Draft Order; Ruling on Issue of Segregation

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., 
Plaintiffs,

vs .
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., 

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

Defendant- 
Intervenor,

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al. ,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)Defendants- )

Intervenors. \

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
35257

O R D E R

Upon the motion of plaintiffs to require certain 
information to be included in the report of defendant, Detroit 
Board of Education, on the Magnet School Plan, and it appearing 
to the Court that such motion is well taken and should be 
granted,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within five (5) days 
after November 3, 1971, defendant Board shall file with the 
Court all of the following information which is not contained 
in the report to be filed on November 3: (1) the number and
race of students attending schools under the Magnet Plan;
(2) the school each such pupil is attending and the racial 
composition thereof; (3) the school from which each such student 
transferred under the Magnet Plan and the racial composition 
thereof.
Dated:

Stephen J. Roth
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



P H O N E  ( 9 0 1 )  S 2 5 - 0 6 O IRATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS
A T T O R N E Y S  A T  L A W

S U I T E  5 2 5

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G
M A R V I N  L.  R A T N E R  

R . B .  S U G A R M O N ,  J R .  

L O U I S  R.  L U C A S  
W A L T E R  L. B A I L E Y ,  J R .  

I R V I N  M. S A L K Y  

M I C H A E L  B.  K A Y  

W I L L I A M  E.  C A L D W E L L

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103

October 25, 1971
B E N  L.  H O O K S  
OF COUNSEL

George E. Bushnell, Jr., Esq.
2500 Detroit Bank and Trust Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

RE: Bradley v. Milliken
NO. 35-257

Dear Mr. Bushnell:
The deadline for filing the report and evaluation of 

the Magnet Plan is coming up soon, and as plaintiffs will 
have only ten days to respond to such report and evaluation, 
we wish to request that certain information be included in 
the report. Past reports on the Magnet Plan have shown 
the number of pupils who have chosen schools under the Magnet

and the race of the pupils involved, but the reports 
have not shown the schools from which the pupils transferred. 
We, therefore, request that the report to be filed pursuant 
to the court1s last order include with regard to pupils 
selecting schools under the Magnet Plan the school from which 
each pupil transferred, as well as the race of said pupil.

LRL:pw
cc: Honorable Stephen J. Roth, Judge

Theodore Sachs, Esq.Eugene Krasicky, Esq.
Alexander B. Ritchie, Esq.
Norman J. Chachkin, Esq.\^
Paul Diamond, Esq.
E. Winthrop McCroom, Esq.

Very truly yours



•>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs A  1 h’ U t  C O P Y

V.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,

FREDERICK W. JOHN^pN, Clerk 

BY ..--i— i- • ^
Y CLERK

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

Defendant-
Intervenor

CIVIL ACTION NO: 
35257

and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,

Def endants- 
Intervenor

RULING ON ISSUE OF SEGREGATION
This action was corrunenced August 18, 1970, by

plaintiffs, the Detroit Branch of the National Association for
*the Advancement of Colored People and individual parents ana 

students, on behalf of a class later defined by order of the 
Court dated February 15, 1971, to include "all school children 
of the City of Detroit and all Detroit resident parents who 
have children of school age." Defendants are the Board of 
Education of the City of Detroit, its members and its former 
suoerintendent of schools, Dr. Norman A. Drachler, the Governor,
Attorney General, State Board of Education and State Superin­
tendent of Public Instruction of the State of Michigan. In 
their complaint, plaintiffs attacked a statute of the State 
of Michigan known as Act 48 of the 1970 Legislature on the

The standing of the NAACP as a proper party plaintiff was 
not contested by the original defendants and the Court expresse.1 
no opinion on the matter.



ground that it put the State of Michigan in the position of 
unconstitutionally interfering with the execution and operation 
of a voluntary plan of partial high school desegregation 
(known as the April 7, 1970 Plan) which had been adopted by 
the Detroit Board of Education to be effective beginning with 
the fall 1970 semester. Plaintiffs also alleged that the 
Detroit Public School System was and is segregated on the 
basis of race as a result of the official policies and actions 
of the defendants and their predecessors in office.

Additional parties have intervened in the litigation 
since it was commenced. The Detroit Federation of Teachers 
(DFT) which represents a majority of Detroit Public school 
teachers in collective bargaining negotiations with the defendant 
Board of Education, has intervened as a defendant, and a group 
of parents has intervened as defendants.

