Possible Draft Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development of Plan

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

Plaintiffs,

-vs-

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, 

Defendants,

and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, .

Intervening Defendant,
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Intervening Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 35257

Ruling On Desegregation Area -
And Development of Plan

On September 27, 1971, this Court issued its Ruling on Issue of 
Segregation, holding that illegal segregation exists in the Detroit public 
schools as a result of a course of conduct of the State of Michigan and the 
Detroit Board of Education. Following this ruling that a constitutional 
violation had been established, the Court and the parties (at its direction) 
have explored the matter of fashioning and implementing promptly an adequate 
and complete remedy.



On October 4, 1971* this Court orally directed that adequate desegrega­
tion plans developed and filed by the parties must "achieve the greatest 
possible degree of actual desegregation taking into account the practicali­
ties of the situation," and that metropolitan, as well as Detroit-only, 
plans should be prepared for its consideration. On November 5, 1971, the 
Court reiterated these requirements by written order.

After hearings on the adequacy and effectiveness of plans of desegrega­
tion limited to the geographical limits of the City of Detroit, March 14,
15, 16, 17, and 21, 1972, the Court found that while the plaintiffs' Detroit- 
only plan "would accomplish more desegregation than now obtains in the system, 
or would be achieved under Plan A or C /submitted by the Detroit Board/,"
"none of the three plans would result in the desegregation of the public 
schools of the Detroit school district." (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 
Law on Detroit-only Plans of Desegregation, March 28, 1972, at 3 and 4.) The 
Court concluded, on the evidence in this case, "that relief of segregation in 
the Detroit public schools cannot be accomplished within the corporate geo­
graphical limits of the city," (id. at 5) and that it had the authority and 
the duty to look beyond the limits of the Detroit school district for a solu­
tion to the condition of illegal segregation in the Detroit public schools.
(Id. at 6) The Court subsequently ruled that it must consider, and order 
implemented, an effective, metropolitan remedy for segregation (See Ruling 
on Propriety of Considering A Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation 
of the Public Schools of the City of Detroit at 4 and 5) and therefore 
commenced hearings on plans not limited to Detroit.

Evidence was received March 28, 29, 30, April 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 
and 14, 1972, on various metropolitan proposals submitted (in default of 
their obligation without recommendation or preference) by the state defendants, 
as well as proposals advocated by the defendant Detroit Board of Education, 
intervening defendant Magdowski et al, and a modification of ati of these by 
the plaintiffs. These proposals, and the hearings thereon, did no more than 
set the framework, and articulate the criteria and considerations, for 
developing and evaluating an effective plan of metropolitan desegregation.
None of the submissions by the parties, despite ample opportunity, represents 
completed plans for effective and equitable metropolitan desegregation capable 
of implementation in their present form. The Court has therefore determined to 
draw upon the resources of the parties to devise, pursuant to its direction, a 
constitutional plan of desegregation of the Detroit Public Schools.

-  2 -



Based on the entire record herein, the previous oral and written 
rulings and opinions of this Court, and the Findings of Fact and Con­
clusions of Law filed herewith, IT IS ORDERED:

I.

A. A designee of the Superintendent of Public Instruction;
Harold Wagner, Supervisor of the Transportation Unit in the Safety and 
Traffic Education program of the State Department of Education; Merle 
Henrickson, Aubrey McCutcheon, Freeman Flynn and Arthur Johnson of the 
Detroit Board of Education; Robert Green and Gordon Foster, as experts 
for the plaintiffs; Richard Moreshead and one other representative jointly 
designated by the newly intervening defendants; William Shunck, superin­
tendent of Wayne County Intermediate School District (on behalf of the 
three intermediate school districts in the tri-county area); Denise Lewis 
of the Detroit Commission on Community Relations; and Rita Scott of the 
Michigan Civil Rights Commission shall act as appointees of this Court to 
prepare and submit an effective desegregation plan in accordance with the 
provisions of this order. Should any designated member of this team be 
unable to serve, the other members shall elect any necessary replacements 
upon notice to the Court and the parties; in the absence of objections within 
five days, and pending a final ruling, such designated replacement shall act 
as a member of the team.

B. Forthwith, and in no event later than 45 days after the issuance 
of this order, the designated team is to develop a plan for the assignment 
of pupils as set forth below in order to provide the maximum actual desegre­
gation possible, and shall develop- as well a plan for the transportation
of pupils, for immediate implementation for all grades, schools, and clusters 
in the desegregation area. Insofar as required by the circumstances, which 
must be detailed in particular, the team may recommend immediate implementa­
tion of an interim desegregation plan for grades k-6, k-8 or k-9 in all or 
in as many clusters as practicable, with complete and final desegregation 
to proceed at mid-term or in no event later than the fall 1973 term. In 
its transportation plan the team shall, to meet the needs of the proposed 
pupil assignment plan, make recommendations, including the shortest possible 
timetable, for acquiring sufficient additional transportation facilities

-  3 -



for any Interim and final plan of desegregation. Such recommendations 
shall be filed forthwith and in no event later than 45 days after the 
entry of this order. If preliminary analysis indicates some additional 
transportation equipment is needed for an interim plan, although final 
estimates have not been made, the team shall make recommendations for such 
acquisition within 15 days of this order.

