Milliken v. Bradley Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents

    IN THE

&upmttp (&mvt of tty Inttpft BUUb
October Term , 1973

No. 73-434

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.
Petitioners,

v.

RONALD G. BRADLEY, et al.
Respondents.

and No. 73-435 and No. 73-436

BRIEF AM ICUS CURIAE  
OF CITY OF H ARTFORD, CO N N EC TIC U T  
IN  SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT, BRADLEY

A lexander A. Goldfarb 
Corporation Counsel

for the

City of Hartford 
Municipal Building 
550 Main Street 
Hartford, Connecticut 06103

LESON PRESS. PRINTERS. MRTPORS



1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

AMICUS CURIAE AUTHORITY..............................................1

INTEREST OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD............................1

QUESTION PRESENTED...................................................... 3

ARGUMENT

I. INTRODUCTORY BACKGROUND ................. 3

A. The Structure of Changes in Detroit and 
Hartford fit into a Pattern of Development 
in the Nation’s Metropolitan Areas. .........  3

II. STATE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, FOR THE 
STATE OF MICHIGAN AND ELSEWHERE IN 
THE COUNTRY, THROUGH AFFIRMATIVE 
ACTS, HAVE FOSTERED, NURTURED, AND 
PROMOTED THE USE OF SCHOOL DIS­
TRICT BOUNDARY LINES TO ACCOM­
PLISH THE SEGREGATION OF PUBLIC 
SCHOOL CHILDREN ON THE BASIS OF 
RACE AND ARE, THEREFORE, IN CLEAR 
VIOLATION OF E Q U A L  PROTECTION 
GUARANTEES AS ESTABLISHED UNDER 
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 5

A. Policies and Instruments of Segregation
Existed Prior to Brown 1............................. 5

B. This Court’s Holdings in Brown I and II
Altered The Pattern of State Segregatory 
Practices in Public Schools........................ 6

C. Affirmative Acts of Public Authorities 
Provided A Segregation Environment for



Both School and Residential Location 
Decisions.........................................................  8

D. State School Officials, in Michigan and 
Elsewhere in the Nation, Through Affirm­
ative Actions, Not Only Adapted to The 
Effects of Demographic Change, But More 
Significantly, Determined and Structured 
The Course of Metropolitan Development. 10

III. THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY 
ADEQUATE REMEDY TO SEGREGATED 
SCHOOLS IN URBAN AREAS IS NOW 
METROPOLITAN. A REMEDY PRESCRIBED 
ONLY FOR CENTRAL CITY SCHOOL DIS­
TRICTS WOULD CREATE “SEPARATE BUT

ii

EQUAL” SCHOOL SYSTEMS...........................  13

A. The Relevant School Community In The
Nation’s Metropolitan Areas In 1954 Was 
the Municipal School District....................  14

B. The Relevant School Community For
Purposes of Desegregation Is Now Metro­
politan, Not Municipal. ..............................  16

C. Re-segregation Within the Central City 
School Districts Is a Symptom of Regional
de jure Segregation....................................... 18

D. The Nature of the Constitutional Violation 
in the Instant Case Compels the Affir­
mation and Adoption of a Metropolitan 
Remedy. .......................................................  20

IV. THERE IS AN INHERENT AND ESSENTIAL 
UNITY BETWEEN THE INTEREST OF 
CENTRAL CITIES AND THEIR SUBURBAN



iii

TOWNS FORGED BY DOMINANT LONG 
TERM FORCES WITHIN THE ECONOMY.....  22

A. Developments in Technology and the 
Economy Accelerated Suburban Resi­
dential Growth.............................................  24

B. The Increasingly Complex Socio-Economic 
Interlock Between City and Suburbs al­
tered the Balance Between the Interests 
of Individual Communities and Those of 
the Larger Metropolitan Region as a
Whole..............................................................  25

C. Metropolitan Community of Interest Was
Legitimized and Made Formal by Private 
Citizens and All Levels of Government. .. 26

D. The Growth of Metropolitan Areas Has
Been Subverted by Divisive Forces..........  29

CONCLUSION .......................................................................  30

TABLE OF CONTENTS TO APPENDIX..........................  la

APPENDIX 2a



IV

TABLE OF CITATIONS

CASES Page

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483;
74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954) ............................  4

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 301;
75 S. Ct. 753; 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955) ..........................  4

Green v. School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S.
430; 88 S. Ct. 1689; 20 L. Ed. 2d 716 (1968) ............. 7

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
402 U.S. 1; 91 S. Ct. 1267; 28 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1971) 8

Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413
U.S. 189; 93 S. Ct. 2686; 37 L. Ed. 548 (1973) ........... 8

FEDERAL STATUTES

20 USCA 1602 .......................................................................  28

20 USC A 1608 .......................................................................  28



AMICUS CURIAE AUTHORITY

The City of Hartford, a political subdivision of the State 
of Connecticut, is filing this Brief Amicus Curiae sponsored 
by its chief law officer, the Corporation Counsel, as duly 
authorized by formal vote of the Court of Common Council 
of the City of Hartford, pursuant to Rule 42 (4) of the Rules 
of the Supreme Court of the United States.

INTEREST OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD

The City of Hartford, a political subdivision of the State 
of Connecticut with a population of 155,000, has a vital, direct 
and immediate interest in this case, more particularly as to 
the nature and extent of the desegregation remedy this 
Court may prescribe. The decision here will have an enduring 
and critical effect upon metropolitan areas in this country 
and will shape and structure the future relationships be­
tween city and suburb, between black and white, between 
poverty and wealth.

The District and Appellate Courts have held that the co­
terminous boundaries of the city and the school district of 
Detroit do not have a racially neutral effect upon school sys­
tems in the Detroit metropolitan area; rather, that the exist­
ence of said boundaries, coupled with certain affirmative acts 
of State school authorities, has caused and continues to cause 
and promote racial segregation between schools located in 
Detroit and those located in its surrounding suburbs. The 
Petitioners argue not only that school district lines in the 
Detroit metropolitan area delineate geographically separate 
entities, but also, that said districts are legally, socially and 
politically unrelated and independent units. Following this 
rationale, the Petitioners suggest that the proposal that sub­
urban school districts be included in the desegregation plan 
was erroneous and contrary to law, and further that a



2

“Detroit only” plan of desegregation is the constitutionally 
adequate and the only permissible remedy.

The 27,000 public school students of the City of Hart­
ford are confronted with conditions similar to those in 
Detroit in that, within the context of school district lines 
having been geographically established on a town-by-town 
basis, segregation exists to such an extent as to create racially 
identifiable schools within the city and between the city and 
its surrounding suburbs. In Detroit, however, no systematic 
congruence between town and school district is found.

In a suit presently pending in the United States District 
Court for the District of Connecticut, instituted by the Mayor 
and the members of the Court of Common Council, the City 
of Hartford alleges, on behalf of its citizens, that the Connect­
icut State Department of Education has created and main­
tained racially-identifiable schools and that through its offi­
cial policies and administrative actions, has licensed and 
sanctioned the containment of minority student concentra­
tions in the city proper.

Further, it is alleged that said acts have contributed to 
and promoted the white identity of suburban schools, thereby 
creating a dual school system which violates the Equal Pro­
tection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution. (City of Hartford et al. v. Thomas Mes- 
kill, et al., Civil Action No. 15074, D. Conn. May 30, 1972.)

The Board of Education of the City of Hartford and the 
Connecticut State Department of Education are also parties 
Defendant in a school desegregation suit instituted in 1970. 
(Kenyetta Lumpkin, et al. v. Thomas Meskill, et al, Civil 
Action No. 13,716, D. Conn. Feb. 20, 1970.)

The desegregation remedy determined by this Court will 
tangibly and gravely affect the scope of any remedy to be ap­



3

plied in either or both of the pending Hartford cases. The dual 
school system existent in the Hartford region is similar to 
that in the Detroit region. In both metropolitan areas the sys­
tems are constitutionally obstructive and should be dis­
mantled, or made permeable on a metropolitan area basis 
commensurate with the scope and extent of the harm inflicted 
upon their respective public school students.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is a metropolitan remedy to de jure segregation as found 
in Detroit constitutionally adequate, appropriate and feasible 
under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment and under the decisions of this Court?

ARGUMENT

I. INTRODUCTORY BACKGROUND

A. The Structure of Changes in Detroit and Hart­
ford fit into a Pattern of Development in the Nation’s 
Metropolitan Areas.

The involvement of both the Hartford School District and 
the Detroit School District in Federal District Court desegre­
gation suits is not an adventitious circumstance. To the con­
trary, correlative to developments in their respective public 
school systems over the past two decades, patterns of economic 
and social interdependence have acted to create conditions 
within each city which are, today, essentially similar.

In the early 1950’s, the public school population of both 
cities was predominantly white-dominated. Each of these 
cities was fiscally sound and had no difficulty providing 
needed public services for all its citizens; and each continued 
to attract new business investment within its municipal 
boundaries.



4

By 1970, these conditions had been dramatically re­
versed. Detroit and Hartford, like scores of other United 
States cities, fit into a national pattern of metropolitan devel­
opment which has left the central cities in a state of crisis and 
decay. Over the past twenty years, a methodical, pervasive 
and continuous depletion of affluent white households from 
the central cities, resulting in part from racial segregation in 
the schools accompanied by the in-migration of blacks 
and low-income households, upset the population balances 
needed to maintain the stability and vitality of these urban 
communities. This exodus to the suburbs of the economically- 
advantaged households and of the business community which 
serves them precipitated an erosion of the tax base which, 
concurrent with the increased costs of providing needed pub­
lic services, contributed greatly to the phenomenon which is 
now known as the “ Urban Crisis” .1 The forces which shaped 
the emerging structure of legal, political and socio-economic 
relations are complex and protean and need not be chronicled 
here. There is, however, one salient factor which, because of 
its importance, merits attention of this Court in its delibera­
tions of the instant case.

A major contributory cause of the spiral of urban decay 
which has characterized the central cities of this nation in 
the intervening years since 1954, has been the concerted, 
evasive and illegal policies and administrative actions of state 
school authorities to circumvent, subvert, and neutralize this 
Court’s mandate as established in the historic decisions, Brown 
v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483; 74 S. Ct. 686; 
98 L. Ed. 873 (1954); Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 
349 U.S. 301; 75 S. Ct. 753; 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955).