Initially the matter was tried on plaintiffs' motion 
for preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of 
Act 48 so as to permit the April 7 Plan to be implemented. On 
that issue, this Court ruled that plaintiffs were not entitled 
to a preliminary injunction since there had been no proof that 
Detroit has a segregated school system. The Court of Appeals 
found that the "implementation of the April 7 Plan was thwarted 
by State action in the form of the Act of the Legislature of 
Michigan," (433 F.2d 897, 902), and that such action could not 
be interposed to delay, obstruct or nullify steps lawfully 
taken for the purpose of protecting rights guaranteed by the 
Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs then sought to have this Court direct 
the defendant Detroit Board to implement the April 7 Plan by



the start of the second semester (February, 1971) in order to 
remedy the deprivation of constitutional rights wrought by the 
unconstitutional statute. In response to an order of the Court, 
defendant Board suggested two other plans, along with the 
April 7 Plan, and noted priorities, with top priority assigned 
to the so-called "Magnet Plan." The Court acceded to the 
wishes of the Board and approved the Magnet Plan. Again, 
plaintiffs appealed but the appellate court refused to pass 
on the merits of the plan. Instead, the case was remanded 
with instructions to proceed immediately to a trial on the 
merits of plaintiffs' substantive allegations about the Detroit 
School System. 438 F .2d 945 (6th Cir. 1971).

Trial, limited to the issue of segregation, began 
April 6, 1971 and concluded on July 22, 1971, consuming 41 
trial days, interspersed by several brief recesses necessitated 
by other demands upon the time of Court and counsel. Plaintiffs 
introduced substantial evidence in support of their contentions, 
including expert and factual testimony, demonstrative exhibits 
and school board documents. At the close of plaintiffs' case, 
in chief, the Court ruled that they had presented a prima facie 
case of state imposed segregation in the Detroit Public Schools; 
accordingly, the Court enjoined (with certain exceptions) all 
further school construction in Detroit pending the outcome 
of the litigation.

The State defendants urged motions to dismiss as to 
them. These were denied by the Court.

At the close of proofs intervening parent defendants
(Denise Magdowski, et al.) filed a motion to join, as parties 85

«contiguous "suburban" school districts - all within the so-



"... .......' ' " ■ • ■ 1 " V -  '  - ' U1 “  -  - • • - -■ ■ ~ ~ - - P Y- ; .V. .  .. 1- " " P .

called Larger Detroit Metropolitan area. This motion was 
taken under advisement pending the determination of the issue 
of segregation.

It should be noted that, in accordance with earlier 
rulings of the Court, proofs submitted at previous hearings 
in the cause, were to be and are considered as part of the 
proofs of the hearing on the merits.

In considering the present racial complexion of the 
City of Detroit and its public school system we must first look 
to the past and view in perspective what has happened in the 
last half century. In 1920 Detroit was a predominantly white 
city - 91% - and its population younger than in more recent 
times. By the year 1960 the largest segment of the city's 
white population was in the age range of 35 to 50 years, while
its black population was younc • o r *  ro vj-i. l. XiiHi i v - j  C iv- j  c ;  • i u c

population of 0-15 years of age constituted 30% of the total 
population of which 60% were white and 40% were black. In 
1970 the white population was principally aging— 45 years—  

while the black population was younger and of childbearing age. 
Childbearing blacks equaled or exceeded the total white 
population. As older white families without children of 
school age leave the city they are replaced by younger black 
families with school age children, resulting in a doubling 
of enrollment in the local neighborhood school and a complete 
change in student population from white to black. As black 
inner city residents move out of the core city they "leap-frog" 
the residential areas nearest their former homes and move to 
areas recently occupied by whites.

The population of the City of Detroit reached its

-4-



-

highest point in 1950 and has been declining by approximately 
169,500 per decade since then. In 1950, the city population 
constituted 61% of the total population of the standard 
metropolitan area and in 1970 it was but 36% of the metro­
politan area population. The suburban population has 
increased by 1,978,000 since 1940. There has been a steady 
out-migration of the Detroit population since 1940. Detroit 
today is principally a conglomerate of poor black and white 
plus the aged. Of the aged, 80% are white.

If the population trends evidenced in the federal
decennial census for the years 1940 through 1970 continue, 
the total black population in the City of Detroit in 1980
will be approximately 840,000, or 53.6% of the total. The 
total population of the city in 1970 is 1,511,000 and, if
past trends continue, will be 1,338,000 in 1980. In school 
year 1960-61, there were 285,512 students in the Detroit 
Public Schools of which 130,765 were black. In school year
1966-67, there were 297,035 students, of which 168,299 were 
black. In school year 1970-71 there were 289,743 students of 
which 184,194 were black. The percentage of black students 
in the Detroit Public Schools in 1975-76 will be 72.0%, 
in 1980-81 will be 80.7% and in 1992 it will be virtually 
100% if the present trends continue. In 1960, the non-white 
population, ages 0 years to 19 years, was as follows:

0 - 4 years 4 2%

5 - 9 years 36%

10 - 14 years 28%

15 - 19 years 18%

5-



iSAv?.'- • • its. iT . •... z

In 1970 the non-white population, ages 0 years to 19 years, 
was as follows:

0 - 4 years 48%
5 - 9 years 50%
10 - 14 years 50%
15 - 19 years 40%

The black population as a percentage of the total population 
in the City of Detroit was:

(a) 1900 1.4%

(b) 1910 1.2%

(c) 1920 4.1%

(d) 1930 7.7%

(e) 1940 9.2%

(f) 1950 16.2%

(g) 1960 28.9%

(h) 1970 43.9%

The black population as a percentage of total student 
population of the Detroit Public Schools was as follows:

