient data upon which this Court 
can find that Plan A will directly affect more than 25,000 students 
although there is a possibility that the Plan will indirectly effect 
a greater number of students (Tr.29-30).

7. Plan A does consider and does include effective steps 
which operate to provide for a sound educational experience for those 
children who participate in the desegregation which it provides.
(Tr. 277-84).

8. Plan A does contain within it measures which would 
effectively inhibit the resegregation of the students whom it 
directly affects (Tr.552-4; 558; 32-40; 603-5) .

9. Plan C, the "Base School Plan" offered by the Detroit 
Board effects those students grades 3 throucrh 6 in elementary 
schools which are more than 80% white or 80% black, by offering a 
mixing experience six hours per week (Tr. 570-71, Ex. C-12).

10. Plan C has no direct effect on secondary school 
students, nor on students in the kindergarten, first and second 
grades (Tr. 570, 573, 616).

11. Plan C has no direct effect on those schools which are 
racially identifiable but contain less than 80% of one race or the 
other (Tr. 570-573, 616).

- 3 -



12. The Plaintiffs' plan calls for the reorganization of 
high school feeder patterns and the pairing and clustering of 
elementary schools reassigned within those feeder patterns. Under 
the plan, high school attendance zones and the schools within them 
would no longer be geographically compact, but dispersed across the 
city on a non-contiguous basis (P.C. 2).

13. The plan calls for the transportation by the school 
district of some 82,000 students of distances up to ten miles each 
way, requiring trip lengths of up to one hour each way (Tr. 334, 
345, 388).

14. An indeterminate number of secondary school students 
who now live within walking distance of the school they attend 
would be required to resort to public transportation. The record 
does not reveal whether or not sufficient capacity currently exists 
within the City's public transportation system to accommodate such 
students (Tr. 281-4).

15. The Plaintiffs' plan did not take into account the
ease of converting from it to a metropolitan plan (P.C. 2) (Tr. 349-50)

16. The Plaintiffs' plan does not include any specific 
measures designed to promote racial stability within the system.
(Tr. 372-74).

17. The only plan similar in concept to Plaintiffs' plan 
currently in operation in a major city with a majority of black 
students is in operation in Richmond, Virginia (Tr. 377).

18. In Richmond, Virginia, the white student population 
declined 39% in the first two years of the operation of the plan 
(P. 66, slip opinion, Bradley v. City of Richmond, ya. F .Supp. 
(January 5, 1972, E.D. VA).

- 4-



19. It would be a natural, foreseeable and probable 
consequence of the implementation of the Plaintiffs' plan that the 
trend of the Detroit schools towards a higher percentage of black 
students and a lower percentage of white students will be sharply 
accelerated (Tr. 584-6).

20. It is more reasonable to assume that, should 
Plaintiffs' plan be implemented, the Detroit schools would have, 
during the 1972-73 school year a racial proportion of 75% black 
and 25% white than it is to assume as does Plaintiffs' plan, that 
the racial proportion will be 65% black and 35% white.

21. The departure of whites from the city would not be 
uniform, but would be heavier in those areas where a number of 
families enjoy higher socio-economic status. This would result in 
a greater range of racial proportions in the various schools than 
Plaintiffs predict, should their plans be implemented (Tr.462-5; 
584-6). (as to "tipping," see Tr.564-5; 568-70; 585-6; ,240-1;. 
457-9; 463-4; 510-11; Also,e.cf. , Note the tipping experience at 
Detroit's Pasteur School (Tr.566-570).

22. It would be a natural, probable and foreseeable 
consequence of the implementation of Plaintiffs' plan that all or 
virtually all of the school children in the City of Detroit would 
find themselves in school settings which were at least 65% black, 
that many or most would be in settings that were 75% black and 
that a significant number would be in schools ranging up to 90% 
black (Tr.585).

23. A school child is subjected to racial isolation in 
school when he perceives that there is a significant difference 
between the racial composition he perceives in his school setting 
and that of the community in which he lives. His perceptions of 
that community are conditioned by the communication media to which 
he is exposed and his perception of the community of which he is a 

part (Tr.458-9).
—  5-



24. The Detroit Metropolitan Area comprises a compact 
contiguous economically integrated unit spreading over Wayne, 
Oakland, and Macomb Counties, divided by no natural boundaries 
(Tr. 200-1). ' . ' '

25. The metropolitan area conducts a significant portion 
of public business on a metropolitan basis, including the delivery 
of sewer and water services, the provision of parks and recreation, 
and the provision of public transportation (Tr. 208-10).

