Defendants Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following Hearings on Metropolitan Detroit Desegregation Plans

    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, )

Defendant-Intervenor, )
and )

)DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al, )
)Defendants-Intervenor, )

et al________________________________ )

Civil Action 
No. 35257

DEFENDANT DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION 
AND OTHER DEFENDANTS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING HEARINGS ON 
METROPOLITAN DETROIT DESEGREGATION PLANS

Following the Court's "Ruling on Issue of Segregation" 
on September 27, 1971, and pursuant to a subsequent Court Order, 
the Defendant Detroit Board of Education filed on December 3, 1971 

j what it termed as Plans A and C of Desegregation of the Detroit 
j Public Schools within the City of Detroit city limits. Also,
! Plaintiffs filed a plan for the desegregation of the Detroit 
Public Schools within the city limits of the City of Detroit.

Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Detroit Board of 
Education filed objections to each other's Detroit-only plans.
The Defendant Detroit Board of Education also advised the Court 
that their first priority was for a Metropolitan Detroit School



Desegregation Plan. The Court issued a "Ruling on Propriety of
Considering a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation of
the Public Schools of the City of Detroit," dated March 24, 1972,
wherein the Court concluded: .

"We conclude that it is proper for a Court 
to consider a metropolitan plan directed 
toward the desegregation of the Detroit 
Public Schools as an alternative of the present 
intra-city desegregation plan before it and, 
in the event that the Court finds such intra­
city plan inadequate to segregate such schools, 
the Court is of the opinion that it is required 
to consider a metropolitan remedy for desegre­
gation . "

The Court also,on March 24, 1972, reaffirmed, beginning 
March 28, 1972, that there would be hearings on a metropolitan 
Detroit desegregation plan. Hearings were held on March 28, 29, 
30, April 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13, 1972, at which time 
Defendant State Board of Education, Defendant Detroit Board of 
Education, Defendant-Intervenors, Denise Magdowski, et al, and 
Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al, presented metropolitan Detroit 
desegregation plans for the consideration of the Court during 
the said hearings.

During the course of said hearings, on March 28, 1972, 
the Court issued "Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on 
Detroit-only Plan of Desegregation" holding as a factual matter 
that:

"In summary, we find that none of the three 
plans Would result in desegregation of the 
public schools of the Detroit School District."

The Court also concluded as a matter of law:
"...that the Court must look beyond the limits 
of the Detroit School District for a solution 
to the problems of segregation, in the Detroit 
Public Schools is obvious; that it has the 
authority, nay, more, the duty to (under the 
circumstances of this case) do so appears 
plainly anticipated by Brown II, 17 years ago. 
While other school cases have not had to deal 
with our exact situation, the logic of their 
application of the command of Brown II supports 
our view of our duty."

- 2-



The Defendant Detroit Board of Education presents the 
following findings of fact and conclusions of law as to a viable 
and educationally-sound metropolitan Detroit desegregation plan.

1. The metropolitan community of Detroit, properly 
defined, consists of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb County. The 
Defendant Detroit Board has presented substantial evidence to this 
effect, and although plans have been presented which would dese­
gregate a smaller area, no one has disputed that the metropolitan 
area is other than as stated above (Marz, City Tr.205-8).

2. Within this area, there is a high degree of inter­
governmental cooperation. The area is connected by a common sewe 
and water system, a metropolitan park system,, a metropolitan trans 
portation authority and,county-by-county,intermediate school 
districts which cooperate on a substantial number of educational 
programs, particularly with regard to special education (Marz,
City Tr.208-13; Rankin, Metro Tr.441; 444).

3. Within this area, substantial commutation occurs, 
not only from out-county Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties into 
Detroit, but from Detroit to these suburban districts, and also 
between the various suburban districts (Marz, City Tr.205-8).

4. Numerous citizens prominent in the affairs of the 
City of Detroit currently reside in these suburbs, including a 
former chairman; of the Detroit Board of Education (Flynn, Metro 
Tr.933; 944-5).

5. School children within and without the City of 
Detroit perceive the schools located within the suburbs as being 
within the same metropolitan community as their own schools 
(Foster, City Tr.361-3).