5

II. STATE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, FOR TH E  
STATE OF M IC H IG A N  AN D  ELSEW H ER E IN TH E  
COUNTRY, TH R O U G H  AFFIRM ATIVE ACTS, H AVE  
FOSTERED, NURTU RED , AN D  PROM OTED TH E  
USE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINES TO  
ACCOM PLISH  TH E SEGREGATION OF PUBLIC  
SCHOOL C H ILD R EN  ON  TH E BASIS OF RACE A N D  
ARE, TH EREFORE, IN  CLEAR VIO LATIO N  OF  
E Q U A L PROTECTION GUARANTEES AS ESTAB­
LISH ED  U N D ER  TH E FO U R TEEN TH  A M E N D M E N T  
OF TH E CONSTITUTION OF TH E U N ITED  STATES.

A. Policies and Instruments of Segregation 
Existed Prior to Brown I

In the historical period previous to 1954, the policy of 
segregating and isolating public school children on the basis 
of race was usually accomplished within school districts. In 
some instances, all black districts were operated as separate 
administrative units. The instruments for achieving racial 
segregation in public schools differed by region of the country. 
Southern states were direct and perhaps more forthright in 
their discrimination, while Northern states effected racial 
segregation of school children by more subtle and hypocritical 
means.

In the Southern regions of the country, state systems of 
public education, as administered through local school boards, 
operated within a context of state laws which explicitly 
provided for the separation of races within the confines of 
each school district. In the North, absent such state laws, 
racial segregation within school district boundaries was 
achieved by a variety of administrative decrees, by school



6

construction, and by drawing school attendance zones in 
conformance with segregated housing patterns.

Since in a growing, mobile society, the housing patterns of 
these racially-identifiable communities did not remain demo- 
graphically stable, an increase in the numbers of children re­
siding within existing school attendance zones and shifts in 
the geographic distribution of minority housing were accom­
modated through two mechanisms which had the effect of 
affirming or re-establishing racial segregation within school 
districts. Such increase in the numbers of public school chil­
dren within school attendance zones were absorbed through 
a policy of allocating funds for the construction and place­
ment of new school facilities on the basis of race. In response 
to shifts in housing patterns which threatened to alter the 
racial identity of school attendance zones, local school author­
ities adopted a pattern of optional attendance zones, transfer 
policies, and the gerrymandering of zones to achieve max­
imum racial segregation.

In summary, the pattern of public school segregation 
which emerged from the pre-1954 period was one of racially 
separate school attendance zones in the North and racially 
separate schools in the South. Each system effectively created 
racially identifiable schools, thereby yielding a similar result.

B. This Court’s Holdings in Brown I and II Altered 
The Pattern of State Segregatory Practices in Public 
Schools.

In the years immediately following Brown I, the imple­
mentation of this Court’s order through the creation of uni­
tary, non-discriminatory school systems within certain muni­



7

cipal school districts, did not take place to any substantial de­
gree. What token or piecemeal changes did take place were 
not sufficient to counteract the effects of increasing numbers 
of minority children in the center city and an intensified 
racial exclusion of blacks from most suburban areas.

School district lines ceased to function merely for the 
purposes of state administrative convenience, but rather as­
sumed a new meaning which, with the passage of time, would 
come to have broad socio-economic and legal implications. 
Already under pressure from demographic changes and, 
having been denied the freedom from judicial scrutiny or 
constraint which it had historically enjoyed, intra-district 
segregation evolved with the growing black population to seg­
regation between central city school districts and those of the 
suburbs.

While school district boundary lines had historically sep­
arated suburban school children from their urban counter­
parts prior to 1954, they did not have the effect, nor were 
they generally used as a device, to contain and separate mi­
nority children from their white school counterparts. With 
the increasing threat of the actualization of desegregation 
of central city schools, and as administrative devices within 
cities failed to keep certain schools white, these legal, poli­
tical, and geographic boundaries began to intrude upon 
and contribute more substantially to the residential location 
decisions of mobile, white families.

Within the period since Brown I and II, through its 
subsequent decisions, this Court has elaborated, extended and 
defined its intent and the methods to be used to eliminate all 
vestiges of state-imposed segregation from the public schools.

Green v. School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S.
430; 88 S. Ct. 1689; 20 L. Ed. 2d 716 (1968);



8

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 
U.S. 1; 91 S. Ct. 1267; 28 L. Ed, 2d 554 (1971).

Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 
U.S. 189, 93 S. Ct. 2686; 37 L. Ed. 2d 548, (1973);

It should be borne in mind that, with the erosion of the power 
of school attendance zones within school districts to sepa­
rate geographically white from minority students, white 
families with sufficient income could seek sanctuary 
from changing school enrollments by establishing residence in 
white suburbs from which blacks were generally excluded. 
Just as the scope and extent of school segregation had been de­
termined in the Northern states by fixed school attendance 
zones within school districts in the pre-1954 period, in the 
years following Brown I, the scope and extent of segregation 
between school districts throughout the nation was predicated 
upon the boundary lines between school districts.

A critical element which, both before and after 1954, con­
tributed to and shaped the residential location decisions of 
relatively affluent white households was their expectation 
that the effects of public racial segregation and private preju­
dice and low income would effectively restrict and contain the 
residence of black families to the ghetto areas of the central 
cities.2

C. Affirmative Acts of Public Authorities Provided 
A Segregation Environment for Both School and Residen­
tial Location Decision.

The decisions of literally millions of white households 
to reside in the suburbs contributed to and shaped the pat­
terns of segregation which presently exist between city and 
suburban school districts3. The actions of individuals, however, 
in their private capacities are not at issue in the instant case. 
An important distinction exists beween the right of an indi­
vidual to choose his or her place of residence, which is 
afforded the protection of the United States Constitution, and



9

actions taken by public officials which have the known and 
foreseeable consequence of denying another class of indi­
viduals their constitutional rights. Whereas a wide latitude 
of permissible behavior is afforded and sanctioned for indi­
viduals, the Constitution requires that government officials, 
in representing the interests of all people, conform with and 
adhere to the highest principles and standards of human con­
duct. This precept has been explicitly recognized with res- 
spect to the obligations and responsibilities of school officials 
in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294; 
75 S. Ct. 753; 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955). II.

During the intervening period from 1954 to the present, 
state boards of education in Michigan, Connecticut and else­
where in the nation acted under a policy of complicity and 
neglect.4 Having failed, post Brown, to eliminate school segre­
gation in central cities at a time when it was possible to do so, 
the official acts of state school authorities had the foreseeable 
effect of reinforcing and aggravating existing school and hous­
ing segregation. This led directly to a metropolitan community 
best described as an expanding core of black schools sur­
rounded by a ring of white public schools. Cognizant of the 
increasing percentage of minority students within the center 
cities, and with full knowledge that classroom construction in 
suburban schools was planned for white students, state school 
authorities affirmed and permitted school district lines to 
function between city and suburbs in the same manner that 
school attendance zones had functioned prior to 1954. This 
policy of state boards and their local agents cannot, however, 
be characterized as one of benign neglect.

State school officials have not merely acted to sanction 
and passively condone inter-district segregation; rather, state 
boards have fostered, promoted, and actively participated in 
the establishment of racially dual systems of public schools 
within the metropolitan areas of this nation.



10

The states, therefore, because of their failure to act, are 
now faced with the fact that what must be done today will 
require student assignment across district boundaries.

D. State School Officials, in Michigan and Elsewhere 
in the Nation, Through Affirmative Actions, Not Only 
Adapted To The Effects of Demographic Change, But 
More Significantly, Determined and Structured The Course 
of Metropolitan Development

Since 1950, dramatic demographic changes had to be 
planned for, and accommodated by school authorities.

1. Population increased in the nation’s metropolitan 
areas by 44.8 million from 1950 to 1970 (47.4%). (See Table 
D, Appendix).

2. The population in central cities increased by 10 mil­
lion from 1950 to 1970; the major increase taking place in the 
earlier decade. (See Table D, Appendix).

3. Suburban population increased over the period 1950 
to 1970 by 85.4%; an absolute increase of 34.8 million (from 
40.8 to 75.6 million) (See Table D, Appendix).

4. In 1950, 34.6% of the total white population lived 
in central cities, but by 1970 the figure had decreased to 
27.8%. Net decrease of 2 million. The comparable figures for 
the black population registered an increase from 44.1% in 
1950 to 58.2% in 1970. (See Table D, Appendix).

5. In 1970, 59.4% of the white population in the metro­
politan areas was suburban, while 78% of the black metro­
politan residents lived in central cities. (See Table D, Ap­
pendix).

6. For the white population in central cities, children 
under 13 years old and adults between the ages of 25 and 44



11

years were the major age groups which lost population be­
tween 1960 and 1970.5

Selective subsidies to urban and suburban school districts 
for the transport of children to and from public schools, varied 
planning assistance programs, the discretionary administra­
tion of federal education grants, and a variety of other activi­
ties constitute affirmative actions by state school authorities 
which have shaped and fashioned their respective systems of 
education. Paramount among such actions has been state par­
ticipation in and responsibility for the construction of new 
school facilities to adapt to, accommodate and plan for 
changes in the patterns of residence which have character­
ized our growing, mobile society.

As this Court has noted, decisions of school officials in 
determining the geographic location of new schools will, in 
conjunction with school assignment techniques, not only 
“determine the racial composition of the student body in 
each school in the system” , but will also act to determine and 
structure the course of metropolitan development.

“People gravitate toward school facilities, just as schools 
are located in response to the needs of people. The loca­
tion of schools may thus influence the patterns of resi­
dential development of a metropolitan area and have 
important impact on composition of inner-city neghbor- 
hoods.”

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa­
tion, 402 U.S., ot 20-21; Keyes v. School District No. 
1, 413 U.S., at 202.