26. The area is so completely integrated in a social,
political, and economic sense that making public decisions without 
considering the affect on them of adjacent counties is inconceivable 
(Tr. 211-12). -

27. A significant portion of the metropolitan area work 
force resides in Detroit and work in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb 
Counties, and likewise, a significant portion resides outside 
Detroit in these counties and work in Detroit (Tr. 205-7).

28. The population of the City of Detroit, as distinguished 
from that of its public schools is, in the majority, white (P.6, 
slip opinion,. Bradley, et al, v. Milliken, et al,Sept.27,1971.

29. It is natural, probable and foreseeable that a black 
child in Detroit will perceive himself as a member of a racial 
minority both through exposure to communications media and in his 
observation of the community in which he functions (Tr.458-9).

30. There is no record evidence upon which to base an 
assumption that the perception of his community felt by a black child 
in Detroit is limited to the irregular boundaries of the School 
District of the City of Detroit and even further limited to the 
racial composition of the students of the School District (Tr. 481-7)



31. There is credible record evidence that the black 
child's perception of his school situation as being different from 
that of the world in which he lives begins when the racial com­
position of his school approaches 35% black and certainly reaches 
substantial proportions at or near a racial composition which is 
55% black (Tr.458-9). Under the Plaintiffs' plan, each and every 
black child in the Detroit school system would be placed in a 
racial setting substantially above that percentage of blackness
at which he virtually certain to perceive feelings of racial 
isolation. The natural, foreseeable and probable consequences of 
Plaintiffs' plan then is to create a situation in which all black 
children suffer the detriments of segregation, while allowing the 
great majority of children in the metropolitan area to continue to 
attend schools which are all white. The effect then of Plaintiffs 
plan would be not to diminish segregation, but rather to extend it 
(Tr.463-465).

32. The tendency of persons of higher socio-economic 
status to leave the city sooner than those of lower socio-economic 
status would result, if the Plaintiffs' plan were implemented, in 
a substantial deterioration in the number of students with higher 
"SES" attending school in the Detroit system (Tr.462-5; 638-9).

33. There is credible record evidence that the presence 
in a classroom of a significant number of children of high socio­
economic status mix, results in the probabilities that a favorable 
learning situation will exist being substantially enhanced (Tr.450 
4; 568-9). Insofar as Plaintiffs' plan will result in fewer 
situations in Detroit in which such a mix can prevail, due to the 
great number of higher SES students who are likely to leave the 
public schools, Plaintiffs' plan will result in fewer classrooms 
in Detroit than now exist in which this phenomenon can occur. 
Plaintiffs' plan thus creates a serious risk that educational 
achievement in the Detroit public schools will deteriorate (Tr.

468-9; 517-18,573).
- 7-



34. There is further credible record evidence that by 
creating more situations in which low socio-economic status whites 
share school settings with low socio-economic status blacks without 
the presence in appreciable numbers of students of either race with 
higher socio-economic status, the Plaintiffs' plan increases the 
likelihood of racial confrontation and violent conflict in the 

" Detroit Public Schools (Tr.588;465;468;504;507-8).

35. It would be a natural, foreseeable and probable 
consequence of the implementation of the Plaintiffs' plan that the 
ability of the School District of the City of Detroit to deliver 
educational services to the students it is serving would be-sub­
stantially impaired (Tr.518-519).

36. Plaintiffs' plan calls for the transportation of .
some 82,000 students under School District1 auspices (Tr.345). The 
School District can hope to transport, based on comparable experience 
m  Michigan on the average, 100 students with each school bus it has 
xn service (Ti.122-4). School bus operation.requires as an industry, 
standard of one spare school bus, for breakdowns' use while regular 
buses are being overhauled and the like, for every ten buses in 
regular service (Tr.417;125;143). Implementation of Plaintiff's plan 
for transporting 82,000 students then would require the procurement 
by the Defendant School District of some 900 school buses, 820 for 
regular operation and 80 spare buses (Tr.122-124).

37. There is substantial reason to doubt that the School 
District or anyone else would be able to procure this number of 
vehicles by the scheduled opening of school in September of 1972 
(Tr.133-5;144). Previous orders of less than half this size which 
xhave already been made have been promised for September 30, 19 72 
(Tr. 442-3) .