6. There is a natural metropolitan school community 
defined objectively by social interchange, or subjectively by the 
perception of school children which is congruent-with the

-3



metropolitan area (Marz, City Tr.205-13; Foster, City Tr.361-3),
7. The exclusion of all-white or all-black schools or 

school districts within that community from the jurisdiction of 
this Court would have the effect of preserving racially idertifiable 
schools within the community. The pernicious and 
constitutionally prohibited effect of the existence of such 
schools is not diminished by the fact that such a school is not 
located within the school district of the City of Detroit, or
any other particular school district (Rankin, Metro Tr.1328).

8. The Detroit Metropolitan School Community is both 
geographically extensive, and, due to the density of population, 
subject to traffic congestion. Both of these circumstances miti­
gate against a plan of desegregation which would involve children 
from every school district in the community in pupil 
exchanges with Detroit schools (Smith, Metro Tr.1105-11; 
Morshead, Metro Tr.26-7; Foster, Metro Tr.1205; Def.Ex.M-12).

9. A plan which would require busing between all parts !
of the metropolitan school community and the City of Detroit 
would impose unreasonable burdens of travel, both in terms of 
time and distance, both on the children coming to Detroit from 
the suburbs, and on the children going from Detroit to the suburbs 
(Foster, Metro Tr.1205; Rankin, Metro Tr.412).

10. The Defendant Detroit Board of Education has proposed 
a plan which creates a series of clusters. Each cluster consists 
of several suburban school districts, together with one or more
of the high school attendance zones or constellations within the 
City of Detroit (Def.Ex.M-11).

11. These clusters are designed primarily so that each 
cluster reasonably reflects, although not with absolute mathe-

:
matical precision, the racial proportion of the entire metropolitan 
school community (Rankin, Metro Tr.430-3).

- 4-



12. The plan submitted by the Defendant Detroit Board
of Education encompasses all of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb County, 
but two of the clusters, one in Northern and Western Oakland 
(Cluster 12) and another in Northern and Northeastern Macomb 
(Cluster 18) counties include no territory within the school 
district of the City of Detroit (Rankin, Metro Tr.418; 440).

13. In each such cluster, the included suburban school 
districts are contiguous. The Detroit high school constella­
tions included within each cluster are contiguous with one 
another, but are not generally contiguous with the suburban 
districts in the same cluster (Def.Ex.M-12).

14. The clusters are designed in such a fashion that 
generally those suburban areas more distant from the central 
city are paired with Detroit high school attendance zones at or 
near the outer limits of the City. Those suburban districts 
close to or adjacent to the Detroit city limits are paired with 
Detroit high school attendance zones closer to or at the center 
of the City. The effect of this design is to minimize and equali 
the maximum travel and distance times within the various clusters 
and to insure that no school child would be required to travel 
from the outer perimeter of those clusters exchanging students 
with the City of Detroit (Rankin, Metro Tr.423-6; Def.Ex.M-12)
to the very center of the City.

15. In determining which school districts should be 
included in particular clusters, the Defendant Detroit Board
of Education, in addition to its primary concern for the racial 
balance of the clusters, considered the socio-economic status 
("SES") of the students in the school districts involved (Rankin, 
Metro Tr.412; 430-3; 460;402;409).

16. There is substantial record evidence to support the 
contention of the Defendant Detroit Board of Education and its

- 5-



!!:

expert witnesses Guthrie and Rankin, that the probability of a 
poor child profiting from formal education is strongly influenced 
by the presence or absence of significant numbers of children of 
middle or high socio-economic status in his learning situation. 
There is, in addition, substantial record evidence that a middle 
class child does not suffer from being placed in a situation in 
which children of low SES are present provided the low SES

j
children do not preponderate (Rankin, Metro Tr.409 ; 591-2; 610-614|; 
Guthrie, City Tr.452-4; 455-7; 518-21). I!17. The Defendant Detroit Board of Education utilized |
in drawing their plan the average SES of the various metropolitan 
districts and Detroit high school constellations as determined by 
the state-wide test of SES included in the Michigan Educational 
Assessment Program for 1971 (Rankin, Metro Tr.433).

18. The utilization of SES in order to determine which 
particular school districts should be placed in a particular

j cluster is a reasonable educational judgment which the Court 
should and does credit. The establishment of SES balance contri­
butes to and insures the educational soundness of the plan.