(a) 1961 45.8%
(b) 1963 51.3%
(c) 1964 53.0%
(d) 1965 54.8%
(e) 1966 56.7%

(f) 1967 58.2%

(g) 1968 59.4%
(h) 1969 61.5%

(i) 197 0 63.8%

-6-



S' 'T* * * 4SRT ~+r ■*

For the years indicated the housing characteristics in the 
City of Detroit were as follows:

(a) 1960 total supply of housing
units was 553,000

(b) 1970 total supply of housing
units was 530,770

The percentage decline in the white students in the 
Detroit Public Schools during the period 1961-1970 (53.6% 
in 1960; 34.8% in 1970) has been greater than the percentage 
decline in the white population in the City of Detroit during 
the same period (70.8% in 1960; 55.21% in 1970), and 
correlatively, the percentage increase in black students in 
the Detroit Public Schools during the nine-year period 1961- 
1970 (45.8% in 1961; 63.8% in 1970) has been greater than the 
percentage increase in the black population of the City of 
Detroit during the ten-year period 196G-IS7G (28.3% in.
1960; 43.9% in 1970). In 1961 there were eight schools in 
the system without white pupils and 73 schools with no 
Negro pupils. In 1970 there were 30 schools with no 
white pupils and 11 schools with no Negro pupils, an 
increase in the number of schools without white pupils of 
22 and a decrease in the number of schools without 
Negro pupils of 62 in this ten-year period. Between 
1968 and 1970 Detroit experienced the largest increase in 
percentage of black students in the student population of any 
major northern school district. The percentage increase in 
Detroit was 4.7% as contrasted with —

New York 2.0%
Los Angeles 1.5%
Chicago 1.9%

-7-



Philadelphia 1.7%

Cleveland 1.7%
Milwaukee 2.6%

St. Louis 2.6%
Columbus 1.4%
Indianapolis 2.6%
Denver 1.1%
Boston 3.2%
San Francisco 1.5%
Seattle 2.4%

In 1960, there were 266 schools in the Detroit 
School System. In 1970, there were 319 schools in the 
Detroit School System.

In the Western, Northwestern, Northern, Murray, 
Northeastern, Kettering, King and Southeastern high school 
service areas, the following conditions exist at a level 
significantly higher than the city average:

(a) Poverty in children
(b) Family income below poverty level
(c) Rate of homicides per population
(d) Number of households headed by females
(e) Infant mortality rate
(f) Surviving infants with neurological 

defects
(g) Tuberculosis cases per 1,000 population
(h) High pupil turnover in schools

The City of Detroit is a community generally divided 
by racial lines. Residential segregation within the city and 
throughout the larger metropolitan area is substantial, per­
vasive and of long standing. Black citizens are located in

-8-



separate and distinct areas within the city and are not 
generally to be found in the suburbs. While the racially 
unrestricted choice of black persons and economic factors 
may have played some part in the development of this pattern 
of residential segregation, it is, in the main, the result 
of past and present practices and customs of racial discrimina 
tion, both public and private, which have and do restrict the 
housing opportunities of black people. On the record there 

can be no other finding.

Governmental actions and inaction at all levels, 
federal, state and local, have combined, with those of 
private organizations, such as loaning institutions and real 
estate associations and brokerage firms, to establish and 
to maintain the pattern of residential segregation throughout 
the Detroit metropolitan area. It is no answer to say that 
restricted practices grew gradually (as the black population 
in the area increased between 1920 and 1970), or that since 
1948 racial restrictions on the ownership of real property 
have been removed. The policies pursued by both government 
and private persons and agencies have a continuing and present 
effect upon the complexion of the community - as we know, 
the choice of a residence is a relatively infrequent affair. 
For many years FHA and VA openly advised and advocated the 
maintenance of "harmonious" neighborhoods, î .e., racially 
and economically harmonious. The conditions created 
continue. While it would be unfair to charge the present 
defendants with what other governmental officers or agencies 
have done, it can be said that the actions or the failure to 
act by the responsible school authorities, both city and 
state, were linked to that of these other governmental units.

-9-



When we speak of governmental action we should not view the 
different agencies as a collection of unrelated units.
Perhaps the most that can be said is that all of them, 
including the school authorities, are, in part, responsible 
for the segregated condition which exists. And we note that 
just as there is an interaction between residential patterns 
and the racial composition of the schools, so there is a 
corresponding effect on the residential pattern by the racial 
composition of the schools.