The Petitioners would have this Court believe that school 
districts are separate, unrelated and dissociated from one 
another. Far from being unrelated to one another, school 
districts in the suburban towns and that of the central city are



12

welded together in a relationship predicated on the racial and 
economic prejudice of the affluent white families who leave 
one center city so that their children might attend majority 
white schools in the suburbs. The operation and presence of 
a minority urban school district, by its very existence, implies 
and affirms the existence of its white suburban counterparts 
and is thus intrinsic to the patterns of intrametropolitan 
migration. As legal and political subdivisions of a greater 
whole, each element in this relationship necessarily functions 
to separate school children by race. Just as urban implies sub­
urban, so their relationship implies a prejudicial result.

Separate school districts, in close geographic proximity 
to one another, having been created and maintained through 
state action, are elements in and produce the conditions for a 
process of state-supported racial segregation which, if allowed 
to run its full course, will result in a geographically dual 
society, divided by race, in this nation’s metropolitan areas.

This is Darwinism of another sort, wherein income 
levels and racial prejudice intertwine to produce the perverse 
result which now confronts public officials and private citizens 
in Detroit, Hartford and other central cities in the Nation. 
The selection process and the socio-cultural advance of one 
class of citizens at the expense of another is predicated and 
founded, not on biological supremacy, but rather on a malig­
nant racism and the income differences which discrimination 
has produced. What is all the more reprehensible and ab­
horrent is that this selection process is ratified and legitimized 
by the policies and administrative actions of state officials. 
The result of this process is a metropolitan structure which 
divides one sector of society against another and, as such, is 
an aberrant form, a mutation, which stands contrary to the 
Fourteenth Amendment and to the highest and best interests 
of this nation and its citizens.



13

III. THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTION­
ALLY ADEQUATE REMEDY TO SEGREGATED 
SCHOOLS IS NOW METROPOLITAN. A REMEDY 
PRESCRIBED ONLY FOR CENTRAL CITY SCHOOL 
DISTRICTS WOULD CREATE “SEPARATE BUT 
EQUAL” SCHOOL SYSTEMS.

Two decades ago this Court noted the importance of 
education as a function of state and local governments and 
ruled that there was no place therein for the doctrine of 
“separate but equal.” Brown I at 495.

In a recent decision, this Court reiterated that:

“ The constant theme and thrust of every holding from 
Brown I to date is that state enforced separation of races 
in public schools is discrimination that violates the Equal 
Protection Clause. The remedy commanded was to dis­
mantle dual school systems.”

Swann, 402 U.S., at 22.

In the difficult problem of practically dismantling dual 
school systems, the Federal Courts are faced with two prob­
lems. The first is to identify the community of school children, 
minority and white, who have been harmed by state segre­
gative practices; thereby, the Courts define the nature of the 
constitutional violation. That is, the Courts must first discern 
the geographic and social extent of the pattern of state segre­
gation before it can frame an appropriate remedy.

The existence of state-created, racially identifiable schools 
implies the segregation of minority students from the domi­
nant society which is white. Segregation is a relation, and as 
such, the very presence of a separated minority implies and 
affirms its opposite — the presence of a majority. In deter­
mining the nature of the constitutional violation, it is not



14

enough for the Courts to distinguish those schools which are 
racially identifiable on a minority basis, but rather it is 
incumbent upon the Courts to determine the extent to which 
minorities have been actively separated, through state action, 
from their white counterparts within and between school 
districts.

Having so defined the community of school children 
harmed, the second problem facing the Courts is the framing 
of a remedy which would meet the criteria of being both con- 
stitutionally-adequate, as well as being “practically flexible” 
in its application. This Court has made explicit note, however, 
that in the framing of a remedy the overriding consideration 
is the constitutional adequacy of any plan of desegregation.

In 1955, when it rendered its decision in Brown II, the 
Court recognized that differing fact situations might require 
a variety of remedies depending on the relevant school com­
munity. This Court expressly noted that to eliminate state- 
imposed segregation it might be necessary to change school 
district boundaries. In most metropolitan areas, however, 
segregation could have been sharply reduced if prompt action 
had been taken by limiting it to the central cities. What could 
have been done was not done. That is why we are here today.

A. The Relevant School Community In The Nation’s 
Metropolitan Areas In 1954 Was the Municipal School 
District,

The racial geography of schools in the Topeka region at 
the time of the Brown decision was congruent with that found 
in most metropolitan regions elsewhere in the United States. 
In 1954 most of the nation’s metropolitan regions were 
characterized by the racial domination of white school child­
ren both within the central cities and in their traditionally 
white suburbs. The implications of this demographic pattern



15

for court-ordered desegregation were far-reaching and ex­
tensive.

Although in the subsequent two decades the minority 
concentrations would increase universally within central 
cities, in 1954 only certain of the nation’s cities had any 
appreciable minority representation. However, in 1954, signi­
ficant variation could be found in the degree of concentration 
between regions and cities; witness, other selected cities ap­
pearing in Table I.
TABLE I MINORITY STATUS IN CENTRAL CITY

SCHOOLS 1954

(PER CENT ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOLS)

Atlanta 43.7 Newark 31.0
Baltimore 36.4 New Haven 15.3
Beaumont 33.2 New Orleans 41.6
Buffalo 10.1 New York City 15.2
Charlotte 40.8 Oakland 28.0
Chicago 20.7 Philadelphia 31.2
Cincinnati 30.0 Pittsburgh 21.6
Cleveland 29.1 Richmond 44.1
Dayton 21.9 St. Louis 30.5
Detroit 27.2 San Francisco 20.9
Gary 39.4 Topeka 9.6
Harrisburg 21.3 Trenton 25.2
Hartford 17.1 Washington, D.C. 57.2
Memphis 42.8 Wilmington 27.9

* Representative selection of cities with high minority population 
concentrations chosen from the Report of the Commission on Civil 
Rights and from Metropolitan Area Statistics. The methodology 
employed to derive the data for the year 1954 is outlined in 
Table II. In interpreting the data, it is necessary to assume a minority 
representation in all schools within each school district which 
approximates the percentage level of minority students within the 
school district as a-whole. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 
of Education, 402 U.S. 25.

The data presented in Table I substantiates that, even in 
those metropolitan areas which had high concentrations of 
minority school children resident in their central cities, it was 
possible in 1954 to establish unitary non-discriminatory school 
districts within the central cities.



16

B. The Relevant School Community For Purposes 
of Desegregation Is Now Metropolitan, Not Municipal.

Although the relevant school community within which to 
dismantle dual school systems was the central school district 
in 1954, quite the opposite was true by the end of the decade 
of the 1960’s.

The data depicted in Table II, when compared with 
Table I, substantiates that, had the courts mandated the 
abolition of dual school systems in 1970 solely within existing 
central city school districts, the resulting increase in the 
number and percent of minority-identified schools would 
have produced nothing short of the establishment of a geo­
graphically expanded dual system of public schools between 
districts in most metropolitan regions.

Over those intervening years from 1954 to 1970, the in­
crease in resident white population in central cities subsided 
and, from 1960 to 1970, even declined by 600,000. Correlative 
decreases in the number of white children attending public 
schools in central cities were even greater due to the expanded 
enrollment of white children in private schools. In essence, 
the numerical and the proportional increase of minority child­
ren in central city school systems passed a critical threshhold, 
whereby the magnitude of the minority school population in 
central cities came to overwhelm the dominant white majority.

The state school boards, having accommodated the initial 
increases in the number of white children within suburban 
school districts, discouraged further in-migration to the central 
cities and, in the process, set the parameters within which 
took place the subsequent exodus of young families with 
children to the suburbs.

Just as state support of dual school systems shifted from 
within, to between school districts, so too, the community of 
children harmed by state segregative actions also shifted and



17

TABLE 2 MINORITY STATUS IN CENTRAL CITY
SCHOOLS 1950-1970 * 11

(PER CENT ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOLS)

1 2 3 4
1950 1954 I960 1970

Atlanta 41.1 43.7 43.9 65.7
Baltimore 27.2 36.4 50.1 65.7
Beaumont 33.1 33.2 33.3 40.4
Buffalo 7.6 10.1 29.4 39.0
Charlotte 53.4 40.8 32.4 33.1
Chicago 15.5 20.7 28.5 63.8
Cincinatti 27.9 30.0 33.1 44.9
Cleveland 18.8 29.1 44.5 60.8
Dayton 16.6* 21.9 29.9 43.8
Detroit 16.7 27.2 42.9 64.2
Gary 32.9* 39.4 49.1 73.3
Harrisburg 15.2* 21.3 30.4 20.3
Hartford 15.3 17.1 25.7 64.6
Memphis 41.6 42.8 44.5 50.7
Newark 34.4 31.0 54.2 79.5
New Haven 7.9* 15.3 26.3 56.1
New Orleans 38.4 41.6 46.4 67.3
New York City 14.7 15.2 21.1 53.5
Oakland 26.4 28.0 34.5 66.4
Philadelphia 20.8 31.2 46.7 61.1
Pittsburgh 14.5 21.6 32.2 38.3
Richmond 42.0 44.1 42.0 55.8
St. Louis 18.7 30.5 48.3 59.1
San Francisco 12.9 20.9 32.8 46.4
Topeka 9.2 9.6 10.2 17.4
Trenton 15.4* 25.2 39.8 70.5
Washington, D.C. 43.6 57.2 77.5 94.1
Wilmington 18.2* 27.9 42.5 75.8

* Approximation
Sources: 1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population 1950.

Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population, Parts 5, 7, 8, 9,
11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 45,
Table 34, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1952.

2. Straight line interpolation.
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population:. 1960.

1 2 , 1 5  * 2 4 , 3 2 , 3 4 , 3 5 , 3 7 , 4 0 , 4 4 , 4 5 / 4 7 ,
Tables 73, 77.
U.S. Bureau of the Censusy Census of Population: 1970. .General 
Social and Economic Characteristics. Final Report PC(1)-C, 8,
9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40, 44, 45, 
47, Tables 83, 91, 97.

4.



18

expanded geographically to include white suburban school 
children.