19. In addition to the establishment of non-contiguous 
clusters (a technique commonly referred to as a "skipping" 
technique), the clusters proposed by the Defendant Detroit Board 
of Education are designed to follow as much as possible major 
transportation arteries leading into and out of the City (Rankin, 
Metro Tr.424-5).

20. The record evidence indicates that the vast majority‘ i
of all of the suburban districts included within those clusters 
of the Detroit plan which include Detroit high school constella­
tions are accessible to downtown Detroit (the foot of Woodward 
Avenue at the Detroit river) within forty minutes; all of them

- 6 -



■
■

’

1

are within fifty minutes and much of their territory is accessible: 
within thirty minutes. As the clusters are designed to follow 
transportation arteries which radiate from the center of the City, 
and as noted in findings above,the clusters require no one to move 
from the outer perimeter all the way downtown, it is reasonably 
probable that a transportation plan could be designed for these 
clusters which provides for a maximum direct bus travel time,with 
very few exceptions, of under forty minutes (Smith,Metro Tr.1101- 
4; Foster,Metro Tr.1168-74; Pl.Ex.M-8).

21. The transportation survey provided,pursuant to the 
Order of this Court,by the Defendant State Board of Education, 
indicates that a number of school districts currently operate bus 
routes in excess of an hour in duration (one way). The Utica Schoc 
District operates a number of runs of 70 to 90 minutes duration,

1

and the Huron Valley School District operates runs of up to one
hour and forty-five minutes one way. Runs of forty-five to fifty-
five minutes are commonplace. There is no record evidence which
indicates that bus runs of this duration are detrimental to educag
tion (Survey and Evaluation of Existing School Transportation By

—  ■ - ■ ■ "  ---------------------------  i
Defendants State Board of Education (undated,received by counsel 
May 1,1972,pages unnumbered), Huron Valley School Distirct bus noS. 
21,35,51; Utica Community Schools bus nos.1,3,7,8; see inter alia 
Center Line, Roseville, Chippewa Valley,Warren Woods,Birmingham, 
Avondale, Troy,Farmington,Rochester, Walled Lake,Garden City, 
Inkster,Livonia and Fairlane ) .

22. It is a reasonable and,indeed,virtually certain expec­
tation that a plan of transportation can be designed which could 
limit travel times and distances within the cluster plan of the 
Defendant Detroit Board of Education well below a point at which 
time and energy expended by children in travel would interfere with 
their ability to participate in the educational process (Rankin, 
Metro Tr.402;412-416;423-9; Henrickson,Metro Tr.700-1;703-4;716-8; 
Def.Ex.M-16-18).

- 7-



23. Several other perimeters for the exchange of pupils 
were suggested to the Court. Plan 3,of the six submitted but not 
advocated by the Defendant State Board of Education, suggested an 
"Initial Operating Zone" which includes those school districts 
immediately adjacent to the City of Detroit,and a few school dis­
tricts one district removed from the City (State Bd.Def.Ex.M-5; 
Pierce,Metro Tr.247-9).

24. The racial proportion of the school population withir 
the IOZ would be between 35% and 40% black,or between 10% and 15%
higher than that of the total metropolitan area (Pierce,Metro Tr. 
242-50).

25. Establishment of the IOZ would require drawing an arti­
ficial line through the heart of the metropolitan community,separa­
ting school districts which,in terms of their metropolitan character, 
are otherwise indistinguishable into those in which blacks did 
attend school and those in which only whites attend school (Def.
Ex.M-5).

26. Such a plan would also provide instant and pervasive 
resegregation,as many established middle class communities are 
located immediately outside of the IOZ (Pierce,Metro Tr292-7).

27. Although the plan speaks of the later addition of 
territory to the operating zone if need be,the Court finds that 
the mere existence of this possibility is insufficient to prevent 
serious resegregation (Pierce,Metro Tr.252;292-7).