Turning now to the specific and pertinent (for our 
purposes) history of the Detroit school system so far as it 
involves both the local school authorities and the state 
school authorities, we find the following:

During the decade beginning in 1950 the Board 
created and maintained optional attendance zones in neighbor­
hoods undergoing racial transition and between high school 
attendance areas of opposite predominant racial compositions.
In 1959 there were eight basic optional attendance areas 
affecting 21 schools. Optional attendance areas provided 
pupils living within certain elementary areas a choice of 
attendance at one of two high schools. In addition there 
was at least one optional area either created or existing in 
1960 between two junior high schools of opposite predominant 
racial components. All of the high school optional areas, 
except two, were in neighborhoods undergoing racial 
transition (from white to black) during the 1950s. The two 
exceptions were: (1) the option between Southwestern
(61.6% black in 1960) and Western (15.3% black); (2) the 
option between Denby (0% black) and Southeastern (30.9% black). 
With the exception of the Denby-Southeastern option (just



. ' f  t r s s w w w t m - y & y .  y & -  ™  iiiiiiTiT‘rriiiiir iTm^in T T r" ~~^7''"":~ ■

noted) all of the options were between high schools of 
opposite predominant racial compositions. The Southwestern- 
Western and Denby-Southeastern optional areas are all white 
on the 1950, 1960 and 1970 census maps. Both Southwestern 
and Southeastern, however, had substantial white pupil 
populations, and the option allowed whites to escape integra­
tion. The natural, probable, forseeable and actual effect of 
these optional zones was to allow white youngsters to escape 
identifiably "black" schools. There had also been an optional 
zone (eliminated between 1956 and 1959) created in "an 
attempt . . .  to separate Jews and Gentiles within the 
system," the effect of which was that Jewish youngsters 
went to Mumford High School and Gentile youngsters went to 
Cooley. Although many of these optional areas had served 
their purpose by 1960 due to the fact that most of the areas 
had become predominantly “black, one optional area (Southwestern- 
Western affecting Wilson Junior High graduates) continued until 
the present school year (and will continue to effect 11th and 
12th grade white youngsters who elected to escape from 
predominantly black Southwestern to predominantly white Western 
High School). Mr. Henrickson, the Board's general fact witness, 
who was employed in 1959 to, inter alia, eliminate optional 
areas, noted in 1967 that: "In operation Western appears to
be still the school to which white students escape from 
predominantly Negro surrounding schools." The effect of 
eliminating this optional area (which affected only 10th 
graders for the 1970-71 school year) was to decrease 
Southwestern from 86.7% black in 1969 to 74.3% black in 1970.

The Board, in the operation of its transportation 
to relieve overcrowding policy, has admittedly bused black

-11-



•  •

pupils past or away from closer white schools with available 
space to black schools. This practice has continued in 
several instances in recent years despite the Board's avowed 
policy, adopted in 1967, to utilize transportation to 
increase integration.

With one exception (necessitated by the burning of 
a white school), defendant Board has never bused white 
children to predominantly black schools. The Board has not 
bused white pupils to black schools despite the enormous 
amount of space available in inner-city schools. There were 
22,961 vacant seats in schools 90% or more black.

The Board has created and altered attendance zones, 
maintained and altered grade structures and created and 
altered feeder school patterns in a manner which has had the
natural, probcible and actual effect of continuing black and 
white pupils in racially segregated schools. The Board admits 
at least one instance where it purposefully and intentionally 
built and maintained a school and its attendance zone to 
contain black students. Throughout the last decade (and 
presently) school attendance zones of opposite racial 
compositions have been separated by north-south boundary lines,
despite the Board's awareness (since at least 1962) that 
drawing boundary lines in an east-west direction would result
in significant integration. The natural and actual effect of 
these acts and failures to act has been the creation and 
perpetuation of school segregation. There has never been a 
feeder pattern or zoning change which placed a predominantly 
white residential area into a predominantly black school zone 
or feeder pattern. Every school which was 90% or more black 
in 1960, and which is still in use today, remains 90% or more

-12-



#

black. Whereas 65.8% of Detroit's black students attended 
90% or more black schools in I960, 74.9% of the black students 
attended 90% or more black schools during the 1970-71 school 

year.

The public schools operated by defendant Board are 
thus segregated on a racial basis. This racial segregation 
is in part the result of the discriminatory acts and omissions 
of defendant Board.

In 1966 the defendant State Board of Education and 
Michigan Civil Rights Commission issued a Joint Policy State­
ment on Equality of Educational Opportunity, requiring that

"Local school boards must consider the factor of 
racial balance along with other educational 
considerations in making decisions about selection 
of new school sites, expansion of present 
facilities . . . .  Each of these situations 
presents an opportunity for integration."

Defendant State Board's "School Plant Planning Handbook" requires 

that
"Care in site location must be taken if a serious 
transportation problem exists or if housing 
patterns in an area would result in a school 
largely segregated on racial, ethnic, or socio­
economic lines."

The defendant City Board has paid little heed to these statements 
and guidelines. The State defendants have similarly failed to 
take any action to effectuate these policies. Exhibit NN 
reflects construction (new or additional) at 14 schools which 
opened for use in 1970—71; of these 14 schools, 11 opened over 
90% black and one opened less than 10% black. School con­
struction costing $9,222,000 is opening at Northwestern High 
School which is 99.9% black, and new construction opens at 
Brooks Junior High, which is 1.5% black, at a cost of $2,500,000.

13



The construction at Brooks Junior High plays a dual segregatory 
role: not only is the construction segregated, it will result 
in a feeder pattern change which will remove the last majority 
white school from the already almost all-black Mackenzie High 
School attendance area.

