Jenkins v. Missouri Individual Brief of Appellee the School District of the City of Independence
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1985

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Jenkins v. Missouri Individual Brief of Appellee the School District of the City of Independence, 1985. 1ca0a4d7-b59a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/6e40b81b-3bd7-4a1f-8923-8339c767d0d0/jenkins-v-missouri-individual-brief-of-appellee-the-school-district-of-the-city-of-independence. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 85-1765WM No. 85-1949WM No. 95-1974WM KALIMA JENKINS, et al., Appellants,V. STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellees. Appeal From the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division the Honorable Russell G. Clark, Chief Judge INDIVIDUAL THE CITY BRIEF OF APPELLEE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF OF INDEPENDENCE AND ITS SUPERINTENDENT DR. ROBERT L. HENLEY HUMPHREY & FARRINGTON, P.C. NORMAN HUMPHREY JR. KENNETH B. McCLAIN 123 West Kansas Independence, MO 64050 STINSON, MAG & FIZZELL GEORGE E. FELDMILLER 920 Main Street Post Office Box 19251 Kansas City, MO 64141 Attorneys for The School District of the City of Independence, Missouri SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Kansas City Missouri School District ("KCMSD") instituted this case in 1977. The states of Missouri and Kansas, their state Boards of Education, 19 school districts on both sides of the state line and three federal agencies were initially named as defendants. The District Court dismissed the Kansas defendants for lack of jurisdiction and realigned KCMSD as a defendant. In the course of discovery, millions of documents were produced and examined. Over 130 depositions were taken. Trial commenced on October 13, 1984, and Appellant Jenkins ("Jenkins") rested their case on March 6, 1984. The trial transcript contains over 16,000 pages. At trial, 2,100 exhibits were offered and 140 witnesses were called. Additionally, over 10,000 pages of deposition testimony were designated and considered. The District Court made extensive findings of fact which are fully supported by record citations. Based on its review of the evidence, the District Court found that the School District of the City of Independence ("Independence") is operating a unitary fully integrated district under the standard set forth in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg, 402 U.S. 1, 31 (1972). The Court's General Memorandum and Order of June 5 , 1984, ("Order") concluded that Jenkins had not met their burden of proving an interdistrict violation by Independence that had a significant interdistrict effect, as man dated by Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 745 (1974 ), and Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 240-41 (1976). Therefore, the l Court concluded that Independence could not be included in an interdistrict remedy. Jenkins has failed to appeal these fin dings. Consequently, the Court's Order dismissing Independence under Federal Rule 41(b) should be summarily affirmed. If oral argument is needed, Independence requests 20 minutes. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.................. (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................... (iii) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................... (iv) STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUES.......................... (v) ARGUMENT: I. THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS BECAUSE OF ANY PRE-1954 ACTIONS.......................... 1 A. INDEPENDENCE PROMPTLY DESEGREGATED AFTER BROWN.................................. 2 B. JENKINS' EVIDENCE SHOWED FEW BLACK TRANSFERS.................................... 2 II. THE INDEPENDENCE BOUNDARIES ARE RACIALLY NEUTRAL................................... 3 III. INDEPENDENCE HAS DONE NOTHING TO LURE WHITE STUDENTS AWAY FROM KCMSD........................ 4 IV. INDEPENDENCE HAS BLACK RESIDENTS, STUDENTS AND FACULTY................................. 5 V. THE RECORD REVEALS NO HOUSING RELATED VIOLATIONS BY INDEPENDENCE...................... 6 VI. COOPERATIVE EFFORTS BETWEEN INDEPENDENCE AND OTHER ENTITIES ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS....................................... 7 CONCLUSION................................................ 8 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE BERRY v. BENTON HARBOR, 698 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1983).... . 7 BRADLEY v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RICHMOND, 462 F. 2d 1058 , (4th Cir. 1972), aff'd 412 U.S. 92 (1973 ).............. 