28. Plans were also presented by the Plaintiffs,and by 
Defendants-Intervenor Denise Magdowski,et al. Defendants-Inter- 
venor's plan divided some,but not all of the metropolitan area into 
seven "boroughs" in which pupil assignment patterns would be devel­
oped. Although the boroughs then serve the same function as the 
clusters proposed by the Defendant Detroit Board of Education,they 
differ in that they are totally contiguous,eschewing the "skipping"
technique developed by the Defendant Detroit Board. Like the Deferj-

. Idant Detroit Board's clusters,two boroughs contain no territory
from the City of Detroit,with one each located in Northern Oakland 
and Northern Macomb County (Morshead,Metso Tr.28;30-1;Def.Ex.M-2),

- 8-



29. The Plaintiffs have presented a plan which proposes 
mixing of pupils within a perimeter congruent with that proposed 
by Defendants-Intervenor, except for the addition of the Bloom­
field Hills and West Bloomfield School Districts, and the sub­
traction of boroughs VI and VII, the two boroughs proposed by 
Defendants-Intervenor which include no territory of the City
of Detroit (PI.Ex. M-ll & 12; Foster, Metro Tr.1159-50).

30. The clusters prepared by the Defendant Detroit Board 
of Education which involve interchange with the City of Detroit 
include the following school districts which are excluded from 
the perimeter proposed by Plaintiffs and from boroughs I-V of 
Defendants-Intervenor1s plan (Def. Ex M-ll):

Chippewa Valley 
Utica 
Avondale 
Walled Lake 
Novi
Northville
Plymouth

Van Buren
Huron
Woodhaven
Gilbraltar
Flat Rock
Trenton
Grosse lie

31. Of these districts, all but four show SES scores 
above the State mean (Def. Ex. M-ll).

32. The vast majority of these districts are clearly 
metropolitan in character; that is, school children they serve 
are in large part the off-spring of families who work, shop and 
recreate throughout the metropolitan area and who perceive them­
selves and are perceived by others as integral parts of the 
metropolitan area (Def.Ex.M-12; Flynn,Metro Tr.943-4;951-60).

33. The high SES scores of these school districts 
reflect the relatively high degree of affluence found in the 
neighborhoods which make up these districts. As indicated above, 
this affluence is not the product of economic enterprise separate 
from the metropolitan area, but is a reflection of the fact
that these districts include areas in which more affluent resi­
dents of the metropolitan community have chosen to settle. To 
exclude these districts from the metropolitan plan would not only 
result in an artificial division within the metropolitan community

9-



leaving an all white fragment outside the metropolitan desegre­
gation plan, but would mean that that fragment would represent 
a portion of the wealth of the metropolitan community dispor- 
portionate to the numbers of its population (Flynn,-Metro Tr.929 
33; 1024-6; Def.Ex.M-11).

34. It has often been noted, in this trial and elsewhere;, 
that the more affluent whites are the most likely to leave a 
situation which involves the presence of black children in the 
schools which their children attend. The presence abutting the 
perimeter of the desegregation plan proposed by Plaintiffs of a 
number of disproportionately high SES suburban communities,in 
which high SES whites could easily establish residence without 
losing any of the benefits of living in the metropolitan area, 
would have uhe natural,probable and foreseeable consequence of 
causing the resegregation of the school districts of the metro­
politan community, making those districts outside the perimeter 
more white, and those within the perimeter more black (Guthrie,
City Tr.462-5; Rankin, Metro Tr.402;414).

35. The racial proportion of the clusters proposed by the 
Defendant Detroit Board of Education, including the districts 
discussed above, is slightly closer to the racial proportion 
of the tri-county area than those proposed by Plaintiffs (Foster, 
Metro Tr.1164-5; Rankin, Metro Tr.431;1183; 1214-17;1234-5).

36. Adoption of the perimeter proposed by the Defendant 
Detroit Board of Education is necessary to desegregation of the 
schools of the City of Detroit. Adoption of a smaller perimeter 
would leave extant racially identifiable schools within the 
metropolitan community and within the perceptions of black students 
from Detroit, on a non-random basis sanctioned by the order of 
this Court and not occasioned by reasons of public convenience 
and necessity. It would further provide an open invitation to 
resegregation; and would, by depriving the area being desegregated

- 10-



O.L a large number of high SES students lessen the probabilities 
that the plan could be operated in a fashion which would provide 
equal opportunity for a quality education (Flynn, Metro Tr.929- 
30; 939-59).

| i
37. No party has disputed the contention that those school 

districts which are included in clusters 12 and 18 proposed by the 
Defendant Detroit Board of education may reasonably be excluded 
from pupil assignments mixing students from those school districts^ 
with students from the City of Detroit. The parties are in accord 
that the travel distances involved are too great, and v/ould, for

| a substantial number of the students in those districts and for 
students from Detroit who might be transported to such district 
represent an impairment of their ability to participate in the 

j educational process (Rankin, Metro Tr.439-40; Flynn, Metro Tr.
930; 471-2; Morshead, Metro Tr.26-9).

38. Nonetheless, clusters 12 and 18 contain school
districts which are equally metropolitan in character, whichI
provide obvious possibilities for the relocation of upper-middle 
class whites leading to resegregation, and which, with the 
exception of Mt. Clemens and Pontiac, are clearly racially 
identifiable as white. The maintenance of these districts with­
out inclusion in the plan would leave schools segregated by

j operation of law within the metropolitan school community, which
■ "

would, in turn, mean that schools racially identifiable as all­
white would persist within the metropolitan school community. 
Inclusions of clusters 12 and 18 are,therefore, necessary to 
the maintenance of desegregation in Detroit,now and hereafter 
(Flynn, Metro Tr.939-59; Foster, Metro Tr.1212-13).

39. No plan presented to the Court provides a detailed 
plan for pupil assignment within the metropolitan area. The 
amount of detail varies, the plan of the Defendant Detroit Board

- 11-



of Education being most specific in terms of methods of pupil 
assignment and criteria for cluster development. All plans 
submitted, including the Plaintiffs' plans are in the form of 
guidelines or outlines, requiring a very substantial amount of 
additional planning before implementation in detail would be 
possible. (Foster, Metro Tr.1292; Rankin, Metro Tr.463-6; Pierce, 
Metro Tr.251;547-9; Def.Ex.M-2;M-3;M-4;M-5;M-6;M-7;M-8;M-9;M-10; 
Pl.Ex.M-12). This is no reflection on the diligence of those 
who have presented plans since the presentation of the Defendant 
State Board of Education; the time available was simply not ample 
for the enormity of the task (Foster, Metro Tr.1210-12;1292-6).

40. A number of the plans speak of "governance systems" 
which would not only be responsible for the further elaboration 
of the plan proposed, but to varying degrees, for the continuing 
government of the newly-desegregated schools of the metropolitan 
community (Pierce, Metro Tr.248-9; Def.Ex.M-5). The Defendant 
State Board of Education plan 3 speaks of a School Desegregation 
Commission of the State Board of Education; Defendants—Intervenor 

speaks of an Office of Metropolitan School Desegregation 
(Dei•Ex.M-2; Morshead, Metro Tr.31) and the Defendant Detroit
Board of Education plan speaks of a Metropolitan Desegregation 
Authority (Rankin,Metro Tr.437-8;659; Def.Ex.M-10). The 
Defendant State Board of Education plan would reserve to the 
state officials' the right to appoint members of the Commission; 
the Defendants-Intervenor would have the authority of the office 
flow from the "Borough Boards" which would, in turn, draw their 
authority from the local Boards, and the Defendant Detroit Board I 
of Education plan would provide for a seven-person authority, 
drawing two members from the State Board of Education, two from 
the Detroit Board of Education, and one each from the three 
Intermediate School. Boards which are, themselves, elected by local

12-



Boards which comprise the metropolitan school community.
41. This authority would have general power over the 

total desegregation process, but would only involve itself 
directly in the drawing of pupil assignment plans in the event 
of an impasse between the various districts within the cluster 
(Rankin,Metro Tr.438-43; 661; Def.Ex.M—10). It is undisputed 
that the State of Michigan has, by statute, delegated the vast 
majority of the duties involved in the day-to-day running of its 
educational system to the local Boards of Education (M.S.A.§15„ j 
3563-3622). The knowledge, therefore, of the vast majority of 
the details necessary to draw a workable pupil assignment plan 
resides with the local school districts. It is, therefore, appro­
priate and necessary to the effective implementation of the plan 
that representatives of local school districts, including the 
Detroit School District, be directly represented in the drawing 
of pupil assignment patterns and also in any central controlling 
authority (Henrickson, Metro Tr.681-2; Rankin,Metro Tr.428).