Since 1959 the Board has constructed at least 13 
small primary schools with capacities of from 300 to 400 pupils. 
This practice negates opportunities to integrate, "contains" 
the black population and perpetuates and compounds school 

segregation.

The State and its agencies, in addition to their 
general responsibility for and supervision of public education, 
have acted directly to control and maintain the pattern of 
segregation in the Detroit schools. The State refused, until 
this session of the legislature, to provide authorization or 
funds for the transportation of pupils within Detroit regardless 
of their poverty or distance from the school to which they 
were assigned, while providing in many neighboring, mostly 
white, suburban districts the full range of state supported 
transportation. This and other financial limitations, such 
as those on bonding and the working of the state aid formula 
whereby suburban districts were able to make far larger per 
pupil expenditures despite less tax effort, have created and 
perpetuated systematic educational inequalities.

The State, exercising what Michigan courts have held
to be is "plenary power" which includes power "to use a
statutory scheme, to create, alter, reorganize or even dissolve
a school district, despite any desire of the school district,

«its board, or the inhabitants thereof," acted to reorganize

-14-



•  •

the school district of the City of Detroit.

The State acted through Act 48 to impede, delay 
and minimize racial integration in Detroit schools. The 
first sentence of Sec. 12 of the Act was directly related to 
the April 7, 1970 desegregation plan. The remainder of the 
section sought to prescribe for each school in the eight 
districts criterion of "free choice" (open enrollment) and 
"neighborhood schools" ("nearest school priority acceptance"), 
which had as their purpose and effect the maintenance of 

segregation.

In view of our findings of fact already noted we 
think it unnecessary to parse in detail the activities of the 
local board and the state authorities in the area of school 
construction and the furnishing of school facilities. It is 
our conclusion that these activities were in keeping, generally, 
with the discriminatory practices which advanced or perpetuated 

racial segregation in these schools.

It would be unfair for us not to recognize the 
many fine steps the Board has taken to advance the cause of 
quality education for all in terms of racial integration and 
human relations. The most obvious of these is in the field 
of faculty integration.

Plaintiffs urge the Court to consider allegedly 
discriminatory practices of the Board with respect to the 
hiring, assignment and transfer of teachers and school 
administrators during a period reaching back more than 15 
years. The short answer to that must be that black teachers 
and school administrative personnel were not readily available 
in that period. The Board and the intervening defendant union

-15-



have followed a most advanced and exemplary course in adopting 
and carrying out what is called the "balanced staff concept" - 
which seeks to balance faculties in each school with respect 
to race, sex and experience, with primary emphasis on race. 
More particularly, we find:

1. With the exception of affirmative policies 
designed to achieve racial balance in instructional staff, no 
teacher in the Detroit Public Schools is hired, promoted or 
assigned to any school by reason of his race.

2. In 1956, the Detroit Board of Education adopted 
the rules and regulations of the Fair Employment Practices 
Act as its hiring and promotion policy and has adhered to 
this policy to date.

3. The Board has actively and affirmatively sought 
out and hired minority employees, particularly teachers and 
administrators, during the past decade.

4. Between 1960 and 1970, the Detroit Board of 
Education has increased black representation among its 
teachers from 23.3% to 42.1%, and among its administrators 

from 4.5% to 37.8%.

5. Detroit has a higher proportion of black 
administrators than any other city in the country.

6. Detroit ranked second to Cleveland in 1968 
among the 20 largest northern city school districts in the 
percentage of blacks among the teaching faculty and in 1970 
surpassed Cleveland by several percentage points.

-16-



7. The Detroit Board of Education currently

employs black teachers in a greater percentage than the 
percentage of adult black persons in the City of Detroit.

8. Since 1967, more blacks than whites have been 
placed in high administrative posts with the Detroit Board 
of Education.

9. The allegation that the Board assigns black 
teachers to black schools is not supported by the record.

10. Teacher transfers are not granted in the Detroit 
Public Schools unless they conform with the balanced staff 
concept.

11. Between 1960 and 1970, the Detroit Board of 
Education reduced the percentage of schools without black 
faculty from 36.3% to 1.2%, and of the four schools currently 
without black faculty, three are specialized trade schools 
where minority faculty cannot easily be secured.

12. In 1968, of the 20 largest northern city 
school districts, Detroit ranked fourth in the percentage 
of schools having one or more black teachers and third in
the percentage of schools having three or more black teachers.

13. In 1970, the Board held open 240 positions in 
schools with less than 25% black, rejecting white applicants 
for these positions until qualified black applicants could 
be found and assigned.

14. In recent years, the Board has come under pressure 
from large segments of the black community to assign male 
black administrators to predominantly black schools to serve

-17



as male role models for students, but such assignments have 
been made only where consistent with the balanced staff
concept.

15. The numbers and percentages of black teachers 
in Detroit increased from 2,275 and 21.6%, respectively,
in February, 1961, to 5,106 and 41.6%, respectively, in 
October, 1970.