38. It would be unreasonable to assume that a complete 
plan of operation of this transportation system involving route 
scheduling, adjustment of starting times so as to maximize bus 
utilization,procurement of satisfactory maintenance facilities,

- 8-



determination and procurement of appropriate sites for bus 
maintenance and storage, hiring and training of drivers and the
like, could be implemented in less than eight months' time (Tr. 
188-9).

39. Insofar as Plaintiffs' plan contemplates full 
implementation m  the Fall of 1972, circumstances beyond the control 
of the Defendant Detroit Board render such implementation impossible

40. Plaintiffs' plan contemplates bus trips within the 
City of Detroit of 45 minutes (Tr.334;380). It further contemplates 
the collection of children for that purpose at what had previously 
been their neighborhood school, requiring some children to walk 
between 15 and 20 minutes to reach the school bus. Thus, some 
children under Plaintiffs' plan would spend two hours per day 
traveling to and from school (Tr.379-80)-

41. As a matter of law, the kindergarten program in 
Detroit is voluntary. M.C.L.A .340.731,M.S.A.15.3731. The natural, 
j.oreseeable and probable effect of requiring five-year old kinder­
garten children to spend two hours coming and going from a program 
of three hours duration (Tr.381) would be to depopulate Detroit's 
kindergarten and devastage the educational effectiveness of the 
kindergarten program.

42. Any plan which attempts to provide a remedy which 
limits itself to the City of Detroit limits itself to a school 
population which is already 65% black and in which the black 
percentage is rising while ignoring a white school population 
several times the number of black students in Detroit within the 
same metropolitan community. Any such plan will have substantial 
numbers of racially identifiable black schools in Detroit, and 
even greater numbers of racially identifiable white schools

- 9-



outside Detroit. To greater or lesser extent, depending on the 
comprehensiveness of the plan, such a program would preserve and
continue the racial isolation of black students in the Detroit 
schools.

43. To avoid the continued facial isolation of black 
students in the Detroit schools and to avoid racially identifiable 
schools in Detroit, a Metropolitan Plan of desegregation must be 
implemented because the Detroit children are part of a larger 
metropolitan community. A Metropolitan Plan is of a permanent 
nature, operates to the educational advantage of all children, 
v/ill present the best possibility of desegregation across socio­
economic boundaries which could improve the academic performance 
of lower SES children, including those who’ are black in the 
Detroit school system (Tr.245,469-470. Also see Tr.589).

44. An interim plan short of Metropolitan Plan would 
be educationally unsound, calls for moving children twice, calls 
for a tremendous administrative effort that must be made twice 
in a short time and: involves a doubling of logistical problems, 
all of which would be wasteful, unnecessary and potentially 
harmful to the education of the children involved (Tr.248,469- 
472. Also see Tr.611).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

45. Plaintiffs' plan in that it expands the number of
racially identifiable black schools in Detroit, and leaves the 
Detroit public school a racially identifiable "black" school 
system, falls far short of any acceptable constitutional standard. 
See Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, ___F.Supp.
E.D.Va.January 5, 1972 (slip opinion pp.31;41-2); compare Haney 
v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 410 F.2d 920

10



(8th Cir.1970) totally black district within a white district);
U•5.v• Texas, 44?F.2d 551 (5th Cir.1971) (totally black districts).

46. In that Plaintiffs' plan provides no safeguards to 
insure racial stability, in that a natural, foreseeable and 
probable consequence of Plaintiffs' plan is an acceleration of 
the rate at which whites will leave the Detroit school system, and 
in that Plaintiffs' plan starts with a disportionately high, number 
of black students in the population covered by the plan, Plaintiffs' 
plan, by failing to provide for the possibility and probability
of resegregation, is constitutionally impermissible. Lemon v.
Bossier Parish School Board, 446 F.2d 911 (5th Cir.1971); Clark 
v. Board of Educ. of City of Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 
1035 (8th Cir.1970); Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, 
(slip opinion p.66). Also see Louisiana v. U.S., 380 U.S. 125,
156 (1965). '

47. As Plaintiffs' plan would foreseeably lead to., a 
severe impairment of the ability of the Detroit public school to 
deliver educational services to all children under their charge 
by aggravating the possibility of racial conflict in the schools 
and providing an educational setting of lower socio-economic 
status, it would provide a constitutionally prohibited detrimental 
effect upon the educational opportunities of the children of 
Detroit. Swann v, Chariotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 
1,28,91 S.Ct.1267; Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond,
___F.Supp.___slip opinion p.247-50; Davis v. Board of School
Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U.S.33,91 S.Ct.1289 at 1292.