42. By providing for the development of pupil assignment 
plans within the various clusters, rather than on a general basis, 
the Defendant Detroit Board of Education has sought to reduce the 
job of developing such plans to manageable proportions, thereby 
reducing the period of time which would be required to accomplish 
the task. Nonetheless, development of initial pupil assignment 
plans can reasonably be expected to take eight weeks, with sub­
stantially more time required to develop an effective transpor­
tation system and resolve local problems necessary for implemen­
ting the assignment plan (Henrickson,Metro Tr.779,797; Kuthy,
City Tr.188-9).

43. The "Governance system," or method for further 
implementation proposed by the Defendant Detroit Board of Education 
is, therefore, one which realistically promises to work and to 
work in the shortest possible amount of time (Def.Ex.M-10; Rankin, 
Mei.ro Tr.428;442-5;483-5;493-4;579-80; 1330;139-3; Henrickson,

Metro Tr.681-2;Foster, Metro Tr.1298;1317).
- 13-



44. There is credible record testimony that the maximum j 
possible desegregation which might be accomplished by the Fall j 
of 1972 would be the desegregation of three school grades. There 
is additional expert testimony to the effect that both,for reasons 
of the ability of that particular age group to adapt to change j 
and because that particular age group does not make a very large

I
number of extraordinary demands on the physical plant of the 
schools they attend, that the optimal grades to start with would 
be either the fourth, fifth and sixth or fifth, sixth and seventh 
grades (Rankin,Metro Tr.463-8;512-4;669-671; Morshead, Metro Tr. 
32-4;152;196-8).

45. No witness conversant with the details of school 
operation in the Detroit metropolitan area was willing to state

!
with certainty that three such grades, or approximately 225,000 
students could definitely be moved into an operational plan of 
desegregation by September of 1972. There was, however, credible 
testimony that such an achievement represented a reasonable 
target, or goal (Rankin,Metro Tr.463-8;512-4;669;671;1333-6; 
Morshead, Metro Tr. 89-90;191-2; Pierce, Metro Tr.351-7; Foster, 
Metro Tr.1177-78; 1236-8; 1261; 1396-7; 1314; 1317;1384-6).

46. It was not seriously disputed by any of the parties 
that the mere reassignment of pupils on a basis reasonably reflec­
ting the racial proportion of the metropolitan school community
in and of itself, was insufficient to insure the desegregation 
of the Detroit schools, and the provision of equal educational opportunity 
throughout the metropolitan school community. The plan of the 
Defendant Detroit Board of Education particularly spoke at length 
to such matters as the need for in-service training for teachers 
who may never have had to teach students of another race, for 
the presence of black faculty members and administrators in 
previously all-white suburban schools so that the particular needs 
and concerns of black students could be vocalized at decision-

- 14-



making levels; for plans which would make possible inclusion 
in parental activities and expression of concern for the schools 
their children attend by parents who might live at some distance 
from the schools for insurance against the growth of segregation 
within a particular school through the use of such practices 
as tracking; for the development and implementation of curricula 
which would reflect the broadened racial and socio-economic 
spectrum which would be present within the several schools of 
the community, and the utilization of educational materials which 
are not uniracial in nature (Rankin,Metro Tr.403-409; 469-71; 
1342-50; 1382-3; Def.Ex.M-10).

47. The Court finds that all of the above concerns are 
reasonably related to the ability of the State of Michigan to 
maintain the schools of the Detroit metropolitan area in a unit­
ary fashion hereafter, and to continue to provide equality of 
educational opportunity throughout the metropolitan school 
community. Failure to provide safeguards with regard to these 
matters would be detrimental to the probability that the plan 
would promise to work in the future.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Having found de jure segregation, it is the duty of 
this Court to order the implementation of a plan of school dese­
gregation which provides the "maximum possible school desegre­
gation" and which "reasonably promises to work" now and hereafter.
Bradley v. Milliken, ___ F.Supp___,Findings of Fact and Conclusior
of Law on Detroit-Only Plans,slip op.p.4; Green v. County School 
Board, 391 U.S.430; Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 
396 U.S.19; Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board,396 U.S. 
290; Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,402 U.S.l.

s

- 15-



#

2. Having previously found that desegregation of the 
schools within the confines of the City of Detroit is not possible; 
fulfilling this obligation requires that this Court exercise its 
jurisdiction over the entire metropolitan school community. To 
do otherwise would be to draw artificial, constitutionally impermi 
ssible boundaries through the community, leaving a number of the 
schools of the community in a segregated circumstance. Bradley v.
Richmond,---F.Supp.___ (slip op.p.64-65); Haney v. County Board
of Education of Sevier County,410 F.2d 920 (8th Cir.1969); Hall
Xr_St. Helena Parish School Board, 197 F.Supp 649 E.D.La.1961
g-ff'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).