16. The number of schools by percent black of 
staffs changed from October, 1963 to October, 1970 as 
follows:

Number of schools without black teachers—  
decreased from 41, to 4.
Number of schools with more than 0%, but less 
than 10% black teachers— decreased from 58, to 8.
Total number of schools with less than 10% black 
teachers— decreased from 99, to 12.
Number of schools with 50% or more black teachers—  
increased from 72, to 124.

17. The number of schools by percent black of staffs 
changed from October, 1969 to October, 1970, as follows:

Number of schools without black teachers— decreased 
from 6, to 4.
Number of schools with more than 0%, but less than 
10% black teachers— decreased from 41, to 8.
Total number of schools with less than 10% black 
teachers— decreased from 47, to 12.
Number of schools with 50% or more black teachers—  
increased from 120, to 124.

18. The total number of transfers necessary to 
achieve a faculty racial quota in each school corresponding to 
the system-wide ratio, and ignoring all other elements is, 
as of 1970, 1,826.

-18



19. If account is taken of other elements necessary 
to assure quality integrated education, including qualifica­
tions to teach the subject area and grade level, balance of 
experience, and balance of sex, and further account is taken 
of the uneven distribution of black teachers by subject 
taught and sex, the total number of transfers which would be 
necessary to achieve a faculty racial quota in each school 
corresponding to the system-wide ratio, if attainable at all, 
would be infinitely greater.

20. Balancing of staff by qualifications for subject,
and grade level, then by race, experience and sex, is educationally 
desirable and important.

21. It is important for students to have a success­
ful role model, especially black students in certain schools, 
and at certain grade levels.

22. A quota of racial balance for faculty in each 
school which is equivalent to the system-wide ratio and 
without more is educationally undesirable and arbitrary.

23. A severe teacher shortage in the 1950s and 
1960s impeded integration-of-facuity opportunities.

24. Disadvantageous teaching conditions in Detroit 
in the 1960s— salaries, pupil mobility and transiency, class 
size, building conditions, distance from teacher residence, 
shortage of teacher substitutes, etc.— made teacher recruitment 
and placement difficult.

25. The Board did not segregate faculty by race, but 
rather attempted to fill vacancies with certified and qualified

-19-



teachers who would take offered assignments.

26. Teacher seniority in the Detroit system, 
although measured by system-wide service, has been applied 
consistently to protect against involuntary transfers and 
"bumping" in given schools.

27. Involuntary transfers of teachers have occurred 
only because of unsatisfactory ratings or because of decrease 
of teacher services in a school, and then only in accordance 

with balanced staff concept.

28. There is no evidence in the record that Detroit 
teacher seniority rights had other than equitable purpose

or effect.

29. Substantial racial integration of staff can be 
achieved, without disruption of seniority and stable teaching 
relationships, by application of the balanced staff concept 
to naturally occurring vacancies and increases and reductions 

of teacher services.

30. The Detroit Board of Education has entered into 
successive collective bargaining contracts with the Detroit 
Federation of Teachers, which contracts have included provisions 
promoting integration of staff and students.

The Detroit School Board has, in many other instances
and in many other respects, undertaken to lessen the impact
of the forces of segregation and attempted to advance the
cause of integration. Perhaps the most obvious one was the
adoption of the April 7 Plan. Among other things, it has

«
denied the use of its facilities to groups which practice racial 
discrimination; it does not permit the use of its facilities

-20



for discriminatory apprentice training programs; it has opposed 
state legislation which would have the effect of segregating 
the district; it has worked to placed black students in craft 
positions in industry and the building trades; it has brought 
about a substantial increase in the percentage of black 
students in manufacturing and construction trade apprentice­
ship classes; it became the first public agency in Michigan 
to adopt and implement a policy requiring affirmative act of 
contractors with which it deals to insure equal employment 
opportunities in their work forces; it has been a leader in 
pioneering the use of multi-ethnic instructional material, 
and in so doing has had an impact on publishers specializing 
in producing school texts and instructional materials; and 
it has taken other noteworthy pioneering steps to advance 
relations between the white and black races.

In conclusion, however, we find that both the State 
of Michigan and the Detroit Board of Education hav^ committed 
acts which have been causal factors in the segregated condition 
of the public schools of the City of Detroit. As we assay 
the principles essential to a finding of de jure segregation, 
as outlined in rulings of the United States Supreme Court, 

they are:

1. The State, through its officers and agencies, 
and usually, the school administration, must have taken some 
action or actions with a purpose of segregation.