C. Re-segregation Within the Central City School 
Districts Is a Symptom of Regional D e Jure Segregation.

In formulating a remedy in the instant case, involving a 
community of children in the Detroit region, the District 
Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals confronted the 
same two basic issues which this Court adjudicated in 
Brown I and II. The first issue, that of defining the nature of 
the constitutional violation, calls upon the courts to ascertain 
the geographic and social extent of state-imposed segregation 
of white from minority children. Because de jure segregation 
is a dual relation which effects a separation of white from 
minority as well as minority from white, the critical dis­
tinction for the courts in defining the community of children 
harmed, both minority and white, is not the quantitative 
enumeration of the visible minority which have been segre­
gated from the surrounding white society. To the contrary, 
the issue is to distinguish and separate the surrounding white 
society into two parts — (1) that part of the white majority 
circumscribed by the de jure actions and policies of the state 
and (2) that exurban sector of the white majority which is 
segregated de facto from the suburban white and the urban 
minority. More specifically, the problem the Courts have to 
resolve is the identification and separation of those particular 
white-dominated schools influenced by state action and which, 
therefore, fit into the total pattern of de jure segretation.

With the nature of the constitutional violation defined, 
the second major issue, that of practical implementation, 
admits of no easy solution. The process of dismantling dual 
school systems has been complicated, and in some cases 
thwarted entirely, by the shifts which have taken place in the 
racial composition of those neighborhoods and schools affected



19

by court orders. This problem has nowhere been more severe 
than in the central city school districts. This Court, in Swann, 
has acknowledged the difficulties associated with attempts 
to establish unitary school systems:

“This process has been rendered more difficult by changes 
since 1954 in the structure and patterns of communities, 
the growth of student population, movement of families, 
and other changes, some of which had marked impact on 
school planning, sometimes neutralizing or negating 
remedial action before it was fully implemented.”

Swann, 402 U.S., at 14.

In this era of “evolving remedies” subsequent to Brown, 
the courts often precipitate demographic change through the 
implementation of a remedy which is bounded within too 
narrow a geographic area. By not embracing the entire region 
in which the process of segregation has taken place when 
establishing unitary school systems, the courts run the risk of 
increasing the long-run minority concentrations in court- 
affected areas through a process of resegregation. The “white 
flight” to the suburbs which acts as a parameter and facili­
tates resegregation within the central cities is, however, 
founded upon a larger underlying pattern of de jure segre­
gation.

A rapid transition of a school district from majority-white 
status to a preponderance of minority students, such as that 
which has taken place in Detroit (See Tables I and II), implies 
a relation between minority and majority which traverses and 
extends beyond the school district boundaries. The racial 
displacement of white with minority students within a central 
city school district would not be possible were it not for the 
receptive environment created within contiguous suburban 
towns which absorb white out-migration. It is only because of 
the relative attractiveness created in the suburbs, coupled 
with prejudice, that individual household decisions to relocate



20

can combine to produce a total pattern of racial segregation 
which is regional.

Such a pattern of out-migration is contingent upon four 
factors which support the white exodus and which, obversely, 
contain minority households in the central cities: (1) the 
higher income levels of white households; (2) the freedom of 
social mobility within the larger society; (3) the geographic 
proximity of suburb to city to the extent that traveling time 
and distance from the new location allows the out-migrant 
household to maintain employment and social contacts within 
the region, and (4) the existence of new residential and school 
construction in the suburbs. The salient and essential charac­
teristics common to the out-migrants is that they remain 
constituents of the regional economy and society.

D. The Nature of the Constitutional Violation in the 
Instant Case Compels the Affirmation and Adoption of a 
Metropolitan Remedy.

In order to delineate a pattern of de jure segregation 
which is regional, it is necessary to specify state policies and 
administrative actions which have separated the whites who 
have out-migrated from the minorities remaining in the 
central cities. Both the record herein and the data in Tables 
I and II indicate that the collective effect of individual 
location decisions has been to structure the economic and 
social geography of the City of Detroit and its surrounding 
region. The record, then, reveals a pattern of regional segre­
gation which has two distinct aspects: (1) effective segrega­
tion has taken place within the school system of the City of 
Detroit, and (2) segregation has increased and continues to 
increase between the school system of the City of Detroit 
and that of its surrounding suburbs.

The State of Michigan, through its local agent, the Detroit 
School Board, has admitted and the Courts have found that,



21

de jure segregation existed within the School District of 
Detroit. The State, having admitted to only one aspect of the 
regional pattern of de jure segregation, does not thereby limit 
the extent of its responsibility for creating inter-district 
segregation in the Detroit region.

Over the years since Brown, the School Board of the State 
of Michigan and its local agents have undertaken a massive 
school construction program, the segregative consequences 
of which were known and foreseeable. Over the period from 
1954 to the present, well over 400,000 students have been 
accommodated in suburban school districts in the Detroit 
region6. And from 1967 to the present, the school Boards 
in the Detroit region have reported the racial compo­
sition of their student body both to the federal government 
and to the Michigan State Board of Education7. In light 
of these facts, the complicity and active participation of 
the School Board of the State of Michigan, in determining the 
pattern of segregation within and between districts, cannot 
be ignored or denied. The Petitioner’s contention, therefore,
that the nature of the constitutional violation is defined

+6,within, and contained and restricted^ segregative acts of 
school authorities within the school district of Detroit, is 
transparent and tenuous and should be discarded as being 
without basis in fact or in law.

The Respondents reasoned, to the contrary, that in 
light of the high and increasing concentrations of minority 
children in Detroit’s schools, the pattern of de jure segregation 
extended to white schools in the suburban townships and, 
therefore, required a metropolitan remedy to assure the 
establishment of a unitary school system. At each step of 
the progress of the instant case the courts found in favor 
of the Respondents and took steps toward the implementation 
of an inter-district remedy.



22

Essentially the courts found a pattern of state education 
in the metropolitan area which was one of an expanding core 
of black schools with a ring of white suburban schools. Again, 
the blackness of the schools is directly related to the whiteness 
of other schools in the area. The courts simply examined the 
entire area affected by the remedy in light of the Swann 
limitation of “time and distance” . No governmental structure 
has been upset. Rather, state authorities have suggested, and 
Respondents agreed, that pupils and staff could be exchanged 
by contract (a not unfamiliar governmental arrangement). 
The question of redrawing districts when necessary has been 
left, just as in reapportionment cases, with the State Legis­
lature.

The central and critical issue here is that of student 
assignment. In arguments in the record, and in those put 
forth by the City of Hartford herein, it has been amply 
shown that the nature of the constitutional violation is 
regional and is in no way contained solely within the school 
district of Detroit. Therefore, this Court can do no other than 
uphold and affirm the finding of the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals that, in dismantling the dual school system, a 
metropolitan remedy is constitutionally required. To do other­
wise, and to order a “Detroit-only” solution as has been argued 
by the Petitioners, would re-instate, re-establish, and give 
sanction to a “ separate but equal” system of schools in the 
Detroit region.

IV. THERE IS AN INHERENT AND ESSENTIAL 
UNITY BETWEEN THE INTEREST OF CENTRAL 
CITIES AND THEIR SUBURBAN TOWNS FORGED 
BY DOMINANT LONG TERM FORCES WITHIN THE 
ECONOMY.

The structure of metropolitan areas has been formed by 
a myriad of factors among which the technologies of modern 
production and distribution are probably most significant.



23

Prior to the turn of the century, reliance on horse and 
rail transportation, on telegraph and messenger service, on 
multi-storied manufactories, and on small-scale retail outlets 
combined to contain and circumscribe the limits within which 
urban economic activity could efficiently function. Early pro­
duction technologies were simple, requiring only a modicum 
of land and capital. As new technologies were developed and 
integrated, more and larger units of capital were required, 
and as a result, the suburbs became relatively more attractive 
than the city for the location of new manufacturing activity. 
The advent of high rise office buildings simultaneously trans­
formed the profile and character of the city.

America entered the 20th century with an industrial 
economy which attracted even more activity and greater 
numbers of people to its already flourishing central cities. In 
the South, Midwest and West these industrial and residen­
tial increases were accommodated through the creation and 
rebuilding of entire cities; e.g., Atlanta, Phoenix and Los 
Angeles. As manufacturing activity continued its growth, 
these cities faced the identical space constraints endemic to 
the older, Northern urban areas. The density of industrial 
activity within all cities reached critical levels and spilled 
over existing city boundaries. Suburbs became the necessary 
adjuncts to the industrial activity situated within the cities 
of metropolitan areas throughout the nation.

This new structural balance in metropolitan areas al­
tered the functional relationship between city and suburb. As 
new manufacturing enterprises were accommodated in the 
land-rich suburbs, central cities expanded their role as the 
regional base for corporate headquarters, financial institu­
tions and the various other professional services required in 
the movement of goods from their point of production to their 
final destination. The re-allocation of economic activity be­
tween city and suburb was accompanied by greater economic



24

efficiency and higher levels of productivity. A synergistic 
effect was created wherein producers, although locationally 
discrete and physically removed from all others, became in­
creasingly interdependent in order to meet the needs of 
regional residents and the demands of national and inter­
national markets.

The hegemony of the central city declined as the level of 
regionwide economic activity increased. These changes were 
reflected by a shift in regional commutation patterns and a 
marked increase in the degree of interaction between city and 
suburb. Town lines in the metropolitan complex were being 
traversed not only by suburban commuters working in the 
central city, but by city residents as well, seeking the employ­
ment opportunities offered within the suburban ring.

A. Developments in Technology and the Economy 
Accelerated Suburban Residential Growth.

While technological changes were transforming the spa­
tial allocation of production activities, a metamorphosis in 
the pattern of residential land use was taking place as well. 
Prior to the turn of this century, American society was an 
amalgam of rural and urban places. The suburbs had not yet 
developed to significant proportions and, consequently, the 
majority of metropolitan area residents lived and worked in 
the central city. Technological developments in the early part 
of the century, however, soon altered this pattern. The ubiq­
uity of the private automobile, telephone, and television en­
abled individuals to live at increasingly distant locations from 
their places of employment, recreation, and shopping, while 
continuing to interact with the central city. The inexpensive 
land in rural and suburban areas, coupled with easily obtained 
mortgages, and the rising income levels generated by the 
increasingly productive metropolitan economy, allowed fam­
ilies to enjoy less crowded living quarters than those available 
to urban residents.



25

In the post World War I period, the accelerating demand 
for low-density residential housing quickly outstripped the 
available supply of land within the city boundaries. During 
this period of expansion, the ability of the city to annex con­
tiguous residential areas was precluded by the existence of 
political boundaries. Where boundaries did not previously ex­
ist, the new suburban expansion necessitated their creation. 
In other cases, existing rural towns near the city were simply 
engulfed by residential development. The result was an eco­
nomically integrated metropolitan region fragmented by a 
variety of jurisdictional lines.