C. The parties, their agents, employees, successors, and all others
having actual notice of this order shall cooperate fully with the team in 
the development of a plan, including, but not limited to, the provision of 
data and reasonable full and part time staff assistance as requested by the 
team. The State defendants shall deny support, accreditation, funds, and 
otherwise take all actions necessary to insure that local officials and 
employees cooperate fully with the team. All reasonable costs incurred by 
the team shall be borne by the State defendants; except, insofar as staff 
assistance or other services are provided by any school district, or an 
employee or agent thereof, such services shall be provided to the team without 
charge, the cost incident to such service to be borne by such school district.

II

A. Pupil reassignment to accomplish desegregation of the Detroit
public schools is required within the geographical area which, for con­
venience, may be described as encompassing the following school districts (as 
summarized on P.M. 12 and hereinafter referred to as the desegregation 
area): Lakeshore, Lakeview, Roseville, South Lake, East Detroit, Grosse
Pointe, Centerline, Fitzgerald, Van Dyke, Fraser, Harper Woods, Warren,
Warren Woods, Clawson, Hamtramck, Lamphere, Madison Heights, Troy,
Birmingham, Hazel Park, Highland Park, Royal Oak, Berkley, Ferndale, 
Southfield, Bloomfield Hills, Oak Park, Redford Union, West Bloomfield, 
Clarenceville, Farmington, Livonia, South Redford, cRestwood, Dearborn, 
Dearborn Heights, Fairland, Garden City, North Dearborn Heights, Cherry 
Hill, Inkster, Wayne, Westwood, Ecorse, Romulus, Taylor, River Rouge, 
Riverview, Wyandotte, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Melvindale, Southgate, and

-  4 -



Detroit. Provided however, that if in the actual assignment of pupils it 
appears necessary and feasible, to achieve effective and complete racial 
desegregation, to also reassign pupils of some other district or districts, 
the desegregation team may, upon notice to the parties, apply to the Court 
for an appropriate modification of this order. In particular the desegrega­
tion team should examine the districts and schools designated as Cluster 4 
in P.M. 12 to determine the necessity, feasibility and reasonableness of 
including the schools and pupils in the Utica school district within the 
desegregation area to effect complete racial desegregation of the Detroit 
Public Schools,

Within the limitations set by reasonable travel time and distance 
factors, as reflected in the desegregation area, pupil reassignment shall 
be effected within the clusters described in P.M. 12 so as to achieve the 
greatest degree of actual desegregation to the end that upon implementation 
no school, grade, or classroom should be substantially disproportionate to 
the overall tri-county pupil racial composition.

Upon notice to the parties, the desegregation team may recommend 
reorganization of clusters within the desegregation area in order to further 
minimize administrative inconvenience, or time and/or numbers of pupils 
requiring transportation.

C. In the reassignment of pupils to achieve maximum actual desegre­
gation within the desegregation area, appropriate and safe transportation 
arrangements shall be made available without cost to all students assigned 
to schools deemed by the team to be other than "walk-in" schools.

D. Consistent with the requirements of maximum actual desegregation 
set forth above, every effort should be made to minimize the numbers of 
pupils to be reassigned and requiring transportation, the times pupils spend 
in transit, and the number and cost of new transportation facilities to be 
acquired by utilizing such techniques as clustering, the "skip" technique, 
island zoning, reasonable staggering of school hours, and maximization of 
use of existing transportation facilities, including buses owned or leased 
by school districts and buses operated by public transit authorities and pri­
vate charter companies. The team shall develop appropriate recommendations 
for limiting transfers which affect the desegregation of particular schools.

- 5 -



E. Transportation and pupil assignment shall, to the extent consistent 
with the requirement of maximum feasible desegregation, be in all cases a 
two way process with both black and white students sharing the responsibility 
for transportation requirements at all grade levels. In the determination
of the utilization of existing, and the construction of new, facilities 
care shall be taken to randomize the location of particular grade levels.

F. Faculty and staff shall be reassigned, as necessitated by pupil 
desegregation, so as to prevent the creation or continuation of the identi­
fication of schools by reference to the past racial composition, or the 
continuing of substantially disproportionate racial composition of the faculty 
or staffs, of the schools in the desegregation areas; in any event, the faculty 
and staffs assigned to the schools within the desegregation area shall be 
substantially desegregated. In the circumstances of this case, it is appro­
priate to require assignment of no less than 10$ black faculty and staff at 
each school. Moreover, where there is more than one building administrator, 
every effort shall be made to assign a biracial administrative team.