2. This action or these actions must have created 
or aggravated segregation in the schools in question.

3. A current condition of segregation exists.

-21-



We find these tests to have been met in this case. We 
recognize that causation in the case before us is both 
several and comparative. The principal causes undeniably 
have been popoulation movement and housing patterns, but 
state and local governmental actions, including school board 
actions, have played a substantial role in promoting 
segregation. It is, the Court believes, unfortunate that we 
cannot deal with public school segregation on a no-fault 
basis, for if racial segregation in our public schools is an 
evil, then it should make no difference whether we classify 
it de jure or de facto. Our objective, logically, it seems 
to us, should be to remedy a condition which we believe needs 
correction. In the most realistic sense, if fault or blame 
must be found it is that of the community as a whole, 
including, of course, the black components. We need not 
minimize the effect of the- actions of federal, state and local 
governmental officers and agencies, and the actions of loaning 
institutions and real estate firms, in the establishment and 
maintenance of segregated residential patterns - which lead to 
school segregation - to observe that blacks, like ethnic groups 
in the past, have tended to separate from the larger group and 
associate together. The ghetto is at once both a place of 
confinement and a refuge. There is enough blame for everyone 
to share.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and 
the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331(a), 
1343 (3) and (4), 2201 and 2202; 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, and 
2000d.

22-



2. In considering the evidence and in applying
legal standards it is not necessary that the Court find that 
the policies and practices, which it has found to be dis­
criminatory, have as their motivating forces any evil intent 
or motive. Keyes v. Sch. Dist. #1, Denver, 383 F. Supp. 279. 
Motive, ill will and bad faith have long ago been rejected 
as a requirement to invoke the protection of the Fourteenth 
Amendment against racial discrimination. Sims v. Georgia,
389 U.S. 404, 407-8.

3. School districts are accountable for the natural, 
probable and forseeable consequences of their policies and 
practices, and where racially identifiable schools are the 
result of such policies, the school authorities bear the 
burden of showing that such policies are based on educationally 
required, non-racial considerations. Keyes v. Sch. Dist., 
supra, and Davis v. Sch. Dist. of Pontiac, 309 F. Supp. 734, 
and 443 F .2d 573.

4. In determining whether a constitutional violation 
has occurred, proof that a pattern of racially segregated 
schools has existed for a considerable period of time amounts 
to a showing of racial classification by the state and its 
agencies, which must be justified by clear and convincing 
evidence. State of Alabama v. U.S., 304 F .2d 583.

5. The Board's practice of shaping school attendance 
zones on a north-south rather than an east-west orientation, 
with the result that zone boundaries conformed to racial 
residential dividing lines, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. 
Northcross v. Bd. of Ed., Memphis, 333 F.2d 661.

-23-



6. Pupil racial segregation in the Detroit Public 
School System and the residential racial segregation result­
ing primarily from public and private racial discrimination 
are interdependent phenomena. The affirmative obligation of 
the defendant Board has been and is to adopt and implement 
pupil assignment practices and policies that compensate
for and avoid incorporation into the school system the 
effects of residential racial segregation. The Board's 
building upon housing segregation violates the Fourteenth 
Amendment. See, Davis v. Sch. Dist. of Pontiac, supra, and 
authorities there noted.

7. The Board's policy of selective optional 
attendance zones, to the extent that it facilitated the 
separation of pupils on the basis of race, was in violation 
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 
401, aff'd sub nom., Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F .2d 175.

8. The practice of the Board of transporting black 
students from overcrowded black schools to other identifiably 
black schools, while passing closer identifiably white schools, 
which could have accepted these pupils, amounted to an act
of segregation by the school authorities. Spangler v. Pasadena 
City Bd, of Ed., 311 F. Supp. 501.

9. The manner in which the Board formulated and 
modified attendance zones for elementary schools had the 
natural and predictable effect of perpetuating racial 
segregation of students. Such conduct is an act of de jure 
discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
U.S. v. School District 151, 286 F. Supp. 786; Brewer v. City 
of Norfolk, 397 F .2d 37.

-24-



10. A school board may not, consistent with the

Fourteenth Amendment, maintain segregated elementary schools
or permit educational choices to be influenced by community
sentiment or the wishes of a majority of voters. Cooper v .
Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 12-13, 15-16.

"A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be 
infringed simply because a majority of the people 
choose that it be." Lucas v. 44th Gen'l Assembly 
of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713, 736-737.

11. Under the Constitution of the United States 
and the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, the 
responsibility for providing educational opportunity to all 
children on constitutional terms is ultimately that of the 
state. Turner v. Warren County Board of Education, 313 F. Supp. 
380; Art. VIII, §§ 1 and 2, Mich. Constitution; Dasiewicz v .
Bd. of Ed. of the City of Detroit, 3 N.W.2d 71.

12. That a state's form of government may delegate 
the power of daily administration of public schools to officials 
with less than state-wide jurisdiction does not dispel the 
obligation of those who have broader control to use the 
authority they have consistently with the constitution. In 
such instances the constitutional obligation toward the 
individual school children is a shared one. Bradley v. Sch.
Bd., City of Richmond, 51 F.R.D. 139, 143.