B. The Increasingly Complex Socio-Economic In­
terlock Between City and Suburbs Altered the Balance 
Between the Interests of Individual Communities and 
Those of the Larger Metropolitan Region as a Whole.

In the early period of suburbanization, the suburban 
towns were distinct communities, each with its own particular 
flavor and, as a group, decidely different in structure and 
function from the central city. The undeveloped open spaces 
and the strictly residential character of most of these towns 
created a life style altogether different from that of their ur­
ban counterparts. Their governmental structures were 
simpler, their finances less complicated, and their problems 
primarily local community issues easily resolved with active 
participation by all interested parties. During this formative 
period, while each unit of the metropolitan community evol­
ved and extended its own local identity, the central city re­
mained the nexus of all intercommunity activity — economic 
political, social, cultural and educational — and thus em­
braced and represented the metropolitan identity.

As the technological shifts and economic exigencies gave 
impetus to the urbanization of the suburbs, the residents of 
the suburban towns and their representative governments



26

were confronted with the problems of resolving the multi­
faceted issues arising from the existence of large industrial 
and commercial establishments within their jurisdictions. The 
regional interlock of these large firms, resulting from their 
employment of workers and their purchase of supplies from 
firms in other metropolitan towns, as well as their use of ser­
vices located in the central city, forced a shift in the scope of 
local decision-making away from local autonomy and towards 
regionalism.

C. Metropolitan Community of Interest Was Legit­
imized and Made Formal by Private Citizens and All 
Levels of Government.

As the city and its suburbs evolved into an economically 
integrated region, narrowly defined parochial interests could 
no longer dominate the thinking of community leaders. The 
shift towards metropolitanism, as above described, was a 
result of increasing regional interlock and growing similari­
ties in the economic and social structure of city and suburb. 
This growing community of interest has manifested itself in 
the increasing number of co-operative agreements entered 
into by both the representative bodies and administrative 
agencies of these municipalities and by private citizens alike. 
The following are examples of the institutionalization of the 
regional community of interest (See Appendix III).

LOCAL:

1. The municipal governments of suburbs and cities 
have created numerous authorities to provide public ser­
vices on a regionwide basis in such areas as planning, 
public health, public safety, mass transit, water and 
sewer systems, as well as in special educational services; 
and

2. Private citizens of these communities have set 
up co-operative agencies to meet the diverse needs of



27

regional residents. Chambers of commerce, councils of 
churches, centers for the treatment of drug abuse and 
alcoholism, and sundry other business and social service 
organizations are examples of these private and non­
profit co-operative institutions.

Parallel to these changes, officials at state and federal 
levels have recognized the community of interest between 
city and suburb by assigning regional bodies the responsibility 
for carrying out, and the authority for overseeing, the ad­
ministration of a variety of State and Federal programs.

STATE:

1. The creation of state administrative districts with­
in regions in order to facilitate governmental functions 
adheres to the intrinsic unity of city and suburb. Judicial 
districts, environmental regions, welfare districts, police 
units, tax districts, and civil defense areas are exemplary 
of these administrative districts.

2. State-approved and funded regional planning 
agencies, which exist in every state in the nation, are 
assigned the responsibility for coordinating growth and 
for providing public planning services within their 
jurisdictions.

FEDERAL:

1. The central city and its surrounding region, be­
cause they are viewed as an important socio-economic 
unit, constitute the main focus of much of the statistical 
activity of the federal government. The two major geo­
graphical loci of information-gathering are the Standard 
Metropolitan Statistical Area of the Bureau of the Census 
and the Labor Market Area of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, both of which are defined on the basis of



2 8

interaction between central city and its contiguous area. 
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area is defined by 
the Bureau of Census as containing one or more central 
cities with a combined population of at least 50,000 
inhabitants, and with contiguous towns in “the region 
which are socially and economically integrated with the 
central city.”8

2. Metropolitan regions, because they have evolved 
to the point wherein they are functionally unified, are 
eligible for, and are prime targets of, federal funds for 
economic development. Most outstanding among these 
are the HUD 701 Comprehensive Planning Grants, 
Economic Development Agency Grants and Manpower 
Administration Training Funds.

Not only has the Federal government recognized the 
economic and social community of interest between city and 
suburb through numerous economic development grants, but 
it has also explicitly acknowledged the metropolitan di­
mension of the racial isolation of central city school children. 
The 92nd Congress of the United States appropriated sub­
stantial public funds under Title VII of the Educational 
Amendments of 1972 for the purpose of “dealing with con­
ditions of segregation by race in the schools of local education­
al agencies of any State without regard to the origin or cause 
of such desegregation” (20 U.S.C.A. § 1602). Provision has 
been expressly made for the joint development, by a group of 
local educational agencies located in a Standard Metropolitan 
Statistical Area, “of a plan to reduce and eliminate minority 
group isolation, to the maximum extent possible, in the public 
elementary and secondary schools in the SMSA.” (20 U.S.C.A. 
§ 1608).



29

D. The Growth Of Metropolitan Areas Has Been 
Subverted By Divisive Forces.

During this century, the cities and suburbs in the nation’s 
metropolitan areas have experienced an unprecedented eco­
nomic growth predominantly influenced and shaped by the 
forces of a new technology. The essential unity between the 
interests of central cities and their suburban towns has been 
forged by these salutary economic trends.

Since 1954, however, an ominous and antagonistic social 
force, has surfaced to disrupt and stifle the heretofore pre­
vailing forces of a progressive economy. This unsettling force 
is, significantly, the pattern of population shifts caused by the 
effects of school segregation and school district fines on res­
idential location. The complicity of state school authorities 
in giving shape to this antagonistic force is amply recited 
above.

The balance between city and suburb has been adversely 
affected by the accelerated out-migration of white families 
and economic activity in the post Brown I era. The combined 
cumulative effect of the location decisions of people and 
business have led to rising social and economic costs both in 
the suburbs and the city. The sprawling overdevelopment of 
the suburbs stands in contrast to the disinvestment, poverty 
and virtual bankruptcy of urban governments engulfing the 
cities in an inexorable spiral of decay.

It is noteworthy, however, that what began as a mere 
disruptive influence has now come to threaten and subvert 
the equilibrium and unity between city and suburb to the 
point where it will corrode and blight the body politic of our 
metropolitan areas.



30

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, we respectfully urge this Court 
to affirm the decision of the en banc Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals as the only sound, feasible and effective course to 
meet the controlling standards established by Brown I and II. 
The nature and scope of the remedy are defined by the nature 
and scope of the injury. It is impossible, in any meaningful 
sense, to desegregate a racially homogeneous, large core-city 
school district such as Detroit or Hartford, The empirical 
realities compel a regional remedy to redress an essentially 
regional harm to both white and nonwhite students.

The insular course advanced by the Petitioners is not a 
proper judicial corrective. A “Detroit-only” remedy cures 
nothing. It contravenes the Brown mandate by invidiously 
polarizing the races. Indeed, it well exacerbates and accentu­
ates the proscribed dual system by resegregation. Above all, 
it ineluctably portends a 100% minority “unitary” Detroit 
school district.

If such narrow remedy were adopted and followed, it 
would dilute, if not nullify, the great desegregation principal! 
enunciated by this Court since 1954. It would revive the 
discredited “separate but equal” doctrine and, ironically, 
recreate and re-establish within our core-cities the very sepa­
rate and unequal system of public education long outlawed 
by this Court. In short, the intra-district remedy represents a 
regression to the dead doctrines and rigid provincialism of the 
of the Nineteenth Century. If the federal courts are restricted 
in providing an adequate remedy for a federal wrong by 
virtue of state law, we will have returned not to the Consti­
tution but to the Articles of Confederation.

We ask this Court to fashion an inter-district plan of 
student assignment wholly consistent with the existing spec­
trum of federal, state and local laws prescribing and approving



31

governmental policies and programs on a regional basis. 
Having encouraged and reaped the gains of regional growth 
and development, the State and its suburban surrogates cannot 
tenably claim that school districts are unrelated and inde­
pendent of one another. Such facile rationalization cannot be 
used to circumvent their clear responsibilities to eliminate 
racial discrimination in public education. It ill behooves those 
who have profited from the new regionalism to repudiate the 
city — the source of their profits — by suggesting that the 
city look to itself for its own remedy. It is indefensible that 
Petitioners now assume a righteous posture, insensitive to the 
segregated plight and loss of the urban and suburban school 
child — a plight and loss which they helped to create and 
sustain.

The public school children of the metropolitan Detroit 
and Hartford regions, of whatever race or circumstance, must 
in fact be guaranteed the equal educational opportunity to 
know and achieve the society of their peers and, in turn, the 
respect for and understanding of themselves and others. Thus, 
will their legal rights be secured, their human dignity be 
maintained, and the true meaning and purpose of the Equal 
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment be fullfilled. 
Thus, can this Court alone, in its commanding power and 
wisdom, secure such rights, maintain such human dignity and 
fullfill such meaning and purpose of the Constitution of the 
United States.

Respectfully submitted,

A lexander A. Goldfarb

Corporation Counsel

for the

City of Hartford
550 Main Street

February 1, 1974 Hartford, Connecticut



la

TABLE OF CONTENTS TO APPENDIX
Page

I. NOTES TO TEXT ..........................................................  2a

II. STATISTICAL TABLES

A Racial Census-Hartford Public Schools,
1965 to 1972 ...............................................................  6a

B Racial Segregation in Hartford Public
Schools, 1965-1972.......................................................7a

C Minority Population In Central Cities
(1950-1970) ...............................................................  8a

D National Population Trends For Metropolitan
Areas, 1950-1970 .......................................................  9a

E Income Characteristics In 1969 And 1959 
Of Families By Sex And Race Of Head 
And Metropolitan Residence: 1970 And 1960 ......  10a

F Distribution Of Persons Below The Poverty 
Level In 1969 And 1959 By Race And 
Metropolitan Residence: 1970 And 1960 ............... 11a

G Employment In All SMSA’S And Central
Cities, 1958 and 1967 .................................  12a

III. HARTFORD REGION AS AN EXAMPLE OF
COMMUNITY INTERLOCK WITHIN A
METROPOLITAN REGION........................................... 13a IV.