G. In the hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion, and dismissal of 
faculty and staff, racially non-discriminatory criteria must be developed 
and used; provided however, there shall be no reduction by any defendant, or 
their successors or agents, of any present efforts to increase minority 
group representation among faculties and staffs in the tri-county area. 
Affirmative action shall be taken to increase minority employment in all 
levels of teaching and administration.

H. Such restructuring of school facility utilization as is necessitated 
by pupil reassignments should produce schools of substantially like quality, 
facilities, extra-curricular activities and staffs; and utilization of 
existing school capacity throughout the desegregation area shall be made on 
the basis of uniform criteria.

I. The State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Education 
shall with respect to all school construction and expansion, "consider the 
factor of racial balance along with other educational considerations in
making decisions about new school sites, expansion of present facilities . . . "; 
further they shall within the tri-county area disapprove all proposals for 
new construction or expansion of existing facilities when "housing patterns in 
an area would result in a school largely segregated on racial . . . lines",

-  6 -



all in accordance with the 1966 requirement issued hy the State Board of 
Education to local school hoards and the State Board’s School Plant Planning
Handbook (See Ruling on Issue of Segregation, p. 13)*

In the tri-county area new school construction and expansion of 
existing facilities shall be, with the exception of projects actually under 
construction as of the date of this order, held in abeyance pending their 
reevaluation by the state school authorities and a determination of their 
effect in light of the above criteria on the final plan for the desegrega­
tion area after its final approval by the Court.

J. Pending further orders of this Court, as an interim measure, existing 
school district and regional boundaries and school governance arrangements will 
be maintained and continued except to the extent necessary to effect pupil
and concurrent faculty desegregation forthwith as set forth herein; provided 
however, that existing administrative, financial, contractual, property and 
governance arrangements shall be examined, and recommendations for their 
interim and permanent retention or modification shall be made, in light of 
the need to operate now and hereafter an effectively desegregated system of 
schools.

K. At every school within the desegregated area provision shall be 
made to insure that the curriculum, activities, and conduct standards 
respect the diversity of students from differing ethnic backgrounds and 
the dignity and safety of each indivisual —  students, faculty and staff, 
and parents.

L. Hxe defendants shall, to insure the effective desegregation of 
all schools in the desegregation area, take immediate action including, 
but not limited to, establishment or expansion of in-service training of 
staff, creation of bi-racial committees at every school, employment of 
black counselors at every school, and requiring bi-racial and non-dis­
criminatory extra-curricular activities.

Ill

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the assistance 
of the other state defendants, shall examine, and make recommendations, con­
sistent with the principles established above, for appropriate interim and 
final arrangements for the (l) financial, (2) administrative and school

-  7 -



governance, and (3 ) contractual arrangements for the operation of the schools 
within the desegregation area, including hut not limited to steps for 
unifying, or otherwise making uniform the personnel policies, procedures, 
and contracts and property arrangements of the various school districts.
Within 15 days of the entry of this order, the State Superintendent of 
Public Instruction shall advise the Court and the parties of his progress in 
preparing such recommendations by filing a written report with the Court and 
serving it on all parties. Forthwith, and in no event later than forty-five 
days after the entry of this decree, the State Superintendent shall, file 
with this Court his recommendations for appropriate interim and final relief
' vin these respects. In his examination and recommendations, the State 
Superintendent, consistent with the rulings and orders of this Court, may 
be guided but not limited by existing state law arrangements; where state law 
provides a convenient and adequate framework for interim or ultimate relief, 
it should be followed, but where state law either is silent or conflicts with 
what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this order, the State Superin­
tendent shall independently recommend what he deems necessary. In particular 
the State Superintendent shall examine and choose one appropriate interim 
arrangement to oversee the immediate implementation of a plan of desegregation.

IV

Each party may file appropriate plans or proposals for inclusion 
in any final order which may eventually issue in this cause. The intent of 
this order is to permit all the parties to the lawsuit to proceed apace with 
the task at hand; fashioning an effective plan for desegregation of the 
Detroit public schools. Fifteen days after the filing of the reports required 
herein, hearings will begin on any proposal to modify any interim plan pre­
pared by the team and all other circumstances incident to adoption and im­
plementation of a any interim plan of desegregation submitted. The parties 
are advised that they are to be prepared at that time to present their 
objections, alternatives, and modification.

In no event will the Court consider at this hearing objections to 
desegregation or proposals offered "instead of" desegregation. Hearings on 
a final plan of desegregation will be set as circumstances require.

United States District Judge