3. The Court may, and has, properly considered factors 
of public convenience and necessity, educational soundness, and 
the possibility of resegregation, in determining which plan to 
adopt. The Court should, and has, credited the educational 
judgments of those who will be responsible for providing educa­
tional opportunities under the plan. In the absence of any 
educational judgments made by the Defendant State Board of 
Education us to a particular plan, the Court credits the judgments 
of the Defendant Detroit Board of Education. Allen v. Asheville
_ _Bd. of Educ., 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir. 1970); Bradley v. School
Bd. O-L Ricnmond, 325 F . Supp . 828,832 — 33 (E .D .Va . 19 71) ; Green v.
School Bd. of City of Roanoke, 316 F.Supp.6 (W.D.Va.1970),aff'd. 
in part,vacated in part on other grounds,444 F.2d 99 (4th Cir.1971); 
Moore v. Tangipahga Parish School Bd.,304 F.Supp.244 (C.D .La.1969), 
appeal dism.421 F.2d 1407 (5th Cir.1969).

-16-



4. As the plan proposed by the Defendant Detroit Board 
of Education does provide the maximum possible desegregation and 
realistically promises to work, does not interfere with the 
public convenience and necessity and provides for educational 
soundness, it is appropriate for adoption by the Court. Davis v. 
School Dist. of City of Pontiac, 443 F.2d 573,577 (6th Cir.1971),

j cert.denied,404 U.S. 913 (1971). See also Swann v. Charlotte- 
j Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.,306 F .Supp.1291,1297 (W.D.N.C.1969).

5. It is also appropriate for this Court to issue orders 
‘ designed to protect the desegregation achieved by adoption of

the plan, by preventing tracking and other techniques of internal 
segregation, and by requiring that careful attention be paid to 
such matters as the presence of blacks in faculty and admini­
strative positions, involvement of parents of all races in the 
schools, in-service training of teachers and the like. Johnson 
v. Jackson Parish School Board, 423 F .2d 1055 (5th Cir.1970); 
Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Bd.,444 F .2d 1400 (5th Cir.1971); 
Monroe v. Bd. of Commissioners of City of Jackson,Tenn., 427 F.
2d 1005, 1008 (6th Cir.1970); Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Sep. 
School District, 419 F.2d 1211,1219 (5th Cir.1970), cert.denied, 
396 U.S. 1032 (1970); United States v. Jefferson County Bd. of 
Educ.,380 F.2d 385,394, affirming en bare,372 F.2d 836 (1966), 
cert.denied sub'nom, Caddo Parish School Bd, v. United States,
389 U.S.840 (1967); Stell v. Board of Educ. for the City of 
Savannah and the County of Chatam,387 F.2d 486 (5th Cir.1967). 

Respectfully submitted.

720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Date: May 5,_____ ,1972. Telephone: 962-8255
Attorneys for Defendant Detroit 
Board of Education

- 17-



C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Thl£7 X% ^  certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendant: 
Detroit Board of Education and Other Defendants Proposed Findings 
of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following Hearings on Metropolitan 
Detroit Desegregation Plans has been served upon counsel of 
record by United States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed asfnl 1 owe: •

iI

LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

•DOUGLAS H. WEST 
ROBERT B. WEBSTER 
3700 Penobscot Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

NATHANIEL R. JONES 
General Counsel, NAACP 
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York 10019
E. WINTHER MC CROOM 
3245 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45207

I
| JACK GREENBERG 
i NORMAN J. CHACIIKIN 
| 10 Columbus Circle 
j New York, New York 10019

♦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

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. 30LAN0WSKI 
30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan 48093
PROFESSOR DAVID HOOD 
Wayne State University Law 
468 West Ferry 
Detroit, Michigan 48202

• 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. MC CONNELL 
74 West Long Lake Road 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 
48013

School

Date: 7*19 72.

Respectfully submitted,
G'&U't T.

720 Ford Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: 962-8255May fj