IV. FOOTNOTES TO APPENDIX 19a



2a

NOTES TO TEXT

“As a result of the population shifts of the post-war period, 
concentrating the more affluent parts of the urban population in 
residential suburbs while leaving the less affluent in the central 
cities, the increasing burden of municipal taxes frequently falls 
upon that part of the urban population least able to pay them.

Increasing concentrations of urban growth have called forth 
greater expenditures for every kind of public service education, 
health, police protection, fire protection, parks, sewage disposal, 
sanitation, water supply, etc. These expenditures have strikingly 
outpaced tax revenues.”

Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Dis­
orders, Chairman Otto Kerner (1968) p. 393
“The central cities, particularly those located in the industrial 

Northeast and Midwest, are in the throes of a deepening fiscal cri­
sis. On the one hand, they are confronted with the need to satisfy 
rapidly growing expenditure requirements triggered by the rising 
number of “high cost” citizens. On the other hand, their tax re­
sources are increasing at a decreasing rate (and in some cases 
actually declining), a reflection of the exodus of middle and high 
income families and business firms from the central city to sub­
urbia.”

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "Urban 
and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth” , A-32, p. 26
“The income disparity between central city and suburban fam­

ilies has increased during the past decade. In 1959, the median fam­
ily income for central city families ($7,420) was about $930 less 
than that for suburban families ($8,350). By 1969, about $1,850 
separated the median family incomes for these two groups ($9,160 
and $11,000, respectively). The median income of central city 
families decreased from 89 percent of that of suburban families in 
1959 to about 83 percent in 1969.”

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series 
P-23, No. 37, “ Social and Economic Characteristics of the Pop­
ulation in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: 1970 and 
1960” , P (23) No. 37, p. 2.

1 .

2.
“The number of Negroes residing in suburban rings has in­

creased by about 1.1 million persons during the decade. However, 
the proportion of the metropolitan Negro population living in sub­
urban rings has not increased significantly between 1960 and 1970, 
remaining at about one fifth. Negroes comprised only about 5 per­
cent of the suburban population in 1970.”

Ibid, p. 2.
“Thousands of Negro families have attained incomes, living 

standards, and cultural levels matching or surpassing those of 
whites who have “upgraded” themselves from distinctly ethnic 
neighborhoods. Yet most Negro families have remained within pre­
dominantly Negro neighborhoods, primarily because they have been 
effectively excluded from white residential areas.”

Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 
Chairman Otto Kerner, (1968) at 244.
“Negro families continue to have incomes far below those for 

white families. In 1969, the median income for Negro families in 
metropolitan areas was $6,840 compared to $10,650 for their coun-



3a

terparts. The comparable figures for 1959 were $4,770 and $8,200, 
respectively. Even though the ratio of Negro to white family in­
come increased from 58 percent in 1959 to about 64 percent in 1969, 
the dollar difference between their respective medians has increased 
from $3,430 in 1959 to 3,810 in 1969.”

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series 
P-23, No. 37, “ Social and Economic Characteristics of the Pop­
ulation in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: 1970 and 
1960” , P(23) No. 37, p. 2.

“While the proportion of the total metropolitan population liv­
ing in central cities decreased during the past decade, to a point 
where the majority (56 percent) of metropolitan residents now live 
in suburban areas, the metropolitan poverty population has re­
mained concentrated in central cities. About five-eighths of the 
metropolitan poor lived in central cities in both 1959 and 1969.

“The poverty rates for both white and Negro persons have de­
creased in all residence categories between 1959 and 1969. How­
ever, the poverty rates for Negroes continue to be significantly 
higher than those for white persons. In metropolitan areas, the pov­
erty rate for white persons was about 7 percent compared to 24 
percent for Negroes in 1969. Outside metropolitan areas, the poverty 
rate for whites was about 14 percent, while about half of Negroes 
were poor. In central cities, about one in ten white persons was poor, 
in 1969, as compared to one in four for Negroes. In suburban areas, 
the poverty rate for whites was about 5 percent, while the rate for 
Negroes was not significantly different from that in central cities.” 

Ibid, p. 7.

“ In large part, the separation of racial and economic groups 
between cities and suburbs is attributable to housing policies and 
practices. The practices of private industry —  builders, lenders, 
and real estate brokers — often have been key factors in excluding 
the poor and the nonwhite from the suburbs and confining them to 
central cities. Practices of the private housing industry have been 
rigidly discriminatory, and the housing it has produced — largely 
in the suburbs ■— has been at a price that only the relatively afflu­
ent can afford.”

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, A Report: Racial Isolation in 
the Public Schools, (1967) p. 20.
“Private industry is not alone responsible, however, for the 

growth of virtually all-white, middle-class suburbs surrounding the 
urban poor. Government at all levels has contributed to the pattern.

“In addition, the authority of local government to decide on 
building permits, building inspection standards, and the location of 
sewer and water facilities, has sometimes been used to discourage 
private builders who otherwise would be willing to provide housing 
on a nondiscriminatory basis.”

Ibid, p. 21.
3.

“The rich variety of the Nation’s urban population is being 
separated into distinct groups, living increasingly in isolation from 
each other. In metropolitan areas there is a growing separation 
between the poor and the affluent, between the well educated and 
the poorly educated, between Negroes and whites. The racial, eco­
nomic, and social stratification of cities and suburbs is reflected in 
similar stratification in city and suburban school districts.”

Ibid, p. 17.



4a

“Thus there is a parallel between population and school enroll­
ment trends within metropolitan areas. In both cases, Negro pop­
ulation increases are almost entirely absorbed in the central cities. 
In both cases, the isolation of Negroes in residential ghettos and 
Negro schools is growing. The Nation’s Capital — Washington, D.C. 
— already has a majority-Negro population. Other cities are expe­
riencing rapid increases in Negro population. City school enroll­
ments more sharply reflect the trend. A substantial number of cities 
have elementary school enrollments that already are more than 
half Negro. In these cities, at least, the problems of racial isolation 
in the schools can no longer fully be met in the context of the city 
alone.’’

Ibid, p. 13.
“The causes of racial isolation in city schools are complex and 

the isolation is self-perpetuating. In the Nation’s metropolitan areas, 
it rests upon the social, economic, and racial separation between 
central cities and suburbs. In large part this is a consequence of the 
discriminatory practices of the housing industry and of State and 
local governments.”

Ibid, p. 70.
4.

“Although residential patterns and nonpublic school enrollment 
in the Nation’s cities are key factors underlying racial concentrations 
in city schools, the policies and practices are seldom neutral in 
effect. They either reduce or reinforce racial concentrations in the 
schools.”

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, A Report: Racial Isolation in 
the Public Schools, (1967) p. 39.
“Although purposeful school segregation resulting from legal 

compulsion or administrative action is not often found now in the 
North, apparently neutral decisions by school officials frequently 
have had the effect of reinforcing the racial separation of students, 
even where alternatives were available which would not have had 
that result.”

Ibid, p. 44.
5.

“While the majority of both the white and Negro populations 
resided in metropolitan areas in 1970 (64 percent and 71 percent, 
respectively), they exhibited widely different residence patterns. 
The white metropolitan population was largely suburban (60 per­
cent), while their Negro counterparts were primarily residents of 
central cities (78 percent). The white population in central cities 
has, in fact, decreased by about 2.6 million during the past decade. 
For the white population in central cities, children under 13 years 
old and adults between the ages of 25 and 44 years were the major 
age groups which lost population between 1960 and 1970 (Table 1). 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series 
P-23, No. 37, “ Social and Economic Characteristics of the Pop­
ulation in Metropolitan Areas.”  1970 and 1960,” 1971 p. 2.

6 .

U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population, 1950, Vol. II. 
Characteristics of the Population, Part 22, Tables 34, 42. U.S. Bureau 
of the Census, Census of Population: 1970. General Social and 
Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC(1) 24, Tables 83, 120.
7.
Report Required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and by 
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Section 80.6(b) of



5a

HEW Regulations (45 CFR 80) issued to carry out the purposes of 
Title VI of Civil Rights Act (20 USCA $ 1609; 42 USCA 2000 (d).
8.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970 General 
Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC(1)-C8 Con­
necticut. Page App.-4.



6a

TABLE A RACIAL CENSUS - HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS

An Eight-Year Comparison 
(1965-1972) of Minority- 
Students*

SCHOOL 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Arsenal 99 .3 99 .4 99 .5 99..4 99 .2 99,.7 99.,4 99,.4
Barbour 96 .2 95..7 97 .0 95,.6 97 .0 97..5 97,.1 99 .4
Barnard/Brown 98,.0 98 .5 98 .8 99..3 99 .5 99,.6 99 .0 99 .5
Batchelder 6,.2 6..2 8,.2 14..7 15..0 13,.6 21,.2 24 .2
Brackett NE 95,.5 96,.5 96 .6 96..6 98..7 99..2 -■
Burns 5,.5 8.2 12,.0 15.,3 22,.0 24..4 26,.1 38,.6
Burr 2 .0 3,.3 2..5 7..9 12..6 17..5 18..6 29,.6
Clark 99,.2 99.,7 99 .8 100,.0 100..0 99.,7 99..3 99.,5
Dwight 11,.2 12..5 12,.3 14.,6 26..8 26..3 23,.9 26,.3
Fisher 46..4 52..1 59..7 68..0 77,.3 85.,5 88.,9 92,.3
Fox 2..2 6..3 14..0 19,,9 22..4 26..7 32,.3 41..5
Hooker 47.,0 52..4 57,.7 62..0 70..7 77..9 83.,3 87..4
Jones 87..9 92..7 93..7 94.,3 96.,9 96..0 98..5 98..6
Kennelly -- ,5 .4 4..6 3..8 6.,2 10..3 13..7
Kinsella 45..0 48..2 58..7 62.,0 76..2 83..4 87..2 88..8
Moylan/McDonough 18..9 21..0 23,.5 32.,1 39..9 44..2 45.,2 53..3
Naylor 2..5 4..3 4,.8 9.,3 7..0 7,,7 9..8 8,.7
New Park 13.,4 15..7 12..4 15.,8 22.,7 21,.6 18..8 18..5
Raws on 44..9 54..3 61..6 70..3 84..2 90..5 90.,3 91..1
Twain 35..7 45.,0 51..6 58..0 69..7 80.,7 85..7 99..7
Vine 95.,1 97.,4 97..5 98.,6 99..2 98.,7 98.,3 90..4
Waverly/Simpson -- -- -• -- -* 99.,7 99..2 99.,4
Webster .8 ,9 2..3 7.,9 8,,3 10..9 13..9 21.,6
West Middle 44., 1 53.,1 59..3 65.,5 70..0 76..7 78..4 82..7
Wish 96.,4 97..2 97..8 97.,5 98..5 99.,0 98..7 99.,4

Fox Middle 97.,2 97..1
Quirk Middle 81.,3 72.,0

Bulkeley High 2..6 3.0 2.,6 5.5 9.,2 15.6 21. 3 22.,2
HPHS 45. 0 44..1 45.,4 50. 2 54. 4 59.2 61.,9 66.,0
HPHS Annex 43. 8 61. 1 63..7 68. 2 75. 8 67. 1 57.,7 77.,5
Weaver 55.4 60. 7 69..3 79. 8 88. 2 95. 9 97. 5 98..0

*  % M i n o r i t y  f i g u r e s  f o r  s t u d e n t s  d e r i v e d  f r o m  a d d i t i o n  
o f  B l a c k  a n d  P u e r t o  R i c a n .