5 , 7 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 ( 1954)........... 2 MILLIKEN v. BRADLEY, 418 U.S. 717 ( 1974)................... (i) SWANN v. CHARLOTTE MECKLENBERG, 402 U.S. 1 (1971)......... (i) TASBY v. ESTES, 412 F.Supp. 1185 (N.D.Tex. 1975), aff'd, on Interdistrict issue, 572 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1978 ).................... ......... ........... 3 WASHINGTON v. DAVIS, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).......... ........ (i) IV STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUES The District Court's findings of fact concerning Independence (Order at 59-67) are unchallenged by Appellants. Therefore, these findings are the only proper statement facts for determination of this Appeal. Independence adopts the Statement of Issues submitted in the Consolidated Brief of the Appellee Districts. v ARGUMENT I. There Are No Significant Effects Because of Any Pre-1954 Actions Jenkins failed to produce any evidence that Independence is anything but a fully desegregated and unitary school system. Nathaniel Moreland, a black patron, established the non- discriminatory approach of Independence to the education of black students. He testified: Q. Okay. You have no present complaints? I guess your children have graduated now, haven't they? A. Really. You're trying to make a point, but the black people of Independence was satisfied with the way the school board handled that matter and we have gotten along fine since then. And I have no complaint with the way the school board handled the matter. They worked diligently with the black parents, the organi zation, they did a fine job and I am here to state that. So that there is no — I really feel that if all the school boards in the land was like that one at that particular time we wouldn't be sitting here today. (T. 3886-7). Other black witnesses also testified approvingly of the education and treatment of black children in Independence.-'- This testimony demonstrates Independence's commitment to equal educational ^See, for example, the testimony of A. Charles, T. 1752; I. Tucker, T. 689; and J. Briscoe, T. 1720. 1 opportunity and its longstanding desire to comply with Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954). A. Independence Promptly Desegregated After Brown I Independence dismantled its dual school system shortly after Brown I. By July 6, 1954, Independence was preparing to desegre gate its schools (P. X. 2254). Significantly, in the 1954-55 school year, Independence accepted all black high school students into its only high school. Transfers of black high school stu dents to KCMSD stopped immediately. In the 1957-58 school year complete integration was achieved. Thereafter, all black elemen tary and high school pupils attended previously all-white schools (P. X. 2254; Plucker D. 120).2 Contrary to Jenkins' assertion, Independence also retained its black teachers from the pre-1954 period, employing them at the secondary level (P. X. 2255 and P. X. 2967).3 B. Jenkins' Evidence Showed Few Black Transfers The only blacks that Independence transferred were high school students. These students were only transferred for a nine year period from 1945 to 1954. Jenkins' evidence showed that only about 100 total transfers during the entire nine-year period ^Jenkins' expert, Dr. Orfield, conceded that any short con tinuation of a black school after Brown I would have no significant effect today (T. 14,926). In respect to Independence, only the black elementary school continued in existence for a very short time. All actions relative to desegregation in Independence were coordinated with input from the local black community. 3Appellants ignore this fact and represent to the Court that all of SDD's black teachers were either demoted or dismissed (Jenkins' Brief at 37). 2 occurred (T. 4560). The exact number of such students involved is considerably less than 100 because most students were trans ferred for multiple years.4 There is no credible evidence to support Jenkins' argument that a current significant effect exists from these few ancient transfers. Indeed, no transferred black pupil moved from Independence to attend school in KCMSD (Edwards D. 71; T. 1621). And, Jenkins' "depopulation" theory does not apply to Independence. Jenkins' historian conceded that Independence's black population, which was "rural non-farm", remained stable (T. 4570). For most of the period prior to 1954, Independence had adequate black schools including a black high school (P. X. 2400; Plucker D. 87, 115).5 Thus, there is no evidentiary, historical, or legal basis to justify interdistrict relief that includes Independence. II. The District Boundaries in Independence Are Racially Neutral Jenkins presented no evidence that school district lines in Independence were drawn, changed or perpetuated for racial 4This is comparable to the number of transfers in Tasby v. Estes, 412 F. Supp. 1185, 1189-90 (N.D. Texas 1975) aff'd, on inter-district issue, 572 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1978), where it was found that no interdistrict violation existed. Unlike Tasby, Independence transfers stopped immediately in 1954 and there have been no transfers of whites from KCMSD to Independence. 