48. Plaintiffs' plan requires practical resources such 
as buses, bus drivers, bus storage areas, routing'systems and 
school supplies which the record fails to disclose that the 
School District can provide by September qf 1972. Plaintiffs'

- 11-



plan, therefore, does not realistically and feasibly promise to 
work now and may, therefore not properly be ordered. Green v. 
County School Board, 391 U.S.430; 88 S'. Ct. 1689; 20 L Ed 716,724; 
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ.,402 U.S.l; 91 S.Ct. 
1267 (1971); 28 L Ed 565,573.

49. Plaintiffs plan in that its sole purpose is to 
establish as closely as possible a uniform racial proportion 
throughout the schools to the exclusion of all other goals is
a proposal of a fixed mathematical racial balance reflecting the 
pupil constituency of the system which is beyond the power of the 
District Court to decree. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 
of Educ., 402 U.S. 1; 28 L Ed at 571.

50. Inasmuch as the Court has found that school children 
within the City of Detroit are deprived of their right to attend 
schools which are reflective of the racial make-up of the community 
in which they live, and inasmuch as desegregation, is not possible 
within the geographical confines of the School District of the 
City of Detroit, and inasmuch, as the Court has found state action 
which has produced de jure segregation, the Court is obligated to 
look beyond the Detroit School District and order a remedy which 
provides desegregation through the entire community. Haney v. 
County Board of Education of Sevier County, 410 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 
1969); Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, supra, 
slip opinion p.664-65; Hall v. St.Helena Parish School Board, 197 
F.Supp.649 (E.D.La.1961); aff'd. 287 F.2d 376 (5th Cir.1961) and 
368 U.S.515 (1962); Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ.,448 F.2d 
746,752 (5th Cir.1971); Gomillion v. Lightfoot,364 U.S.339 (1960); 
Turner v. Littleton-Lake Gaston School Dist.,442 F.2d 584 (4th Cir. 
1971); United States v. Texas, 447 F..2d 551 (5th Cir.1971);

- 12-



Lemon v._Bossier Parish School Board, 446 F.2d 911 (5th Cir.1971)
51. As' piecemeal remedies requiring repeated inter­

vention of the Court are disfavored, it would not be appropriate 
l0r this Court to enter at this time any order implementing a 
plan not designed to be a complete plan of desegregation or an 
integral step therein. Swann v. 'Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Educ., supra, 401 U.S. at 32. ' ' .

Respectfully submitted,

RILEY AND ROUMELL

By George t . Roumell,
And:̂ ^l^

Louis D. Beer 
720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: 962-8255

Date: March 24, 1972.

13-



This is to certify that a copy of the 
Defendant Detroit Board of Education and Other 
Propose Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 
Hearings on Detroit-Only Remedy has been served 
of record by United States Mail, postage 
as follows:
LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
NATHANIEL R. JONES 
General Counsel, NAACP 
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York 10019
E. WINTHER MC CROOM 
3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207
JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019
J. HAROLD FLANNERY
PAUL R. DIMOND
ROBERT PRESSMAN
Center for Law & Education
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
02138
ROBERT J. LORD
8388 Dixie Highway
Fair Haven, Michigan 48023

Of Counsel:
PAUL R. VELLA 
EUGENE R. BOLANOWSKI 
30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan 48093

PROFESSOR DAVID HOOD
Wayne State University Law School
468 West Ferry
Detroit, Michigan 48202

foregoing 
Defendants 
Following 
upon counsel 

pre-paid, addressed

DOUGLAS H. WEST 
ROBERT B. WEBSTER 
3700 Penobscot Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
WILLIAM M. SAXTON
1881 First National Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
EUGENE KRASICKY 
Assistant Attorney General 
Seven Story Office Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913
THEODORE SACHS
1000 Farmer .
Detroit, Michigan 48226.
ALEXANDER B. RITCHIE 
2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
BRUCE A. MILLER 
LUCILLE WATTS
2460 First National Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226
RICHARD P. CONDIT
Long Lake Building
860 West Long Lake Road
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013
KENNETH B.McCONNELL 
74 West Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013

RILEY AND ROUMELL
Date: March 24, 1972. By: 'ptu ..yr. i ̂ .cii.;-

Louis D. Beer 
720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: 962-8255