S o u r c e :  H a r t f o r d  B o a r d  o f  E d u c a t i o n ,  R e s e a r c h  D e p a r t m e n t ,

A Seven-Year Comparison of the Ethnic Distribution 
of Pupils by Schools 1965-1971. 1966-1972



7a

TABLE B RACIAL SEGREGATION IN
HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS

WHITE MINORITY INTEGRATED
SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS

Students Students Students 
# Enrolled // Enrolled # Enrolled

1965 12 9413 9 8435 7 8263
1966 12 8727 9 10519 7 6770
1967 12 8846 11 11584 5 6534
1968 12 9169 12 14965 3 3409
1969 11 8265 15 15651 2 4633
1970 10 8358 17 15648 2 4504
19 71 10 8305 18 18917 2 1410
1972 9 6499 19 19525 2 1925

Source: Hartford Board of Education, Research
Department, "A Seven Year Comparison 
of the Ethnic Distribution of Pupils 
by Schools.” 1965-1971, 1966-1972



8a

TABLE C MINORITY POPULATION IN CENTRAL CITIES
1950 - 1970 
(PER CENT)

1950 1 1954 * 2 1960 3 * * * * * 9 197(f
Atlanta 36.6 37.3 38.3 52.3Baltimore 24.0 28.4 35.0 .47.3
Beaumont 28.7 28.9 29.3 33.6Buffalo 6.5 9.4 13.8 21.2
Charlotte 28.0 28.0 28.0 30.9Chicago 13.6 17.3 22.9 40.0Cincinnati 15.5 17.9 21.6 28.2Cleveland 16.0 21.2 29.0 40.1Dayton 14.0 17.1 21.8 31.0Detroit 16.4 21.5 29.2 45.5Gary 29.3 33.1 38.8 61.1
Harrisburg 11.3 14.7 19.7 31.2Hartford 7.1 10.4 15.3 35.5Memphis 37.0 37.0 37.0 39.4Newark 17.2 24.1 34.4 61.4New Haven 6.8 9.9 14.6 29.8New Orleans 32.0 34.0 37.0 49.5New York City 9.8 11.8 14.7 31.4Oakland 14.5 19.3 26.4 44.3Philadelphia 18.0 21.2 26.0 35,0Pittsburgh 12.2 14.0 16.8 20.3Richmond 32.0 36.0 42.0 42.7
St. Louis 18.0 22.4 28.8 41.8San Francisco 5.6 7.4 10.1 27.6Topeka 8.0 7.8 7.7 13.0Trenton 11.3 15.8 22.5 40.3Washington, D.C. 35.0 42.6 54.8 73.1Wilmington 15.6 19.8 26.2 45.8

* Approximation

Sources: 1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population 1950.
. Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population. Parts 5, 7, 8, 9,

11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 45, 
Tables 33, 62, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 
D.C., 1952.

2. Straight line interpolation.

3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960.
Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population. Part 6, 8, 9, 10,
12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40, 44, 45, 47,
Table 21.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:
Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report
9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 32, 34, 35, 37 
47, Tables 81, 91, 96

1970. General 
PC(1)-C, 8,
, 40, 44, 45,

4.



9a

TABLE D NATIONAL POPULATION TRENDS FOR
METROPOLITAN AREAS - 1950-1970

TOTAL POPULATION 
(1,000,000)

°L Change
1950 1960 1970 1950-1970

Total Population 151.3 179.3 203.2 34.3
SMSA 94.6 119.6 139.4 47.4
Central City 53.8 60.0 63.8 18.6
Remainder 40.8 59.6 75.6 85.4

WHITE POPULATION 
(1,000,000)

% Change
1950 1960 1970 1950-1970

Total Population 135.2 158.8 177.6 31.4
SMSA 85.1 105.2 120.4 41.5
Central City 46.8 49.4 48.8 4.3
Remainder 38.3 55.7 71.6 87.0

BLACK POPULATION 
(1,000,000)

% Change
1950 1960 1970 1950-1970

Total Population 15.0 18.8 22.7 51.4
SMSA 8.9 12.7 16.8 89.7
Central City 6.6 9.9 13.1 98.2
Remainder 2.2 2.8 3.7 64.5

S o u r c e ;

U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical 
Abstract of The United States, 1971.
Table 14



10a

TABLE E INCOME CHARACTERISTICS IN 1969 AND
1959 OF FAMILIES BY SEX AND RACE 
OF HEAD AND METROPOLITAN RESIDENCE: 

1970 AND 1960

(In 1969 dollars. Number 
of families in thousands)

1969 1959
Metropolitan areas Metropolitan areas

Income
characteristics

Inside
central
cities

Outside
central
cities

Inside
central
cities

Outside
central
cities

ALL RACES

All families 14,704 18,446 14,715 13,869
Median income 
Mean income

9,157
10,450

11,003
12,348

7,417
8,634

8,351
9,806

Families with male 
head 12,434 16,889 12,920 12,933

Median income 
Mean income

9,917
11,254

11,433
12,863

7,790
9,079

8,561
10,109

Families with 
female head 2,270 1,557 1,795 936

Median income 
Mean income

4,908
6,041

5,824
6,771

4,177
5,430

4,590
5,620

WHITE
All families 11,759 17,576 12,447 13,317
Median income 
Mean income

9,797
11,124

11,155
12,516

7,881
9,172

8,486
9,988

NEGRO

All families 2,740 726 2,126 480
Median income 
Mean income

6,794
7,575

6,986
8,291

4,840
5,399

4,383
5,077

NEGRO AS A PER 
CENT OF WHITE

Median income 
Mean income

69.3
68.1

62.6
66.2

61.4
58.9

51.6
50.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Series
P-23, No. 37, "Social and Economic Characteristics of the 
Population in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: 1970 and
1960," Table B, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 
1971.



11a

TABLE F DISTRIBUTION O F  PERSONS BELOW THE 
POVERTY LEVEL IN 1969 AND 1959 BY 
RACE AND METROPOLITAN RESIDENCE: 

1970 AND 1960

1969 1959

R a c e  a n d  r e s i d e n c e
P e r s o n s P e r c e n t P e r s o n s P e r c e n t

b e l o w b e l o w b e l o w b e l o w

p o v e r t y p o v e r t y p o v e r t y p o v e r t y

l e v e l l e v e l l e v e l l e v e l

A L L  R A C E S

U n i t e d  S t a t e s . . t h o u s a n d s 24,280 12.1 38,766 22.0
P e r c e n t 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X)

M e t r o p o l i t a n  a r e a s 50.7 9.5 43.9 15.3
I n s i d e  c e n t r a l  c i t i e s 32.0 13.4 26.9 18.3
O u t s i d e  c e n t r a l  c i t i e s 18.8 6.3 17.0 12.2

W H I T E
U n i t e d  S t a t e s . . t h o u s a n d s 16,661 9.5 28,336 18.1

P e r c e n t 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X)

M e t r o p o l i t a n  a r e a s 49.2 7.3 41.7 12.0
I n s i d e  c e n t r a l  c i t i e s 27.2 10.2 23.0 13.8
O u t s i d e  c e n t r a l  c i t i e s 22.0 5.4 18.7 10.4

N E G R O

U n i t e d  S t a t e s . . t h o u s a n d s 7,213 32.3 9,927 55.1
P e r c e n t 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X)

M e t r o p o l i t a n  a r e a s 53.4 24.4 50.4 42.8
I n s i d e  c e n t r a l  c i t i e s 42.5 24.7 38.4 40.8
O u t s i d e  c e n t r a l  c i t i e s 10.9 23.2 11.9 50.9

( X) N o t  a p p l i c a b l e .

S o u r c e :
U.S. Bureau -of the Census, Current Population Reports, 
Series P-23, No. 37 ''Social and Economic Character­
istics of the population in Metropolitan and Non­
metropolitan Areas: 1970 and 1960," Table D, U.S.
G o v ' t  P r i n t i n g  O f f i c e ,  W a s h i n g t o n ,  D.C. 1971



12a

TABLE G EMPLOYMENT IN-ALL SMSA'S AND
CENTRAL CITIES *

(In millions)

Manu- Retail Wholesale Selected
facturing Trade Trade Services

1967 1958 1967 1958 1967 1958 1967 1958

UNITED STATES 19,3 16.0 9.6 7.8 3.6 2.8 3.9 2.9
Standard metropolitan
statistical areas *14.2 12.2 7.0 5.6 3.0 2.3 3.2 2.3
Central cities 7.8 7.3 4.1 3.8 2.0 1.8 *2.2 1.8
Outside central
cities *6.5 4.9 2.9 1.8 1.0 0.5 *1.0 0.6

Central City as
Per cent of SMSA 54.5 59.9 58.7 67.9 67.1 77.9 69.7 76.3

PER CENT OF UNITED STATES TOTAL
UNITED STATES 
Standard metropoli­
tan statistical

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

areas 73.6 76.0 73.3 72.6 83.1 83.4 82.8 80.6
Central cities 
Outside central

40.1 45.3 43.0 49.3 55.8 65.0 57.7 61.6
cities 33.5 30.6 30.3 23.3 27.3 18.5 25.0 19.1

PERCENTAGE CHANGE BETWEEN YEARS

1958 - 1967 1958 - 1967 1958 - 1967 1958 - 1967

UNITED STATES 20.6 23.5 28.6 33.6
Standard metropolitan 
statistical areas 17.0 24.7 28.1 37.2

Central cities 6.8 7.7 10.5 25.3
Outside central cities 32.0 60.6 90.2 75.3

* Rounding is based on midpoint of ranges shown in table 1-1 to avoid 
disclosing figures of individual companies.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Special Economic Reports, Employment
^And Population Changes - Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
And Central Cities, Series ES20(72)-1, Summary Table 1, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972.