5Even though KCMSD disengenously attempts (Brief of KSMSD at 6 nt. 17) to lump the SDDs together regarding the quality of their "black" schools, its arguments do not apply to Independence. The Young school was a modern brick school that provided a good edu cation with a "generous supply and maintenance of library, reading and other instructional materials." 3 The formationreasons. The formation of Independence predated KCMSD's. Independence encompasses the majority of the City of Independence, as well as small portions of the cities of Kansas City and Sugar Creek.6 The attempted deannexation of the Van Horn area, almost entirely within the City of Independence, from KCMSD failed (Goodrich D. 32).7 Thus, there is no effect and hence no significant constitutional violation under the worst assumptions. III. Independence Has Done Nothing To Lure White Students Away from KCMSD Independence has never taken any white transfer students from KCMSD. Fred Cioffi, an HEW investigator, testified that Independence fully cooperated in his investigation of a rumor that post-Brown I transfers of white non-resident students from KCMSD to Independence might have existed. His investigation, however, revealed no such transfers. There was no evidence that any such transfers ever occurred (T. 10156-7). Jenkins produced no evidence that Independence encouraged or ^Although issues such as the Spainhower Commission plan and H.B. 171 are irrelevant, Independence would not have been com bined with KCMSD under Spainhower (P. X. 504) and it would have been virtually unaffected by H.B. 171 (P. X. 36). There is no evidence of any meaningful involvement, much less discriminatory intent by Independence in regard to either issue. ^In Berry v. Benton Harbor, 698 F.2d 813, 815 (6th Cir. 1983), the court faced a somewhat similar situation except the dean nexation attempt there was approved by the State Board of Education. However, because the deannexation effort was never implemented, the Berry court found no significant interdistrict effect. 4 caused whites to leave KCMSD. Independence was virtually unaf fected by any "white flight" from KCMSD. The 121 students Jenkins contends moved from KCMSD to Independence during the 1960's and 70's only constituted .8% of Independence's population (P. X. 53-G). That is hardly any effect, much less a significant interdistrict effect.8 Consequently, even if Jenkins' strained legal theories had any merit, the Court was correct in finding that they failed when applied to Independence. IV. Independence Has Black Residents, Students and Faculty There are no barriers to prevent blacks from moving to Independence. Appellants' own evidence shows blacks are moving to Independence in increasing numbers. The number of blacks in Independence schools has increased since 1972 with an increase of fifty students during the 1983-84 school year (P. X. 2967). The increased enrollment of blacks is in contrast with the sharp decline in the number of white students. Although employment practices are intradistrict matters, Independence has a tradition, as noted above, of having black faculty members.9 Indeed, Appellants' evidence demonstrates that ®See Bradley v. School District of Richmond, 462 F.2d 1058, 1065 (4th Cir. 1972), aff'd 412 U.S. 92 (1973). ^To the extent that KCMSD's argument that black teacher role models were needed in the SDDs to attract black families has any validity, it is inapplicable to Independence (KCMSD Brief at 10 nt. 30). Independence's black teachers have always been an integral part of its community and, served as role models for black and white students alike. 