13. Leadership and general supervision over all 
public education is vested in the State Board of Education.
Art. VIII, § 3, Mich. Constitution of 1963. The duties of the 
State Board and superintendent include, but are not limited to, 
specifying the number of hours necessary to constitute a school 
day; approval until 1962 of school sites; approval of school 
construction plans; accreditation of schools; approval of loans

-25-



based on state aid funds; review of suspensions and expulsions 
of individual students for misconduct [Op. Atty. Gen.,
July 7, 1970, No. 4705]; authority over transportation routes 
and disbursement of transportation funds; teacher certification 
and the like. M.S.A. 15.1023 (1). State law provides review 
procedures from actions of local or intermediate districts 
(See M.S.A. 15.3442), with authority in the State Board to 
ratify, reject, amend or modify the actions of these inferior 
state agencies. See M.S.A. 15.3467; 15.1919(61); 15.1919 (68b); 
15.2299(1); 15.1961; 15.3402; Bridqehampton School District 
No. 2 Fractional of Carsonville, Mich, v. Supt. of Public 
Instruction, 323 Mich. 615. In general, the state 
superintendent is given the duty " [t]o do all things necessary 
to promote the welfare of the public schools and public 
educational instructions and provide proper educational 
facilities for the youth of the state." M.S.A. 15.3252.
See also M.S.A. 15.2299(57), providing in certain instances 
for reorganization of school districts.

14. State officials, including all of the defendants,
are charged under the Michigan constitution with the duty of
providing pupils an education without discrimination with
respect to race. Art. VIII, § 2, Mich. Constitution of 1963.
Art. I, § 2, of the constitution provides:

"No person shall be denied the equal protection 
of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the 
enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be 
discriminated against in the exercise thereof 
because of religion, race, color or national 
origin. The legislature shall implement this 
section by appropriate legislation."

15. The State Department of Education has recently 
established an Equal Educational Opportunities section having



responsibility to identify racially imbalanced school districts' 
and develop desegregation plans. M.S.A. 15.3355 provides 
that no school or department shall be kept for any person or 
persons on account of race or color.

16. The state further provides special funds to 
local districts for compensatory education which are administered 
on a per school basis under direct review of the State Board.
All other state aid is subject to fiscal review and accounting
by the state. M.S.A. 15.1919. See also M.S.A. 15.1919 (68b), 
providing for special supplements to merged districts "for the 
purpose of bringing about uniformity of educational opportunity 
for all pupils of the district." The general consolidation law 
M.S.A. 15.3401 authorizes annexation for even noncontiguous 
school districts upon approval of the superintendent of public 
instruction and electors, as provided by law. Op. Atty. Gen., 
Feb. 5, 1964, No. 4193. Consolidation with respect to so- 
called "first class" districts, i.e., Detroit, is generally 
treated as an annexation with the first class district being 
the surviving entity. The law provides procedures covering 
all necessary considerations. M.S.A. 15.3184, 15.3186.

17. Where a pattern of violation of constitutional 
rights is established the affirmative obligation under the 
Fourteenth Amendment is imposed on not only individual school 
districts, but upon the State defendants in this case.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358, U.S. 1; Griffin v. County School Board
of Prince Edward County, 337 U.S. 218; U.S, v. State of Georgia, 
Civ. No. 12972 (N.D. Ga., December 17, 1970), rev1d on other 
grounds, 428 F .2d 377; Godwin v. Johnston County Board of 
Education, 301 F. Supp. 1337; Lee v. Macon County Board o_f 
Education, 267 F. Supp. 458 (M.D. Ala.), aff’d sub nom.,

27-



Wallace v. U.S., 389 U.S. 215; Franklin v. Quitman County-

Board of Education, 288 F. Supp. 509; Smith v. North Carolina 
State Board of Education, No. 15,072 (4th Cir., June 14, 1971).

The foregoing constitutes our findings of fact and 
conclusions of law on the issue of segregation in the public 
schools of the City of Detroit.

Having found a de jure segregated public school 
system in operation in the City of Detroit, our first step, 
in considering what judicial remedial steps must be taken, 
is the consideration of intervening parent defendants' 
motion to add as parties defendant a great number of Michigan 
school districts located out county in Wayne County, and in 
Macomb and Oakland Counties, on the principal premise or 
ground that effective relief cannot be achieved or ordered in 
their absence. Plaintiffs have opposed the motion to join 
the additional school districts, arguing that the presence 
of the State defendants is sufficient and all that is required, 
even if, in shaping a remedy, the affairs of these other 
districts will be affected.

In considering the motion to add the listed school 
districts we pause to note that the proposed action has to 
do with relief. Having determined that the circumstances of 
the case require judicial intervention and equitable relief, 
it would be improper for us to act on this motion until the 
other parties to the action have had an opportunity to submit 
their proposals for desegregation. Accordingly, we shall not 
rule on the motion to add parties at this time. Considered 
as a plan for desegregation the motion is lacking in specifity

-28-



and is framed in the broadest general terms. The moving party- 
may wish to amend its proposal and resubmit it as a com­
prehensive plan of desegregation.

In order that the further proceedings in this cause 
may be conducted on a reasonable time schedule, and because 
the views of counsel respecting further proceedings cannot but 
be of assistance to them and to the Court, this cause will be 
set down for pre-trial conference on the matter of relief.
The conference will be held in our Courtroom in the City of 
Detroit at ten o'clock in the morning, October 4, 1971.

DATED: September 27 , 1971.

-2 9-