13a

HARTFORD REGION AS AN EXAMPLE OF COMMUNITY 
INTERLOCK WITHIN A METROPOLITAN REGION.

I. FUNCTIONAL ADMINISTRATION R E F L E C T S  
UNDERLYING REGIONAL COMMUNITY OF INTER­
EST OF GOVERNMENTAL UNITS.

A. The Federal Government Recognizes The Metro­
politan Entity

1. Department of Commerce — Hartford SMS A 
and SEA

2. Department of Labor — Hartford LMA, 
CAMPS

3. Department of Justice — LEAA grant for Crim­
inal Justice Planning

4. Department of Housing and Urban Affairs — 
701 Regional Planning Grants

5. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
— Comprehensive Health Planning Region

B. Connecticut State Administrative Areas Have A
Regional Focus

1 . Human Rights 
and Opportunities

10. Interregional
Planning

2. Services for 11. Judicial
Elderly Persons 12. Labor

3. Parks and Forests 13. Civil Defense
4. Consumer Protection 14. Criminal
5. Finance and Control 15. Real Estate
6. Health 16. Safety
7. Mental Health 17. State Police
8. Development 18. Tax
9. Highway 19. Transportation



14a

C. Local Government Recognition of the Regional 
Community of Interest

1. Greater Hartford Council of Governments
2. Capitol Region Library Council
3. Community Renewal Team of Greater 

Hartford
4. Greater Hartford Flood Commission
5. Metropolitan District Commission
6. Greater Hartford Transit District

II. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL INTERACTION IS 
BASED UPON THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY OF 
INTEREST.

A. Hartford Is An Important Employment Center for 
Workers Throughout The Region*

1. Of the total employment in the 9 towns 53% 
work in Hartford1

2. Of the total manufacturing employment in the 
9 towns, 58% work in Hartford2

B. Sales Patterns Demonstrate the Regional Depen­
dence Upon Hartford

1. 36% of all retail sales of the 9 towns are in 
Hartford3

2. 55% of all wholesale trade in 6 towns (all avail­
able information) in Hartford4

C. 71% Of The Manufacturing Firms Relocated Be­
tween 1962-1971 Chose to Remain Within the 
Region?

* Hartford, Bloomfield, East Hartford, Glastonbury, Newington, South 
Windsor, West Hartford, Wethersfield, Windsor.



15a

D. The Suburban Towns Require the Financial Facil­
ities of the City — 75% of the Banking Facilities 
in the 8 Towns are Hartford-based Banks1 2 3 4 5 6

E. Many Business and Industrial Groups Recognize 
the Need For a Regional Organization

1. The Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce
2. Manufacturing Association of Hartford County
3. Greater Hartford Small Business Corporation, 
Inc.

III. MANY NON-PROFIT, PUBLIC, AND PRIVATE 
SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE ENTIRE 
REGION.

A. Certain Public Welfare Activities Serve the Metro­
politan Area

1. Capitol Region Crime Squad organized for 
Drug and cooperative action

2. Hartford County Fire Line
3. Public Housing — 76% of 9 towns is in Hart­

ford7
4. District Offices for all social services located in 

Hartford
5. Hartford is the emergency drug center of region

B. Many Social Service Agencies Serve All 9 Towns

1. Community Renewal Team of Greater Hartford
a. Neighborhood Youth Corps
b. Programs for the Elderly

2. Greater Hartford Community Council
a. Coordination of all Social Service agencies
b. Research and information center for those 
needing help



16a

3. Greater Hartford Council of Churches
4. Greater Hartford Council on Alcoholism 

and Drugs
5. Greater Hartford Assoc, for Retarded Children
6. Capitol Region Mental Health Planning 

Commission
7. Capitol Region Health Planning Council

C. Regional Interaction is Reflected in the Use of
Health Care Facilities

1. Hospital use — 80% of the hospital patients 
from the 8 towns use Hartford’s Hospital 
facilities8

2. Nursing Homes and extended care facilities — 
figures show a tremendous amount of inter­
action between the 9 towns in the provision of 
these services

3. Birth and Death — 84% of all births to 8 towns 
residents and 50% of all 8 towns deaths took 
place in Hartford9

D. The Whole Region Depends Upon the Tax-Exempt
Properties Located in Hartford

1. 52% of all tax-exempt properties of the region 
are in Hartford10

2. 100% of the correctional tax-exempt properties 
of the region are in Hartford1 11

3. 75% of the Armories are in Hartford12
4. 66% of the Health facilities are in Hartford13
5. 65% of tax-exempt administrative properties 

are in Hartford14
6. 52% of the charitable properties are in 

Hartford15



17a

7. 43% of the educational properties are in
Hartford16

E. Professional Services Are Most Efficiently Provided
From the Center of the Region

1. 70% of all lawyers have offices in Hartford17
2. 50% of all accountants have offices in Hartford18
3. 60% of all physicians have offices in Hartford19

IV. P U B L I C  UTILITIES, COMMUNICATION AN D
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES REFLECT A COM­
MUNITY OF INTEREST.

A. Utilities Are Provided on a Metropolitan Basis

1. Entire area served by the same Electric 
Company

2. All 9 towns are served by the same Gas Com­
pany (Ct. Natural Gas)

3. All 9 towns are either members or use the 
MDC water and sewerage facilities

B. Telephone and Telegraph Services Are Regionally
Based

1. The 9 towns form a single free dialing area and 
are served by a single phone book

2. Hartford is the central dispatch office for all 
Western Union in-coming materials

C. The Suburban Communities Subscribe to Hartford
Newspapers 1

1. Hartford Courant — Hartford 14%; 8 towns 
30%20

2. Hartford Times — Hartford 29%; 8 towns 40%Z1



18a

D. The Nine-Town Region Comprises the Primary
Listening Audience for Local Television and Radio
Broadcasting Stations

E. The Locus of the Regional Transportation Network

is the Central City
1. Greater Hartford Transit District
2. Hartford is the heart of the regional highway 

system
3. Hartford is the regional terminal for rail and 

bus transportation

V. AREA TOWNS UTILIZE REGIONAL CULTURAL
AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

A. Cultural Activities Attract A Regional Audience

1. Four times as many suburban residents main­
tain regular memberships in Hartford’s Bush- 
nell Memorial Auditorium as city residents22

2. Suburban residents comprise over 50% of the 
membership of Wadsworth Atheneum located 
in Hartford23

B. Certain Educational Facilities and Organizations
Reflect the Regional Community of Interest

1. 21% of the enrollment in Hartford State Tech­
nical College from 8 towns24

2. 42% of the enrollment in Greater Hartford Com­
munity College from 8 towns25

3. 27 out of 37 Institutions of Higher Learning in 
the 9 towns are in Hartford26

4. Greater Hartford Consortium on Higher 
Education



19a

5. Greater Hartford Council on Economic 
Education

6. Capitol Region Education Council
a. Cooperative Purchasing Program
b. Special Programs for Disabled Children 
Agreements
c. 13 other cooperative programs to improve 
and share educational knowledge

FOOTNOTES TO APPENDIX

1 Connecticut Labor Department, Employment Security Division, 
Monthly Bulletin (December 1967, 1968, 1972; November, 1970). 
2U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufacturers (Connecticut) 
(1958, 1963, 1967), Table 4.
Connecticut Department of Commerce, Connecticut Development 
Commission, Market Data 1972-1973, p. 60.
4U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Business Wholesale Trade 
Statistics (Connecticut) (1967), Table 4 and 7.
5Connecticut Labor Department, New Manufacturing Firms (1962- 
1971)
^Banking Commission of the State of Connecticut, Annual Report 
for 1972.
7Connecticut State Tax Department, Tax Commissioner of Real 
Estate, Quadrennial Statement of Real Estate Exempted From 
Taxation (1970).
Connecticut Health Department, Division of Hospital and Medical 
Care, Survey (1972).
9State of Connecticut, Department of Vital Statistics.
City of Hartford, Department of Vital Statistics, 
instate Tax Department, loc. cit,
"Ibid.
"Ibid.
mud.
KIbid.
15 Ibid, 
is Ibid.
17Survey of Hartford Telephone Directory Yellow Pages, 
i «Ibid.
191 bid.
20The Hartford Courant, Circulation Records.
21 The Hartford Times, Circulation Records.
22Bushnell Memorial Auditorium, Membership records (1973). 
23Wadsworth Atheneum, Membership Records (1972).
24Hartford State Technical College, Admission Records (1973). 
25Greater Hartford Community College, Admissions Records (1973). 
26State Department of Education, Commission for Higher Education, 
Higher Education In Connecticut, 1973-1974



20a

In accordance with a Resolution adopted by the Court of 
Common Council of the City of Hartford on December 10, 
1973, the Office of the Corporation Counsel was duly author­
ized to take all steps necessary to prepare and submit a Brief 
Amicus Curiae to Docket Nos. 73-434, 73-435 and 73-436 of 
the United States Supreme Court, October Term, 1973.

Pursuant thereto, Thomas K. Standish, Assistant Pro­
fessor of Economics at the University of Hartford, in his 
capacity as the city’s economic consultant, with his research 
staff, Rona Wilensky, Patricia Plourde and Steven M. Green­
berg, assisted in providing the socio-economic analysis and 
statistical support for the arguments contained herein. Public 
funds of the City of Hartford were authorized and appropri­
ated therefor.