Draft Memorandum in Support of Motion to Require Planning to Proceed

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OP MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)Plaintiffs, )
)

v. )
)WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )
)Defendants )
)and )
)DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS )

LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION )
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, )

)Defendant-Intervenor )
)and )
)DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et.al., )
)Defendants-Intervenor )
)et al. )

___ _______________________________ _____ )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
35257

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 
REQUIRE PLANNING TO PROCEED

1. "Delay is no longer tolerable" in fashioning and 
Implementing an effective plan for the desegregation of the
Detroit public schools. Bradley v. Milliken, _____F.2d__ _
(Nos. 72-1809, 72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 71.

2. "The panel appointed by the District Court is 
authorized to proceed with its studies and planning under 
the direction of the District Court. Pending further 
orders of the District Court or this Court, the defendants 
and school districts involved will continue to supply 
administrative and staff assistance to the panel upon
its request. Until further order of the court, the 
reasonable costs Incurred by the panel will be paid as 
provided by the District Court*s order of June 14, 1972." 
Bradley v. Milliken (Nos. 72-1809, 72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) 
Slip op. 69

3. The District Court’s Order of June 14, 1972
provides in pertinent part: "The parties, their agents,



♦

employees, successors and all others having actual notice 
of this Order shall cooperate fully with the panel in their 
assigned mission including, but not limited to, the provision 
of data and reasonable full and part-time assistance as 
requested by the panel....All reasonable costs incurred by 
the panel shall be borne by the State Defendants; provided, 
however, that staff assistance or other services provided 
by any school district, its employees or agents shall 
be without charge and the cost thereof shall be borne by 
such school district.” Order for Development of Plan of 
Desegregation, June 14 , 1972, Part I.C., aff*d in pertinent
part, Bradley v. Mllliken, F.2d_____  (Nos. 72-1809,
72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 69.

4. The panel and the State Superintendent submitted 
reports on July 24, July 29* and August 31, 1972. The 
views and suggestions of several of the parties were
made known to the panel and the Court by responses filed 
in September; similar opportunity can be provided to all 
additional parties without delay or inconvenience. Guidelines 
for further planning, however, are set forth in full in 
Part VIII of the Opinion of the Court of Appeals in Bradley v. 
Mllliken (Nos. 72-1809, 72-1814, Dec. 8, 1972) Slip op. 69-79.

5. Planning should proceed immediately so that 
full interim and/or final plans of desegregation may be 
before the Court and the parties to the end that all the 
parties may have a full opportunity to be heard on all relevant 
issues and an effective plan for the desegregation of the 
Detroit public schools can be implemented at the earliest 
practicable date.

Respectfully submitted,

LOUIS R. LUCAS 
WILLIAM E. CALDWELL

Ratner, Sugermon & Lucas 
525‘Commerce Title Bldg. 
Memphis, Tennessee

PAUL R. DIMOND 
906 Rose Avenue 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
ROBERT PRESSMAN

Center for Law & Education 
6l Kirkland Street 
Cambridge, Massachusetts

2



* « -

NATHANIEL JONES 
General Counsel 
N e A&AcGsP s 
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York

.E. WINTHER McCROOM 
3^25 Woodburn Avenue 
Cincinnati, Ohio

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

3