5 Independence still has black faculty members and a black prin cipal (P. X. 2967). Independence also tried to persuade one other black teacher to accept a principal position (P. X. 2967). Jenkins' statistical witness, Mr. Carlson, conceded that the number of black teachers in Independence was within expected statistical standard deviations (T. 6446). And, the number of teachers reflected by Mr. Carlson's chart was actually understated. The evidence shows that five additional black teachers were hired during the pertinent period. In fact, Independence made a good faith effort to hire every black appli cant (P. X. 2967). Independence has also had black substi tute teachers (T. 1768). At least one black teacher testified she did not apply for full-time employment at Independence because KSMSD paid teachers more money (T. 1768). Furthermore, Independence recruits at black universities, including Lincoln (P. X. 2967). Given these facts, it is apparent why the Court concluded that Independence's hiring practices have no signifi cant interdistrict relevance, impact, or effect (Order at 64-5). V. The Record Reveals No Housing Related Violations By Independence Finally, Jenkins failed to show any link between alleged racial discrimination in housing and any school district action. No evidence revealed any involvement by Independence in any housing related activity of other government entities in either the City of Kansas City or the City of Independence. When stripped to its essentials, Jenkins' overstated arguments at trial relative to urban renewal projects in the City of Independence showed only about 6 o KCMSD.three or four relocations that had some nexus t Furthermore, there has been no showing that schools were involved in the relocation process, nor were the number of school children significant in any sense. In fact, only one relocated family had children (T. 3870). Consequently, Jenkins has apparently abandoned this argument on appeal (Jenkins' Brief at 18, 24).!0 Nor was there any testimony that private racial steering, block busting, or redlining ever occurred in Independence. Jenkins' evidence demonstrated that there were few restrictive covenants ever in Independence (T. 13,332-3). Furthermore, in the few Independence neighborhoods that ever had racially restrictive covenants, blacks have moved in freely (T. 1734, 13,332-3). VI. Cooperative Efforts Between Independence and Other Entities Are Not Constitutional Violations Prior to 1971, Independence provided for vocational education within its own district. In 1971, Independence became a sending district to the Joe Herndon AVTS in the contiguous Raytown district. Independence was never approached by KCMSD to par ticipate in its AVTS (Goodrich D. 150). Nor is there Having failed to demonstrate that any urban renewal project within the boundaries of Independence had any discriminatory effect at all, Jenkins now has turned their attention to urban renewal projects within the City of Kansas City (Jenkins ' Brief at 18-24). Independence cannot be included in this racial balance program on the basis of the alleged constitutional viola tions of other governmental bodies. Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, 462 F.2d 1058 (4th Cir.) aff'd 412 U.S. 92 (1973). 7 any evidence that KCMSD needed the participation of any other district. Independence has sent a few special education pupils to KCMSD when it did not have facilities available within its district. Appellants have alleged that the SDD's stopped participating with KCMSD because its special education program became predomi nately black (Jenkins' Brief at 29 Nt. 59). There is no evidence to support this allegation. Instead, the evidence demonstrated Independence only stopped sending its handicapped students to KCMSD because the long bus rides were very hard on the children (Goodrich D. 146-8).H Today, Independence has its own comprehen sive special education program. There is no evidence that the participation or non participation of Independence in any cooperative program was ever pursued with the purpose or effect of segregating students in KCMSD. These programs are not constitutional violations and instead, they should be encouraged. CONCLUSION For the above reasons and those stated in the Consolidated Brief of the Appellee School Districts, Independence's dismissal must be affirmed. No fairly applied legal standard justifies Independence's destruction or consolidation. 11-Jenkins' tries to contrast this cooperation in special educa tion with alleged failure to cooperate in desegregation matters (Jenkins' Brief at 29, nt. 59). However, it should be noted that Independence never was asked to participate in any programs geared to promote racial balance in KCMSD (P. X. 626). 8 Respectfully submitted, HUMPHREY & FARRINGTON, P. NORMAN HUMPHREY JR. KENNETH B. McCLAIN, 123 West Kansas Independence, MO 64050 (816)836-5050 STINSON, MAG & FIZZELL GEORGE E. FELDMILLER 920 Main Street P. O. Box 19251 Kansas City, MO 64141 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE