Petition for Permission to Appeal Certain Orders Involving Controlling Questions of Law

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

v.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,
Defendants-Appe Hants,

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

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,
Defendants-Intervenor 

et al. •

U. S. Court 
of Appeals 
No.

U. S. District 
Court No. 35257

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Southern Division

PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL CERTAIN 
ORDERS INVOLVING CONTROLLING QUESTIONS 
OF LAW AS CERTIFIED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE 
PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1292(b)

Business Address 
720 Lav; Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General
Robert A. Derengoski 
Solicitor General
Eugene Krasicky 
Gerald F. Young 
Assistant Attorneys General 
Attorneys for State Defendant



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF 7\PPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

Defendants-Appellants,
and

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

Defendant-Intervener,
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,
Defendants-Intervener,

et al.

U.S. Court
of Appeals 
No.

U.S. District 
Court No. 35257

PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO 7CPPEAL CERTAIN 
ORDERS INVOLVING CONTROLLING QUESTIONS 
OF LAW AS CERTIFIED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE 
PURSUANT TO 23 USC 1.292 (b) _______

Petitioners (defendants) William G. Milliken, 
Governor of the State of Michigan; Frank J. Kelley, Attorney 
General of the State of Michigan; Michigan State Board of 
Education; John W. Porter, Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion; and Allison Green, Treasurer of the State of Michigan, 
by their attorneys Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the



+

State of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, 
Eugene Krasicky, Assistant Attorney General and Gerald F. 
Young, Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b) 
and FRApp P 5 petition this Court for permission to appeal 
certain orders of the district judge, which orders, when 
entered, will state that they involve controlling questions 
of law as to which there are substantial grounds for dif­
ferences of opinion and that an immediate appeal from such 
orders may materially advance the ultimate termination of 
this litigation.

In support of this petition petitioners show: 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Petitioners are duly elected or appointed offi­
cials of the State of Michigan. On August 18, 1970, this 
suit was instituted in the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of Michigan by plaintiffs Bradley, et 
al, seeking (a) a determination that as a result of
official policies and practices of these and Detroit School 
District defendants and their predecessors in office a con­
stitutionally impermissible racially identifiable pattern 
of faculty and student assignments existed in the Detroit 
public schools, and (b) a determination that legislative

2-



enactment of the State of Michigan 1970 PA 48, being MCLA 
388.171a et seq; MSA 15.2298(la) et seq, which "allegedly 
delayed and interferred with the implementation of a voluntary 
plan of partial high school pupil desegregation which had 
been adopted by the Detroit Board of Education," was uncon­
stitutional.

2. This Court ruled section 12 of said Act 48 
invalid under US Const Am XIV. 433 F2d 897.

3. After lengthy trial the District Court, on 
September 27, 1971, entered its Ruling on Issue of Segrega­
tion, Appendix A attached. The Court concluded, both as
a matter of fact and of lav;, that the public schools in 
Detroit are "segregated on a racial, basis" and that both 
state and local defendants "have committed acts which have 
been causal factors in the segregated condition."

with regard to the Governor was that he was an ex officio 
member, without a vote, of the State Board of Education, 
he signed 1970 PA 48, which had been adopted by the legis­
lature with only 1 dissenting vote, and he appointed the 
boundary commission required by said Act 48. No testimony

4. The sole testimony introduced at the trial

was introduced at the trial with regard to the Attorney
General.

- 3-



5. The sole testimony offered at the trial with 
regard to the State Board of Education and the Superintendent 
of Public Instruction was that the State Board of Education 
had joined with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission in 1966 
in the issuance of a joint policy statement on the quality 
of educational opportunity, and that the State Board of 
Education's "School Plant Planning Handbook" stated
that care in site selection must be taken if housing patterns 
in an area would result in a school largely segregated on 
racial, ethnic or socio-economic lines. Neither the State 
Board of Education nor the Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion under Michigan law has the authority to approve site 
location. ■

6. In its ruling the court found that the School 
District of the City of Detroit was not segregated with regard

'• P
to its teaching and administrative staff.

7. The principal evidence relied upon by the Dis­
trict Court in its ruling was evidence of housing segregation 
with regards to which neither these defendants nor the Detroit 
School District defendants played any part. These defendants 
continuously objected during the trial to the admissibility 
of such evidence pursuant to this Court's rulings in Deal v 
Cincinnati Board of Education, 369 F2d 55 (1966), and Deal 
v Cincinnati Board of Education, 419 F2d 1337 (1969).

, - 4-



8. The District Court also relied upon evidence 
of a few isolated instances, such as the busing of a small 
number of black students past a white school to attend a 
newer school in a black neighborhood. Such incidents were 
promptly corrected as soon as they were brought to the atten­
tion of the proper Detroit Public School officials.

9. On March 24, 1972, the District Court entered 
its Ruling on Propriety of Considering a Metropolitan Remedy 
to Accomplish Desegregation of the Public Schools of the 
City of Detroit, Appendix C attached. The substance of this 
ruling was that if the court found an intra-Detroit school 
district plan inadequate, the court was bound by the decisions 
of the United States Supreme Court to decree a metropolitan 
remedy.

10. On March 28, 1972, the District Court issued
its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lav; on Detroit-Only 
Plan of Desegregation (Appendix C attached), in which it 
said that: I

"The court must look beyond the limits of 
the Detroit school district for a solution 
to the problem of segregation in the 
Detroit public school."

The substance of this ruling was that because of the com­
position of the student body in the Detroit school system

' - 5-



(approximately 65% black; 35% white) it could not be deseg­
regated because every school would have a substantially 
black student body.

11. On June 14, 1972, the District Court entered 
its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of 
Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development of Plan and 
its Ruling on Desegregation Area and Order for Development 
of Plan of Desegregation, Appendix D attached. In its Findings 
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the court noted, initially, 
that it had taken no proofs and made no findings with respect 
to the establishment of the boundaries of the 86 public school 
districts in the Counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb, nor 
on the issue of whether, with the exclusion of the Detroit 
school district, such school districts have committed acts 
of de_ jure segregation. It should be noted, further, that 
18 of the school districts included in the desegregation area 
are not parties to this lawsuit.

. 12. The substance of the court's ruling and order
was to establish a desegregation area consisting of 53 inde­
pendent school districts, including the Detroit public 
schools; the appointment of a panel to develop a plan for 
the assignment of pupils within the desegregation area and 
to develop a plan for the transportation of pupils; the

- 6-



direction to the panel to make recommendations for the 
acquisition of transportation; the direction that all reason­
able costs of the panel be borne by the "state defendants"; 
the direction that faculty be assigned so that no less than 
10% of the faculty and staff in each school building be 
black and that where more than one building administrator 
is required, a bi~racial team be assigned, the restructuring 
of curriculum and facility utilization to create uniforrntiy 
within the desegregation area; the direction to the State 
Board of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion to disapprove all proposals for new construction or 
expansion where housing patterns in an area would result in 
a school largely segregated; the establishment of in-service 
training of the faculty and staff within the 53 school dis­
tricts at the expense of the defendants; and the hiring of 
black counsellors.

13. On July 11, 1972, the District Court entered 
its order for acquisition of transportation, Appendix E 
attached. In substance this order required the Detroit 
Board of Education, not later than July 13, 1972, to acquire 
by purchase, lease or other contractual arrangement at least 
295 buses for the use in transporting pupils in the desegre­
gation area in the 1972-73 school year. The "state defend­
ants" were ordered to bear the costs of this acquisition.

- 7-



Also, this order added the Michigan State Treasurer, Allison 
Green, as an additional defendant.

14. Approximately simultaneously with the entry 
by this Court of an order staying the acquisition order of 
July 11, 1972, the District Court set a hearing for July 
19, 1972, for the purpose of entering an order or orders pur­
suant to 28 USC 1292(b). At said hearing the District Court 
ruled that it would enter an order or orders to the effect 
that each of its rulings and orders, Appendices A-E attached, 
contained controlling questions of lav;. At the time of 
writing this petition, such order, or orders, .have not been 
entered, but petitioners are informed and believe that such 
order or orders will be entered on the morning of July 20, 
1972.

STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS

Ruling on Issue of Segregation, September 
27, 1971, Appendix A

1. Based on the record in this case, is the Dis­
trict Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law of
de jure segregation in the public schools of the Detroit 

School District in error?

2. Based on the record in this case, are the public 
schools of the Detroit School District de jure segregated

- 8-



schools as a result of the conduct of any of the state -
defendants herein?

3. Whether the lower court erred in admitting into 
evidence and relying upon evidence of racial discrimination 
in housing by persons not parties to this cause, in finding 
de jure segregation in the Detroit public schools.

4. Whether the lower court erred in denying these 
defendants 41(b) motion made at the close of plaintiffs case 
in chief?

5. Whether the lower court, erred in making find­
ings against these defendants based on evidence introduced 
after these defendants had made their 4.1b motion and rested 
at the close of plaintiffs' case in chief?

6. Whether the lower court's legal conclusion of 
systematic educational inequality between Detroit and the 
surrounding suburban school districts, based upon transporta­
tion funds, bonding limitations, and the state school aid 
formula, is erroneous as a matter of law?

7. Whether the lower court's legal conclusion of 
de jure segregation by these defendants in the matter of 
site selection for school construction is erroneous as a 
matter of lav/?

- 9 -



•  •  -

Ruling On Propriety of Considering a _
Metropolitan Remedy, Etc., March 24,
1972f Appendix B.

8. Where the Detroit School District has been 
found to have committed acts of do jure segregation, may 
the District Court properly issue a desegregation order 
extending to other geographically and politically independent 
school districts and require interdistrict transfers of 
students, (1) absent any claim or finding that such other 
school districts are themselves guilty of de_ jure segrega­
tion, or (2) absent any claim or finding that the boundary 
lines of such school districts were created and maintained 
for the purpose of creating or fostering a dual school system?

Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 
on-Detroit. Only Plans of Desegregation 
of March 28, 1972tAppendix C.

9. Based on the record in this case, can constitu­
tionally adequate unitary school systems be established within 
the geographical limits of the Detroit School District?

10. Whether a finding of de_ jure segregation as 
to some schools within the Detroit School District warrants
a desegregation remedy for all schools in the school district 
or only for those schools within the school district found to 
be de jure segregated schools?

- 10-



Ruling on Desegregation Areva, Etc. , of 
June 14, 1972, Appendix D. .

11. The foregoing ruling, finding and conclusions
of June 14, 3.9 72 , encompass all of the previously stated 
questions set forth above. In addition, the same presents 
the following question: Based on the record in this case,
did the District Court exceed its equitable authority in 
ordering the remedial plan of metropolitan desegregation out­
lined and set forth therein?

Order for Acquisition of Transportation,
July 11, 1972, Appendix E.

12. Whether, in the absence of any proofs or 
findings concerning either the establishment of the boundaries 
of the 86 public school districts in Wayne, Oakland and 
Macomb Counties or whether any of these 86 school districts, 
with the exception of the School District of the City of 
Detroit, have committed any acts of de jure segregation,
the District Court may adopt a metropolitan remedy?

13. Whether a district court may compel state offi­
cials to perform acts beyond their lawful authority to per­
form under state law in a school desegregation remedial order?

14. This petition for permission to appeal is 
filed on this early date at the direction of the clerk of

11-



the Court of Appeals after only a matter of hours for prepara­
tion and the petitioner respectfully requests leave to amend 
the same to add additional questions, if necessary, within 
the 10 day period after entry of the amended orders of the 
District Court from which the within appeal is sought.

STATEMENT OF (1) SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR 
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND (2) IMMEDIATE 
APPEAL MAY MATERIALLY ADVANCE THE 
TERMINATION OF LITIGATION.__________

1. Now involved in this litigation are approximately 
800,000 public school children, roughly 1/3 of the public 
school children in the State of Michigan, and 53 school dis­
tricts, which, prior to the District Court's order of June 
14, 1972, Appendix D, were independent bodies corporate 
vested with plenary powers by state lav; to educate the child­
ren residing within their respective boundaries. Eighteen 
of these bodies corporate are not parties to this lawsuilt. 
There has been no decision by the trial court that any of 
these bodies corporate, except the School District of the 
City of Detroit, were segregated de_ jure along racial lines. 
Neither has it been determined by the trial court (nor have 
proofs been taken) that the boundaries of these 53 independent 
bodies corporate were established for purposes of cte jure 
segregation, or, that the de_ jure segregation found in the 
Detroit schools was the result of these boundaries.

- 12-



The constitution and laws of the State of Michigan 
require unitary school systems. Const 1963, Art VIII, §2.
MCLA 340.355; MSA 15.3355. See also Workman v Board of Educa­
tion of Detroit, 18 Mich 399 (1869).

The principal basis for the District Court’s find­
ing of de jure segregation within the Detroit public schools 
was segregated housing patterns, evidence of which this Court 
ruled to be inadmissible in the two Deal cases, 369 F2d 55 
(1966), and 419 F2d 1387 (1969). The District Court's find­
ing as to de jure segregation against the Board of Education 
of the City of Detroit at most rests upon a finding that a 
few schools were segregated as to race. Such a finding does 
not support a ruling that the Detroit school system is a de 
jure segregated system. Keyes v School District No. 1,
Denver, Colorado, 445 F2d. 999 (1971), cert granted ___US
__92 SCt 707, 30 L Ed 2d 728 (1972).

The findings of de_ jure segregation with regard 
to petitioners is totally unsupported by the record. No 
findings were made against the Attorney General. The find­
ings against the Governor amounted to his signing a legisla­
tive enactment, only one section of which was found to be 
unconstitutional, and the appointment of the boundary com­
mission required by said act.

- 13-



The findings against the State Board of Education 
and the Superintendent of Public Instruction were that they 
had issued a policy statement in 1966 and a planning handbook, 
the latter involving site selection over which they had no 
authority.

The metropolitan remedy ordered by the Court is 
totally unprecedented not only in its scope but for the 
total lack of supporting findings. A similar remedy of far 
less magnitude in a state which segregated the races in the 
schools by constitution and statute and which remedy was 
supported by findings of fact was recently reversed by the 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Bradley v School
Board of City of Richmond, Virginia, ___ F2d ___ (June 5,
1972) .

Further, the District Court's order for development 
of plan of desegregation, June 14, 1972, Appendix D, is pre­
dicated upon the misconception of a constitutional duty to 
achieve racial balance in the public schools, a misconception 
clearly denounced in Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education, 402 US 1 (1971), and Spencer v Kugler, 326 F Supp 
1235 (DC NJ, 1971), aff'd 404 US 1027 (1972).

Petitioners respectfully submit that a substantial 
basis exists for a difference of opinion.

- 14-



2. If the District Court's ruling on segregation, 
September 27, 1971, Appendix A, is reversed this litigation 
will terminate forthwith. If the District Court's rulings 
and orders, first with reference to the propriety of a 
metropolitan remedy, second with reference to the Detroit- 
Only Plans of Desegregation and third with reference to the 
desegregation area and development of plan of desegregation 
are reversed, this litigation will terminate forthwith for 
the vast majority of the parties in this action, and some 
18 school districts that are not parties. If the decisions 
are reversed, state funds will not be expended contrary to 
state lav/ for the purchase of unneeded school buses.

Last, a ruling by this Court, even if such a ruling 
affirmed all of the District Court's rulings and orders above 
referred to, will expedite an appeal to the United States 
Supreme Court and the final resolution and termination of 
the litigation.

WHEREFORE, petitioners pray that their petition 
for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b) be granted.

Respectfully submitted, .
FRANK J. KELLEY
Attorney General
Robert A. Derengoski
Solicitor General

- 15-



Eugene Krasicky
Gerald F. Young 
George McCargar
Assistant Attorneys Genral

Business Address: 
720 Law Building 
525 West Ottawa 
Lansing, Michigan

Dated: July 19, 1972

16-



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY, et al., • • ' • )

- - )
’ Plaintiffs )

v. ) .
)

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )
.  )

' Defendants )
)

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, )
LOCAL #231, AMERICAN FEDERATION )
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, )
• Defendant- )

Intervenor )
•-/ )

and . )
)

DENISE MAGDOW8KI, et al., )
. )

. ‘ Defendants- )
• • Intervenor )

____:________ ___________________________________ )

A T R U E -  C O P Y
FREDERICK W. JOHNSON

BY a /
DEPUTY CLERK

CIVIL ACTION NO: 
35257

RULING ON ISSUE OF SEGREGATION 

This action was commenced August 18, 1970, by­

plaintiffs, the Detroit Branch of the National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People and individual parents and 

students, on behalf of a class later defined by order of the 

Court dated February 16, 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 

superintendent 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
not contes 
no opinion

standing of the NA7iCP as a proper party plaintiff was 
ted by the original defendants and the Court expresses 
on the matter.

APPENDIX A



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 v 

(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



o . '
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 05
«

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



•  •

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 younger and of childbearing age. The 

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

- A  _



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 standard1 

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' 197 0 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 42%

5 - 9 years 36%

10 - 14 years 28%

15 19 years 18%



jn 3.970 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%

(<2) 1930 7.7%

(e) 194 0 9.2%

(f) 1950 . 16.2%

(g) 1960 vp3̂•COCM

00 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) 1970 63.8%



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 1960-1370 (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 ■ .

Boston 3.2%

San Francisco 1.5%

Seattle 2.4%

. in I960, 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 dividea 

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

- 0 - t



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.

Per many years FHA and VA openly advised and advocated the

maintenance of "harmonious" neighborhoods, i_.j2., 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
i

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.



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. 7\nd 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 x^attern 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) 

Wit}', the exception of the Denby-Southeastern option (just

- 10 -



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 pvowed 

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, probable and actual effect of continuing bla^.k 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 I960, and which is still in use today, remains 90% or more



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.



The construction at Brooks Junior High plays a dual segregatory

role: not only is the construction segregated, it will result
1; . '

in a feeder pattern change which will remove the last,majority
' . I _

white school from the already almost all-black Mackenzie High

School attendance area. . . '

Since 1959 the Board has constructed at least.13 

snuill primary schools with capacities of from 300 to 400 pupils. 

This practice negates opportunities to integrate, "contains" 

the black population and x^erpetuates 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 desx^ite 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. |f.he

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 tne 

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

-1  5



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
I

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. .

- 1 6 -



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 Detro'it 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 t

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

1 7 -



£is 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. Tlie 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, 1,026.



3-9. If account is taken of other elements necessary 

to assure quality integrated education, including qualifies- • 

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

- 1 9 -



teachers who would take offered assignments.

f ̂ ■
26. Teaelier seniority in the Detroit system, .

although measured by system-wide servi.ee, 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, r '...--- ------

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 

cind 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 lias
4

denied the use of its facilities to groups which practice racial 

discrimination; it does not permit the use of its facilities



state legislation which would have the effect of segregating
j

the district; it has worked to placed black students in craft
. _ I ’

positions in industry and the building trades; it ha^ 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
IV

j>ioneering 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, 

t It. 0 s it 0 *

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.
. • V> n

3. h current condition of segregation exists.

-2.1 -



recognize that causation in the case before us is both

several and comparative. The pri ca in d e n i *hly

have been popoulation movement and housing patterns, but _ 

state and local governmental actions, including school board 

actions, have ployed 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 coirponents. 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 group 

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 ^5ction under 28 U.S.C. 1331(a), 

1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202; 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, and

2000 d .



2. In considering the evidence and in applying 

legal standards it is not necessary that the Court find thatf ■

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, Pint. #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 foreseeable 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, 3 09 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. 

Kortbcross v. Bel. of Ed., Memphis, 333 F . 2 d 661.



segregation result-School System and the residential racial
*r •

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. D.ist. of Pontiac, supra, and—. - i "
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 rcice, 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.

M yO . v . School D j s t r i c t. 15]., 286 F. Supp. 786; Brewer v., City

of Norfolk, 397 F.2d 37.

- ? . A



Fourteenth Amendment, maintain segregated elementary schools
■ I ! _or permit educations3. choices to be influenced by community

sentiment or the wishes of a majority of voters. Coopcy v .

Zniron, 358 U.S. 1, 12-13, 13 - i 6 . . • •

"h citizen's constitutional rights can hairdly 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-/37.

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



r> n cr1-' C-i• 0 hi Oil S  tlci Lc aic it• i i O.l :■ ) I 0 V  X C \ 2 o y. S U  8 ] J 011 •■j x o n s and o>q:>ulsion

mi *-■ 
O .individual student s for misconduct [Op. A tty. Gen. )

July 7, 1970, No. 4701 i>] ; authority over tr;.i n Sjjo rtation routes

and disbursement of transportation funds; teacher certification 

and the like. M.S.A. 15..1023 (1). State lav; 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); 15.1951; 15.3402; Bridgetamoton 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.

established an

The State Department of Education has recently 

Equal Educational' Opportunities section having

- 2 6 -



responsibility t.c> identity r daily ini olanced s c; i o o 1 d i s 11: i c t s

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 lav; 

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 Pr ince Edward _Countv, 3 37 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 of 

Education, 267 F. Supp. 458 (M.D. Ala.), aff‘d sub nom.,

- 2 7 -



V.' a J. 1 • * c\ v , t . a . , a U . b1 • (2. X -J* f i' i..t $'} ; v i. < n v. W t  :iiUi n Cov.i.i.V

Board of Bducci1ion, 288 P . S upp. 50 9; Smith v. North Caro 1 i n a
*' '

State Board of Educationi, Ho. 15, 07 2 (4th Cir., June 14, 1971)

The foregoing const1tutes o'.:<r 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 defendants1 

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 eidd 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 specifi-ty

- 2 8 -



and is framed in the broadest general terms. The 
. ' _ i '

may wish to amend its proposal and resubmit it as

prehensive plan of desegregation. V

moving party
j

a com-

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.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION •

RONALD BRADLEY-, et al,

Plaintiffs

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al.,

Defendants

A f R U E  C O P Y
FREDERICK W. JOHNSON, Clerk

DEPUTY. CLERK

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

;nd

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,

et al.

Dsfendant-
latervenor

Defendants-
Intervenor

CIVIL ACTION NO: 
352 57

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .
ORT■ _

■ D K T R O T T —ONT-Y' n T antq OF E E S E O R E O ETT0 >T

In accordance with orders of the court defendant 

Detroit Board of Education submitted two plans, limited 

to the corporate limits of the city, for desegregation 

of the public schools of the City of Detroit, which we will 

refer to as Plan A and plan C; plaintiffs submitted a 

similarly limited plan, which will be referred to as the 

Foster Plan. Hearings were had on said plans on March 14, 

15, 16, 17 and 21, 1972. In considering these plans the 

court docs not limit itself to the proofs offered at the 

hearing just concluded; it considers as part of the evidence 

bearing on the issue (_i.e. , City-Only Plans) all proofs 

submitted in the case to this point, and it specifically
L a v a  •! V>» »  -T rsv -ci c-'w-o liv-r o  j. n  a.v_-o_'w-a.

Conclusions contained in its 

filed September 27, 1971.

v~s «  J , ' ----------- ------------ -3
u w w  u i i c  i  x i i u x i i u j  o  a u u

"Ruling on Issue of Segregation,"

APPENDIX B



The court makes the following factual findings:
. ■ i

nr t\ vrt £T vi £i_ •

1. The court finds that this plan is an elabora­

tion and extension of the so-called Magnet Plan, previously 

authorized for implementation as e.n interim plan pending 

hearing and determination on the issue of segregation.

2. As proposed we find, at the high school level, 

that it offers a greater and wider degree of specialization, 

but any hope' that it would be effective to desegregate the 

public schools of the City of Detroit at that level is 

virtually ruled out by the failure of the current model to 

achieve any appreciable success.

3. We find, at the Middle School level’, that the 

expanded model would affect, directly, about 24,000 pupils

ot a total or ±h\j, uuu in trie yiauet> cuvcieu; emu •\
- O  ' - ■ i . j . ' - ' V '

would be to set up a school system within the school system, 

and would intensify the segregation in schools not included 

in the Middle School program. In this sense, it would 

increase segregation. .

4. As conceded by its author, Plan A is neither a 

desegregation nor an integration plan.

PLAN C „ ’ ■

- 1. The court finds that Plan C is a token or part

time desegregation effort. '

2. We find that this plan covers only a portion 

of the grades and would leave the base schools no less
tracially identifiable. .

- 2 -



PLAINTIFFS' PLAN

accomplish more desegregation than now obtains in the ystem,

or would be achieved under Plan A or Plan C.

2. V.e find further that the racial composition of

the student body i uch that, the plan's implementation would

clearly make the entire Detroit public school system

racially identifiable as Black

3. The plan would require the development of trans-

■ portation on a vast scale which, according to the evidence, 

could not be furnished, ready for operation, by the opening 

of the 1972-73 school year. The plan contemplates the 

• transportation of 82,000 pupils and would require the

or a great nuirrer or drivers, tne procurement or space 

for storage and maintenance, the recruitment of maintenance

and the not negligible task of designing a transportation
' '// ' 

system to service the schools.

that it would not have to undergo another reorganization if 

a metropolitan plan is adopted. .

. 5. It would involve the expenditure of vast sums

of money and effort which would be wasted or lost.

. 6. The plan does not lend itself as a building

block for a metropolitan plan. • .

more identifiably Black, and leave many of its schools 75 to

acquisition of some 900 vehicles, the hiring and training

4. The plan would entail an overall recasting

of the Detroit school system, when there is little assurance

7. The plan would make the Detroit school system

- 3 -



•  •
90 per cent Black.

8. It would change a school system which is now 

Black and White to one that - would be perceived as Black, 

thereby increasing the flight of Whites from the city and 

the system, thereby increasing the Black student population.

9. It would subject the students and parents, 

faculty and administration, to the trauma of reassignments, 

with little likelihood that such reassignments would 

continue for any appreciable time.

In summary, we find that none of the three plans 

would result in the desegregation of the public schools of 

the Detroit school district. -

- • CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .

,.v ■ i # The court has continuing jurisdiction of this

action for all purposes, including the granting of effective 

relief. See Ruling on Issue of Segregation, September 27, 

1971. •

• 2. On the basis of the court's finding of illegal

school segregation, the obligation of the school defendants 

is to adopt and implement an educationally sound, practicable 

plan of desegregation that promises realistically to achieve 

now and hereafter the greatest possible degree of actual 

school desegregation. Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 

430; Alexander -v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 

19; Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S.

290; -Swann v. Charlotta-MecklenburH Board it ion,

- 4 -

402 U.S. 1.



.3 . Detroit Board of Education Plans A and C

are legally insufficient because they go not promise to
' ' I

effect significant desegregation. Green v..County fcchool

Board, supra, at 439-440. •

4. Plaintiffs' Plan, while it would provide a
C •

racial mix more in keeping with the Black-White proportions 

of the student population than under either of t e  Boar d s 

plans or as the system now stands, would accentuate the . 

racial identiflability of the district as a Black school 

system, and would not accomplish desegregation. .

5. The conclusion, under the evidence in this 

case, is inescapable that relief of segregation in the
r ■

public schools of the City of Detroit cannot be accomplished 

within the corporate geographical limits of the city. The 

state, however, cannot escape its constitutional duty to •

desegregate the public schools of the City of Detroit by 

pleading local authority. As Judge Merhige pointed out 

in Bradley v. Richmond, (slip opinion p. 64):

"The power conferred by state law on central and 
local officials to determine the shape of school 
attendance units cannot be employed, as it has been 
here, for the purpose and with the effect of sealing 
off white conclaves of a racial composition more 
appealing to the local electorate and obstructing the 
desegregation of schools. The equal protection 
clause has required far greater inroads on local • 
government structure than the relief sought here, 
which is attainable without deviating- from state 
statutory forms. Compare Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S.

. 533; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339; Serrano v. 
Priest, 40 U.S.L.W. 2128 (Calif. Sup. Ct. Aug. 30, 1971)

"In any case, if political boundaries amount to -
insuperable obstacles to desegregation because of 

- " structural reason, such obstacles are self-imposed.
- ■ Political subdivision lines are creations of the state 

itself, after all."



School district lines are simply matters of

constitutional rights. If the boundary lines of thje 

school districts of the City of Detroit and the suriound- 

jjig suburbs were drawn today few would doubt that they

for solutions to the problem of school segregation, other 

federal courts have not "treated as immune from intervention 

the administrative structure of a state's educational 

system, to the extent that it affects the capacity to 

desegregate. Geographically or administratively independent 

units have been compelled to merge or to inititate or

continue cooperative operation as a single system for school' . r
1 'desegregation purposes."

Detroit scnoox district: tor a solution to m e  p r o b l e m  of

that it has the authority, nay more, the duty to (under 

the circumstances of this case) do so appears plainly

could not withstand constitutional challenge. In seeking

segregation in the Detroit public schools is obvious;

anticipated by Brown II, seventeen years ago. While other

school cases have not had to deal with our exact
*5

situation,' the logic of their application of the command

of Brown II supports our view of our duty.

Date: MARCH V , 1972.

- 6



FOOTNOTES

1
Bradley v. Richmond, supra (slip opinion p. 68).

\
2 \Brown v.-Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, pp. 300-301

3
Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County,

410 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 1969); Bradley v. School Board of the 
City of Richmond, supra, slip opinion pp. 664-65; Hall v.
St. Helena Parish School Board, 197 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. La. 
1961), aff'd. 287 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1961) and 368 U.S. 515 
(1962); Lee v.- Macon County Bd. of Educ., 448 F.2d 746, 752 
(5th Cir. 1971); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960); 
Turner v. Littleton-Lake Gaston School Dist., 442 F.2d 584' 
(4th Cir. 1.971); United States v. Texas, 447 F.2d 551 
(5th Cir. 1971); Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Board, 446 
F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1971). ■ - ;

-



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

S ouT} IERH DIVISION

Si ?
0

J 7

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.

Plaintiffs

v ,

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.,

e t a 1

Defendants- 
Intervenor

I )

I )

)

CIVIL ACTION NO 
3 5257

ML4731G_0N PROPRIETY OF CONSIDERING A METROPOLITAN REMEDY 
TO ACCOMPLISH DRSKORKC/triOE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

OF THE CITY OF DETROIT

In its prior ruling, "Ruling on Issue of Segregation" 

(September 27, 1971), the court has found that segregation

exists in the public schools of the City of Detroit because 

of, among other causes, the acts of the State of Michigan

and the Detroit Board of Education. In the language of
1 . . . . .  2Svxmn, "a right and a violation have been shown." Given

the constitutional violation, judicial authority, when 

properly .invoiced, must be exercised to right the wrong. In 

addressing itself to this task the Supreme Court lias said 

that the "scope of a district court's equitable- powers to 

remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are 

inherent in equitable remedi or;. " And, it pointed out,

APPENDIX C A TRVi'', t '. t;*v
I’-'.i ,i m t.i .; m , at'! : >:. cr



" a scliooX d e s e g r e g a t i o n  on go f liv " ' nr,i- a  -■ r r ,  r• -J uu.., not ail,.or fundamentally

from other corns involving the fronting of equitable remedies to 

lC1>dlr tho uonlaj ol a constitutional right.11 The task '

' is to correct the condition which offends tho Constitution. 

Illustrative of what was meant by the Supreme Court, see 

the legislative and congressional ^apportionment cases.5

Under the circumstances of this case,6 tho question 

presented is whether the court may consider relief in the 

form of a metropolitan plan, encompassing not only tho city 

of Detroit, but the larger Detroit metropolitan area which, 

for the present purposes, we may define as comprising the 

three councies of Bayne, Oakland and Macomb. It should be 

noted that the court has just concluded its hearing on plans 

submitted by the plaintiffs and tiro Detroit Board of Education 

for the intra-city desegregation of the Detroit public schools.

A ruling has not yet been made on these plans, but in 

accordance with the mandate of the Court of Appeals that a 

hearing on the merits be concluded at the earliest possible 

time, wo consider it necessary to proceed apace with a 

resolution of the issue before us, i.o., the propriety of

weighing the legal availability of a metropolitan remedy for 
segregation.

The State defendants in this case take the position/ 

as wo understand it, that no "state action" Iras had a part

111 tho segregation found to exist This v.i- , • ,

th° £incUmjS alroacly hY this court, and the decision of

UU> COUrt °f Ai;)paalS aS Wo11*7 Additional] y, they appear to 

tlU' <K-lt •|ul-lon ol the State’s powers and duties w:i th 

r,'SJ,"C'k °dU(’aLi(- govt i/iv/roi)ta! hodies as vesting

lhl' ■K '1 ,l'‘" v;in“ I-oviu-s which may he d:i s I »u bed



by either the State or the court. This we cannot accept. 

Political subdivisions of the states have never been 

considered sovereign entities, rather "they have been ' *

traditionally regarded as subordinate governmental instru- • 

mentalities created by the state to assist it in carrying 

out. of state governmental functions." Reynolds v. Sims,

3/7 U.s. 533, 575. Perhaps the clearest refutation of the 

State's asserted lack of power to act in the field of education 

is Acc 48 of 1970. The State cannot evade its constitutional 

responsibility by a delegation of powers to local units of 

government. The State defendants' position is in error in two 

other respects: 1. The local school districts are not

fully autonomous bodies, for to the extent it has seen fit the 

State retains control and supervision; and 2. it assumes that 

any metropolitan plan, if one is adopted, would, of necessity,

require the dismantling of school districts included in the 
plan.

The m a m  thrust of the objections to the consideration 

of a metropolitan remedy advanced by intervening school 

districts is that, absent a finding of acts of segregation on 

their part, individually, they may not be considered in 

fashioning a remedy for relief of the plaintiffs. It must 

be conceded that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled directly 

on this issue; accordingly, we can only proceed by feeling 

our way through its'past decisions with respect to the goal 

to be achieved in school desegregation cases. Green v. County 

^ISSlJIoard, 391 U.S. 4 30, teaches us that it is our 

o). ligation to assess the effectiveness of proposed plans of 

desegregation in the light of circumstances present and the 

available alternatives; and to choose the alternative or



alternatives

hereafter to

which promise realistically to work now and 

produce the maximum actual desegregation. As

Chief Justice Burger said in Swann, "in seeking to define

the scope of remedial power of courts in an area as

sensitive as we deal with here, words are poor instruments
j

to convey the sense of basic fairness inherent in equity." 

Substance, not semantics, must govern.

issue:
It seems to us that Brown is dispositive of the

"In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the 
courts will be guided by equitable principles. 
Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a 
practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by 
a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and 
private needs. These cases call for the exercise of 
these traditional attributes of equity power. At 
stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in 
admission to public schools as soon as practicable on 
a nondiscriminatory basis. To effectuate this interest 
may call ror elimination of a variety of obstacles in 
making the transition to school systems operated in 
accordance with the constitutional principles set forth 
in our May 17, 1954, decision. Courts of equity may 
properly take into account the public interest in the 
elimination of such obstacles in a systematic and 
effective manner. But it should go without saying that 
the vitality of these constitutional' principles cannot
be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with 
them."

* * *

" * the courts may consider problems related to
administration, arising from the physical condition of 

. the school plant, the school transportation systems,
' personnel, revision of school districts and attendance 
areas into compact units to achieve a system of 
determining admission to the public schools on a 
nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and 
regulations which may be necessary in solving the 
foregoing problems." ■

We conclude that it is proper for the court to 

on.,idei i.k Lj.opolitan plans directed toward the desegregat 

°f the Detroit public schools as an alternative to the 

Present intra-city desegregation plans before it and, in th 

h the count, finds such ‘ j ntra-city plans inadequate

ion

“ 4 »

I



to desegregate such schools, the court is of the opinion that

it is required to consider a metropolitan remedy for 

desegregation.

The schedule previously established for the hearing

on metropolitan plans will go forward as noticed, beginning

March

DATE :

1
Swann, v . CharXotterMecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S8 1.

2  . . . •

Ibid., p. 15. - •

3 . • 'Ibid., p. 15. •

4 ■
Ibid., pp. 15, 16.

5
Reynolds v. Sims, 377-U.S. 533.

6 •
See' "Ruling on Issue of Segregation," supra, indicating a 

black student projection for the school year 1980-01 of 80.7%.

7 •
See "Ruling on Issue of Segregation," supra; Bradley v. 

Milliken, 433 F.2d 897.

0 •
Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, at 300 and 301.



11 El " - v :y  . y ’ ■ ; .. y 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

S 0 UTH E PI 5 DIVI510N

'  )
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, h )

, )
. Defendant- )

Intervenor )
and ’ )

' )
DENISE MAGpOWSKI, et al,, )

. ' >
. Defendants™ )

Intervener }
et al. ' ’ • ' ) * *

S'

‘ • • sei >:U;■ \ \ ) jf-'EfV i

u : ... sLi'Ur/ Ci.i

CIVIL ACTION NO t 
352 57

RULING m  DESEGREGATION AREA 
AND

DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN_OF_desegregation

On September 27, 1971 the court made its Ruling on

Issue of Segregation, holding that illegal segregation exists

in the public schools of the City of Detroit, as a result of a

course of conduct on the part of the State of Michigan and the

Detroit Board of Education. Having found a constitutional

violation as established; on October 4, 1971 the court

directed the school board defendants, city and State, to
* 1.

develop and submit plans of desegregation, designed to 

achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, 

taking into account the practicalities of {.ho. situation. The

directive called for the submission of both a '’Detroit-only" 

and a "Metropolitan" plan.
APPENDIX D



Plans for th<- d ? . •— r-'■ ■< f ■'-v.-. i*n4 t- >-phor,i <-■

were submitted by the Detroit Board of Education and by the

plaintiffs. Following five days of hearings the'court found

that while plaintiffs' plan would accomplish more desegregation

than now obtains in the system, or which would be achieved under

either Plan A or C of the Detroit Board of Education submissions,

none of the plans would result in the desegregation of the

public schools of the Detroit school district. The court, '
* _

in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluded that 

"relief of segregation in the Detroit, public schools cannot 

be accomplished within the corporate geographical limits -of 

the city," and that it had the authority and the duty to 

.look beyond such limits for a solution to the illegal segre­

gation in the Detroit public schools, Accordingly, the court 

ruled,it had to consider a metropolitan remedy for segregation.

The parties submitted a number of plans for metropolitan 

desegregation. The State Board of Education submitted six - '

without recommendation, and without indicating any preference.

With the exception of one of these, none could be considered as 

designed to accomplish desegregation. On the other hand 

the proposals of intervening defendant Magaowski, et al., .■

the Detroit Board or Education and the plaintiffs were all 

good faith efforts to accomplish desegregation in the Detroit 

metropolitan area. The three plans submitted by these parties 

have many similarities, and all of them propose to incorporate, 

geographically, ..most— and in one instance, all— of the three- 

county area of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb.

The hearing on the proposals have set the framework, 

and have articulated the criteria and considerations, for 

developing and evaluating an effective plan of metropolitan

Kone of the submissions represent a complete 'desegregation.



plan for the effective and equitable do?..egrogation oi ->‘- 

metropolitan area, capable of implementation in its present 

form. The court will therefore draw upon the resources of 

the parties to devise, pursuant to it.' oire :tion, , 

constitutional plan of desegregation of the Detroit public 

schools.
Based on the entire record herein, the previous oral 

and written rulings and orders of this court, ana the 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lav; filed herewith,

IT IS ORDERED: ' '

A« As a panel charged with the responsibility of, 

preparing and submitting an effective desegregation plan in 

accordance with the provisions of this order, the court 

appoints the following:

1. a designee of the State Superinteno.ent of 
. . public Instruction,-'

2„ Harold Wagner, Supervisor of the Transportation 
Unit .in the Safety and Traffic Education 

. . Program of the State Department of Education;

3. Merle Henrickson, Detroit Board of Education?

.. 4. Aubrey McCutche.on, Detroit Board of Education? .

5. Freeman Flynn, Detroit Board of Education?

6. Gordon Foster, expert for plaintiffs?

7. Richard Morshead, representing defendant ■
Magdowski, et al.;

.. 8. A designee of the newly intervening defendants;

9. Rita Scott, of the Michigan Civil Rights
. Commission,.

X - k
The designees of the State Superintendent of Public  ̂ _

Instruction and newly intervening defendants shal] be coimuunicai.ee 
to the court within seven days of the entry of this order. 1>* 
the event the newly intervening defendants cannot agree upon a 
designee, they may each submit a nominee within seven days f ro!a 
the entry of this order, and. the coma: vh.slJ ;-eJ.e<-t- L
nominees as r e p r e s e n t a t i v c oi s a id oolen.e. s .



cie panel be unable

to serve, the other members of the panel shall elect any 

necessary replacements, upon notice to the court and the 

parties. In the absence of objections within five days of 

the notice, and pending a final ruling, such designated, 

replacement shall act as a member of the panel.

B . As soon as possible, but in no event later than

45 days after the issuance of this order, the panel is to 

develop a plan for the assignment of pupils as set forth below 

in order to provide the maximum actual desegregation, and 

shall develop as well a plan for the transportation of pupils, 

for Implementation for all grades, schools and clusters in 

the desegregation area. Insofar as required by she 

circumstances, which are to be detailed in pciruicular, the 

panel may recommend immediate implementation ox 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 in no event later than the fall 

1973 term. In its transportation plan the panel shall, 

to meet the needs of the proposed pupil assignment plan, 

make recommendations, including the shortest possible time­

table, for acquiring sufficient additional transportation 

facilities for any interim or final plan of desegregation. 

Such recommendations shall be filed forthwith and in no 

event later thpn 45 days after the entry of this order.

Should it develop that some additional transportation 

equipment is needed for an interim plan, the panel shall 

make recommendations for such acquisition within 20 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 panel in their assigned mission, 

including, but not limited to, the provision of data and 

reasonable full and part-time staff assistance as requested 

by the panel. The State defendants shall provide support, 

accreditation, funds, and otherwise take all actions necessary 

to insure that local officials and employees cooperate fully 

with 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. .

■ . . ■' II. • .

A. Pupil reassignment to accomplish desegregation 

of the Detroit public schools is required within the geographical 

area which may be described as encompassing the following 

school districts (see Exhibit P.M. 12), and hereinafter

Fairlane . .
Garden City 
North Dearborn Heigh 
Cherry Hill 
Inkster
Wayne . •
Westwood
Ecorse
Romulus
Taylor
River Rouge
Riverview
Wyandotte
Allen Park
Lincoln Park
Melvindale
Southgate
Detroit

referred to as the

'Lakeshore 
Lakeview 
Roseville 
South Lake 

' East Detroit 
Grosse Pointe 
Centerline .
.Fitzgerald 
Van Dyke 
Fraser
Harper Woods 
Warren
Warren Woods 
Clawson 
Hamtramck 
Lamphere 
M a d i s o n H o i gh t s' 
Troy

desegregation area";

Birmingham 
Hazel Park 
Highland Park 
Royal oak 
Berkley .
Ferndale 
Southfield 
Bloomfield Hills 
Oak Park 
Redford Union 
West Bloomfield 
Clarencevi .13. e 
Farmington 
Livonia 
South Bedford 
Crcstwood 
Dearborn 
Dearborn Hoights



Provided, however, that 

pupils it appears necess 

and complete racial dese

if in the actual assignment of

ary and feasible to achieve effective

gregation to reassign pupils of * ’

another district or other districts, the desegregation panel 

rnay, upon notice to the parties, apply to the Court for 

an appropriate modification of this order. .

B, Within the limitations of reasonable travel 

time and distance factors, pupil reassignments shall be 

effected within the clusters described in Exhibit P„M„ 12 

so as to achieve the greatest degree of actual desegregation i 

the end that, upon implementation, no school, grade or class­

room be substantially disproportionate to the overall pupil

racial composition. The panel may, upon notice to the 

parties, recommend reorganization of clusters within the 

desegregation area in order to minimize administrative

inconvenience, or time and/or numbers of pupils requiring 

transportation.

C. Appropriate and safe transportation arrangements 

shall due made available without cost to all pupils assigned to 

schools deemed by the panel to be other than "walk-in" 

schools. • .

D. Consistent with the requirements of maximum

actual desegregation, every effort should be made to minimize

the numbers of pupils to be reassigned and requiring trans­
* i

portaeion, the time 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 private . 

charter companies. The panel shall develop appropriate 

recommendations for limiting transfers which affect the 

desegregation of particu1ar schoo1 s.

E. Transportation and pupil assignment shall, 

to the extent consistent with maximum feasible desegregation, 

be a two-way process with both black and white pupils 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, in 

keeping with pupil desegregation, so as to prevent the

creation or continuation of the identification of schools by 

reference to past racial composition, or the continuation of 

substantially disproportionate racial composition of the

faculty and staffs, of the schools in the desegregation area. 

The faculty and staffs assigned to the schools within the 

desegregation area shall be substantially desegregated, 

bearing in mind, however, that the desideratum is the balance, 

of faculty and staff by qualifications for- subject and grade

level, and then by race, experience and sex. In the context 

of the evidence in this case, it is appropriate to require 

assignment of no less than 1 0% black faculty and staff at

each school, and where there is more than one building 

administrator, every effort should be made to assign a 

bi-racial administrative team.



G. In the hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion

criteria must be developed and used,* provided, however, 

there shall be no reduction in efforts to increase minority 

group representation among faculty and staff in the 

desegregation area. Affirmative action shall be taken to 

increase minority employment in all levels of teaching and 

a dmini s tr at ion. .

H. The restructuring of school facility utilization 

necessitated by pupil reassignments should produce schools 

of substantially like quality, facilities, extra-curricular 

activities and staffs; and the utilization of existing 

school capacity through the desegregation area shall be 

made on the basis of uniform criteria.

making decisions about new school sites, expansion of

present facilities * ** and shall, within the desegregation

area disapprove all proposals for new construction or expansion

result in a school largely segregated on racial * * * lines,

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

of

all in accordance with the 1966 directive issued by the State

Board of Education to local school boards and the State

of segregation, p. 13.)



arrangements will be maintained arid continued., except to 

the extent necessary to effect pupil and faculty desegregation 

as sc t £ o r t h h c r c i n; pro v i d c d, n o w ever, t h a t e x i s t i n g a din inis t r a ™ 

tive, financial, contractual, property and governance arrange­

ments shall be examined, and recommendations for their 

temporary and permanent retention or modification shall be 

made, in light of the need to operate an effectively desegregated 

system of schools.

K. At each 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 individual, students, faculty, staff and parents.

L. The defendants shall, to insure the effective

desegregation of the schools in the desegregation area, take 

immediate action including, but not limited to, the •

establishment or expansion of in-service training of faculty 

and staff, create bi-racial committees, employ black counselors, 

and require bi-racial and non-discriminatory extra-curricular 

activities.

■ III. . '

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with 

the assistance of the other state defendants, shall examine, 

and make recommendations, consistent with the principles 

established above, for appropriate interim and final arrange­

ments .for the (1 ). financial, (2 ) administrative and school 

governance, and (3) contractual arrangements for the operation 

of the schools within the desegregation area, including steps 

for unifying, or otherwise making uniform the personnel



polic i c pro c ecu -'.ncf ( iicin

of the various school districts. .

Wxehin iu days or use c.- w. ___ oj, oiuuj. ,• ‘.-pc

Superintendent 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 the parties.

In not later than 45 days after the entry of this order,

the Superintendent shall file with the court his recommendations

for appropriate interim and final relief in these respects.

In his examination and recommendations, the

Superintendent, consistent with the rulings and orders of this 

court, may be guided, but not limited, by existing stale law; 

where state law provides a convenient and adequate fra aework

for interim or ultimate relief, it should be followed, where 

state law either is silent or conflicts with what is n -cessary 

to achieve the objectives of this order, the Superintendent 

shall independently recommend what he deems necessary. In 

particular, the Superintendent shall examine and c h o o s e  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 issue in th.'s 

cause. The intent of this order is to permit all the parties 

to proceed apace with the task before us: fashioning ar
' t

effective plan for the desegregation of the Detroit pul lie 

schools.

Fifteen days after the filing of the reports 

required herein, hearings will begin on any proposal to modify 

any interim plan•prepared by the panel and all other matters



The partiesany interim plan of desegregation submitted, 

are places on notice cnau tmy a m  cq oo prepared ui ensu 

time to present their objections, alternatives and modifications 

At such hearing the court will not consider objections to 

desegregation or proposals offered "instead" of desegregation.

• Hearings on a final plan, of desegregation will be . 

set as circumstances require.

DATE: JUNE 14 , 1972.



UK IT ED STT■>TE S DI ST EICT CC)U R? 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN D1VISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

' Plaintiffs •

v „

WILLIAM G, MILLIKEN, et al.,

Defendants
and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 
LOCAL NO. 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant- . 
Intervenor

and

A / 1
r*$­i p r\ n \/

CIVIL ACTION NO: 
35257

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,

Defendants-
Intervenor

et al

)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
, ■ ' IN SUPPORT OF RULING . '

ON DESEGREGATION AREA AND DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN

On the basis of the entire record in this action, 

including particularly the evidence heard by the court from 

March 28 through April 14, 1972, the court now makes the follow­

ing Supplementary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It 

should be noted that the court has taken no proofs with respect 

to the establishment of the boundaries of the 8 6 public school- 

districts in the counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb, nor 

on the issue of whether, with the exclusion of the city of 

Detroit school district, such school districts have committed 

. nets of be jure segregation. ■ •

■ INTRODUCTION

OL«. On September 27, 1.971, this court .issued its 

Ruling on Issue of Segregation. On' October 4, 1971, this court



• •
issued f roiri the bench guidelines to Jrind the parties in the

submr ssion of plans to remedy the: CO!a s t i t u t i o n a 1 v i o 1 a tion

found, i_„ c „, school sogregation; a t i d in particular this court

noted that the primary objective U  w J~ vore us was to cievaiop o nd

implement a plan which attempts to "achieve the greatest 

possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account 

the practicalities of the situation." The same day this 

court reitercited these requirements by orders "that the Detroit 

Board of Education submit a plan for the desegregation of its 

schools within 60 days'1 and "that the State defendants submit 

a metropolitan plan of desegregation within 120 days." In 

response to these orders hearings were held, and thereafter 

rulings issued, on Detroit-only plans (see Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only Plans of Desegregation) 

and on the propriety of considering remedies which extend beyond 

t h e  corporate geographxc ixiuxcs of t h e  cxty of Detroit. (See 

Ruling on Propriety of Considering a Metropolitan Remedy to 

Accomplish Desegregation of the Public Schools of the city 

of Detroit.) Between March 28, 1972 and April 14, 1972, 

hearings were held on metropolitan proposals for desegregation 

of the Detroit public schools.

2. From the initial ruling on September 27, 1971, 

to this day, the basis of the proceedings has been and 

remains the violation: dejure school segregation. Since 

Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court has consistently 

held that the remedy for such illegal segregation is desegre­

gation. The racial history of this country is writ large by 

constitutional adjudication from Dred Scott v. Sanford to 

Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown. The message in Brown was simple: 

the Fourteenth Amendment was to be applied full force in 

:public schooling. The Court held that "state-imposed" school 

segregation immeasurably taints the education received by all



children in the public schools; perpetuates racia 1 dis;crimination

and a history of public action attaching a badge of inferiorityi!
to the black race in a public forum which importantly 'shapes . 

the minds and hearts of succeeding generations of our young 

people; and amounts to an invidious racial classification.

Since Brown the Supreme Court has consistently, and with 

increasing force, held that the remedy upon finding de jure 

segregation is prompt and maximum actual desegregation of 

the public schools by all reasonable, feasible, and practicable 

means available. This court finds that there is nothing in 

the law, wisdom, or facts, and the particular.circumstances 

and arguments, presented in this case which suggest anything 

except the affirmance of these principles in both fact and 

1 aw, .

3. The task before this court, therefore, is now,

and, since September 27, 1971, has always been, Iiuw Lo 

desegregate the Detroit public schools. The issue, despite 

efforts of the intervenors to suggest a new rationale for
h Ja return to the discredited "separate but equal" policy,

is not whether to desegregate. That question has been

foreclosed by the prior and settled commands of the Supreme

Court and the Sixth Circuit. Our duty now is to "grapple
2 /  •with the flinty, intractable realities"—  of implementing the 

constitutional commands. ■

4, In the most recent set of hearings, several 

issues were addressed generally, including appropriate methods 

of pupil reassignment to desegregate schools; quality and 

capacity of school facilities; transportation needs incident 

to school desegregation; the effects of new school construction, 

and judicially established controls thereon, on any plan of 

desegregation; the reassignment of faculty and restructuring 

of facilities incident to pupil reassignment to accomplish



school desegregation; appropriate and necessary interim and

i xna.J. aominxs tr a rj.v e * x o **. .l i l d ilu-i-C L a, C2 j. t s ; a pp r op r rare

community, parental, staff, and pupil involvement in the 

desegregation process; and attention to individual, cultural

and ethnic values, respect, dignity and identity. But the 

primary question addressed by these hearings, in the absence of 

submission of a complete desegregation plan by the state, 

remains the determination of the area necessary and practicable 

effectively to eliminate "root and branch" the effects of 

state-imposed and supported segregation and to desegregate 

the Detroit public schools. .

SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS OF FACT 

A. The Desegregation Area

5. The State Board of Education filed six (G)

"plans" without recommendation or preference; intervening defendants

Magdowski, et al., filed a proposal for metropolitan desegregation

which included most of the tri-county area; the defendant Detroit

Board of Education filed a proposal for metropolitan desegregation
' 3 /which included the entire tri-county area.—  At the hearing 

plaintiffs presented a modification of the three proposals which 

actually described areas within which pupil desegregation was to 

be accomplished. .

6 . In the consideration of metropolitan plans of 

desegregation of the Detroit public schools, the State defendants 

stand as the primary defendants. They bear the initial burden

of coming forward with a proposal that promises to work. In
. 4 /the context of this case, they represent the "school authorities"

to whom equity courts traditionally have shown deference in
3 / . .these matters. Yet in its submission without recommendation

of six (6 ) "plans" the State Board of Education has failed to 

meet, or .even attempt to meet, that burden and none of the other 

State defendants has filled the void.



7 .  The. State Board refused t o  make any recommendation

to t h e  c o u r t  a b o u t  u t e  a p p r o p r r a t e  a re a  i o r  U e e e g r e g u e i o n . I n

State Defendant Porter's words, the State Board "didn't make a

decision, period." Defendants Milliken and Kelley merely filed 

objections to all. six (6 ) plans.

8 . -Three of the State "plans" merely proposed- 

concepts alternative to maximum actual desegregation. The 

Racial Proportion Plan described a statistical method of

determining the number of transfers involved in achieving a 

particular racial ratio in each school once an area of desegrega­

tion had been chosen. The Equal Educational opportunity and

Quality Integration Plan was admitted to be a non-plan and

described criteria for education which, in whole or part, might,

or might not, be applicable to any school system.

9 . Only one State "plan," the Metropolitan District 

Reorganization Plan, attempted to describe an area within

which desegregation should occur, called the "initial operating 

zone" (sometimes referred to hereafter as the "State Proposal"). 

That "plan," however, was primarily concerned with -discussing 

a new governance structure for the desegregation area. Pupil 

reassignment was mentioned only in passing and no foundation 

was laid by State defendants for the particular area of 

desegregation described. Further, it suffered from the default 

of the State defendants by their stubborn insistence that under 

their self-serving, and therefore self-limiting, view of their 

powers they were free to ignore the clear order of this court

and abdicate their responsibility vested in them by both the 

Michigan and Federal Constitution for supervision of public

e-.ucation and equal protection for all citizens.

10. From the very limited evidence in the record in 

support of the area in that state proposal, the primary 

foundation appears to be the particular racial ratio attained in



that plan, approximately 65% blacK, 3ay'- worse, v;iuii the provision

that the area could be expended if “white flight" ensued1. In

the absence of any other persuasive foundation, such area xs
I _

„ ..... i 1 1 .? cr -m- ni n obi e cr i teria for not based on any dcij.nuiJ.e -u....u ..  ̂ ....

either inclusion or exclusion of particular areas; and the

concept of an "initial operating zone" raises serious practical

questions, which should be avoided if a more permanent solution

is now possible. In short, the area described by the "initial

operating zone" does not appear to be based primarily on

relevant factors, like eliminating racially identifiable schools;

accomplishing maximum actual desegregation of the Detroit public

schools; or avoiding, where possible, maintaining a pattern of

schools substantially disproportionate to the relevant school

community1s racial composition by force of deliberate action

by public authority. Nor, on the evidence in this record, is

the "initial operating zone" based on any practical limitation

of reasonable times and distances for transportation of pupils.

These factors seem to have played little part in the creation of

the "initial operating zone" and are reflected less in its

result. .

1 1 . At the hearings, moreover, the State defendants 

did not purport to present evidence in support, or even in 

opposition, to the State Proposal. The State, despite prodding 

by the court, presented only one witness, who merely explained 

what appeared on the face of the various State "Plans" submitted. 

The State's cross examination of witnesses was of no assistance 

to the court in ascertaining any preference, legal or educational. 

Put bluntly, State defendants in this hearing deliberately chose 

not to assist the court in choosing an appropriate area for 

effective desegregation of the Detroit public schools. Their 

' 'resistance and abdication of .responsibility throughout h a s  been 

consistent with the other failures to meet their obligations noted



court1s earlier ru J- i .i i in a Indeed, some of the submissions

s clearI y C:yi vi toluon L< d ; reoregat ic>n as did the

ture in tec. 12 of Act 4 8 r u .1 c' d u n c o  n s \;.itut ional by

the sixth Circe

12. In such circumstances little weight or deference

can be given to the unsupported submission of the State/
Board of Education. In light of the available alternatives 

and the facts produced at the hearing bearing on the' issue, 

the court finds that State defendants offered no basis for 

ruling that the "initial operating zone" is the appropriate 

area within which to effectively desegregate the Detroit public 

schools.

1 3 . Similarly, the newly intervening, defendant 

school districts did not attempt at the hearing to assist the 

court in determining which area was appropriate to accomplish 

effecurve utJsegregaLxon. They were given the opportunity, by 

express written order and several admonitions during the course 

of the hearings, to assist the court in the task at hand but 

chose in their best judgment instead, in the main, to suggest 

their view that separate schools were preferable. The failure 

of the group of 40 districts to even comment that the court 

should exclude certain districts under any number of available . 

rationales may in part be explained by the awkward position 

chosen by them and their counsel of having single representation 

for districts on different sides of the various suggested

perimeters.

14. The plans of intervening defendants Magdowski, 

et al., and the defendant Detroit Boarcl of Education are similar 

With slight variations they include the entire tri-county, 

metropolitan Detroit area, with that area divided into several 

.regions or clusters to .make the planning for accomplishing

A],though both have as their maindesegregation more manageable.



objective desegregation, 111 eir

from a heavy emphasis 

api>r opr late soc io-eco

larger area arises primarily

on such factors as white flight and an
. 6 /oisig balance xn each cluster and school.

ne ant ad I-laqdowskx

plans readily admit' that the regions or clusters for pupil 

reassignment which involve Mt. Clemens and Pontiac are not

directly related to desegregation of the Detroit public 

schools and may be disregarded without any substantial adverse 

effect on accomplishing our objective. No other party has 

expressed any disagreement with that view. And the court finds 

that these two regions or clusters, for purposes of pupil 

reassignment, need not be included at this time in the 

desegregation area.

16. With the elimination of these two clusters there are,

then, three basic proposals to be considered for the desegregation 

area; the State Proposal; the Detroit Board Proposal, and the 

proposal of defendant-intervenors Magdowski, et al. In addition, 

as noted, plaintiffs filed a modification of these three 

proposals. '

17. Each of these proposals starts from the same
. . 7 /two premises: (1 ) the tri-county area constitutes the

relevant school community which can serve as an initial 

benchmark in beginning the evaluation of how to effectively 

eliminate the racial segregation of Detroit schools;

(2 ) but in some instances reasonable time and distance 

limitations for pupil transportation, and in other instances 

the actual area required to eliminate the pattern of racially 

identifiable schools, limit the area within which pupil 

k aassignm'-nt should occur. In terms of proof, putting aside 

arguments of impotence by the State defendants, there was 

.absolutely no contradictory evidence on these two criteria.

The entire tri-county area includes areas, pupils, and

- 0 -



schools in 86 school districts; it includes approximately one

million students; of: chon ep;;>.r: Basea

on the evidence concerning school and non-school factors,'8 /

S £~id XTGclSOHcibiC t XuiC d }}(J. ClXL> L-cl 1 ix G X a.iiiXtc-t a XOi AS XO X p U pX X

transportation, the court finds that both premises are 

accurate.

18. The State Proposal includes the areas, pupils 

and school in 36 school districts; approximately 550,000 

students are included of whom 36% are black. The Detroit 

Board Proposal (excluding clusters 8 and 12) includes the

areas, pupils, and schools in 69 school districts; approximately.
10 /

850,000 students are included, of whom 25% are minority.

The CCBE Proposal includes the areas, pupils, and schools in 

some 62 school districts; approximately 777,000 students are 

included of whom 197,000 (25.4%) are black. plaintiffs' 

proposal includes liho xrcc uupxls/ snH schools m  3u Rfhooi 

districts; approximately 780,000 students are included, of 

whom 197,000 (25.3%) are black.

19. The State Proposal approaches what may be 

considered a substantial disproportion in the context of this 

case. It is to be remembered that within any desegregation 

area, the racial composition of desegregated schools will vary 

from the area's racial mix. Given the variations in school 

plant, demographic and geographic factors, limiting the 

desegregation area to the State Proposal would result in some 

schools being substantially disproportionate in their racial 

composition to the tri-county area, and other schools racially 

identifiable, all without any justification in law or fact.

This finding is supported by the lack of any apparent 

justification for the desegregation area described by the 

State Proposal except a desire to achieve an arbitrary racial

ratio.



20 .  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  of children by school bus is a 

common practice throughout m e  nation, xn the biaie 01 

Michigan, and in the tri-county area. Within appropriai_e 

time limits it is a considerably safer, more reliable, 

healthful and efficient means of getting children to scuool 

than either car pools or walking, and this is especially true 

for younger children.
21. in Michigan and the tri-county area, pupils 

often spend upwards of one hour, and up to one and one half 

hours, one-way on the bus ride to school each day. Consistent 

with its interest in the health, welfare and safety of children 

and in avoiding impingement on the educational process, state 

educational authorities routinely fund such transportation

for school children. Such transportation of school children is 

.a long-standing, sound practice in elementary and secondary

V..- V I V-- V-
"and throughout the country. And the 

court finds such transportation times, used by the state ana 

recommended here, are reasonable in the circumstance here 

presented and will not endanger the health or safety of the 

child nor impinge on the educational process. For school 

authorities or private citizens to now object to such 

transportation practices raises the inference not of hostility 

to pupil transportation but rather racially motivated hostility 

to the desegregated school at the end of the ride.

22. The Plaintiffs' Proposal made reference to 

P.M.8 , based on the TALUS regional transportation and travel 

times study. Although there was dispute over the meaning of the 

study, such studies are deemed sufficiently reliable that major 

governmental agencies customarily rely on their projection for 

a variety of planning functions. When used by the plaintiff-, 

p.M. 8, in conjunction with the Detroit Board s sui\cy of 

maximum school to school travel limes, s e r v e d  as a rough, j ' -



.1 irie with in v;hieh 

attempted to stay 

without any more

the plaintiff

in an effort

'.ran sport at i

s 1 

to

modification of other proposals

provide maximum desegregation '

1 'o, o t h a 11 5 _ r- q 0 ■q i ]- o g p q

desegregate. 

two factors, 

result, is a 

circumst a nces

This court finds that the utilization of these 

and the lower travel time estimates which should 

reasonable basis for the modification in the 

of this case. The court's duty and objective

is not to maximize transportation but to maximize desegregation 

and within that standard it will always be reasonable to

minimize transportation. To that end the court has accepted 

the more conservative perimeter for the desegregation area suggested 

as a modification by plaintiffs because it provides no less 

effective desegregation.

23. Based on these criteria, the State Proposal is 

too narrowly drawn.
A T> ^ 4~ 1- --- --- 1 J-- - 1 -- 1- , r- x i_ _ _ »_ .* «

‘ X v C U  v J i x  t w t o e  o r  x u  ;  j p ^ c - t x . U - 0  KJ X.  U 1  U X  L

Board Proposal are too sweeping.

25. Based on these criteria, the CCBE'proposal

and the Plaintiffs1 Proposal, rough].y approximate the area so
1 1 / ......

described. ' -

26. There is general agreement among the parties,

and the court so finds, that on the west the areas, schools, and

pupils in the Huron, Van Buren, Northville, Plymouth, and Novi 
12 /

districts (1 ) ax'e beyond the rough 40-minute travel time line;

(2 ) are not necessary to effectively desegregate schools involved 

in the regions and clusters abutting those schools; and, (3 ) at 

this writing, are not otherwise necessary, insofar as pupil 

assignment is concerned, to provide an effective remedy now .

and hereafter. (See Findings 63-69 below.) .

27. In the southwest the school districts of Woodhaven, 

Gilbralter, Flat Rock, Grosso lie and Trenton are within

set forth above.reasonable time and distance criteria These



virtually all-white districts are included in the Detroit 

Board Proposal but excluded from the plaintiffs' modification.

The areas, schools and pupils in such school districts are - .

similarly not necessary to effectively desegregate. (Clusters 

13, 14, and 15 in Plaintiffs' proposal are 20.5%, 24.4% and 

22.7% black respectively.) There is nothing in the record 

which suggests that these districts need be included in the 

desegregation area in order to disestablish the racial 

identiflability of the Detroit public schools. From the
• ' ' jevidence, the primary reason for the Detroit School Board's 

interest in the inclusion of these school districts is not 

racial desegregation but to increase the average socio-economic 

balance of all the schools in the abutting regions and clusters.

In terms of what this court views as the primary obligation establishc 

by the Constitution— racial .desegregation--the court deems the

ir-*- -f- r~\ ,o> p -' '~\ > -P V-. rl r. A 4-

appropriate to confine the desegregation area to its smallest

effective limits. This court weighs more heavily the judicially

recognized concern for limiting the time and distance of pupil

transportation as much as possible, consistent with the

constitutional requirement to eliminate racially identifiable

schools, than a concern for expanding the desegregation area to

raise somewhat the average socio-economic balance of a
13 /relatively few clusters of schools.-— —

28. To the north and northeast, the only major 

disagreement among the Detroit Board Proposal and plaintiffs' 

modification relates to the areas, schools, and pupils in the 

Utica School District. This district is a virtually all-white, 

long, relatively narrow area extending several miles in a 

north-south direction away from the city of Detroit. Only 

the southern part of the .district is within the rough, TALUS 

4 0 -in i n u t c t r a v e 1 t i me 1 i n e.



29. The; Detroit Boar that 1)1 Co should

be included in order to raise the average socio-economic 

balance of the abutting clusters and schools. In this 

instance, however, the overall racial composition of the 

cluster, 27.0% black, may tend toward disproportionate •

black relative to the tri-county starting point. * ■ ■

30. Mr. Henrickson, the planner for the Board, 

also suggested that Cluster 3 of plaintiffs' Proposal, because 

of its omission of Utica, might present some problems, which 

he admitted could be solved, in designing a plan of pupil 

reassignment for the desegregation of schools. (See

Findings 34-39 below.). '

31. In light of these relevant, and competing, 

considerations the question presented by the Utica situation 

.is close; however, at this writing, the court determines

that the areas, schools, and pupils in the Utica School District 

need not be included, and therefore, should not be included in

the desegregation area 14/

32. The court finds that the appropriate desegre­

gation area is described by plaintiffs' modification of the 

three primary proposals. Within that area the racial 

identifiability of schools may be disestablished by implementa 

tion of an appropriate pupil desegregation plan. The area 

as a whole is substantially proportionate to the tri-county 

starting point. Within the area it is practicable, feasible, 

and sound to effectively desegregate all schools without 

imposing any undue transportation burden on the children or 

on the state's system of public schooling. The time or 

> distance children need be transported to desegregate schools 

in the area will impose' no risk to the children's health and 

will not significantly impinge'on the educational process.



or

e or xb

clusters are arranged along major surface arteries and

utilize the "skip," or noncontiguous zoning, technique to

minimize the time and distance any child need spend in

planning for pupil reassignment within the desegregation area 

into a series of smaller, manageable and basically independent 

plans. Thus, although as the new interveners suggest devising 

a desegregation plan for a system with some 800,000 pupils 

has never been attempted, the practical and manageable reality 

is that desegregation plans fox* systems with .from 36,000 to 

.1 0 0 , 0 0 0  pupils has been done and such plans have been 

implemented. , .... •

3 4 . Plaintiffs' Proposal uses the same cluster 

technique and the same clusters, modified to fit the desegrega­

tion area. The 15 clusters range from 27,000 to 93,000 pupils 

and from 20.5% to 30.8% black. Only three relevant objections 

were raised by Mr. Henrickson, to the clusters as modified.

3 5 . First, Cluster 4 was challenged as "concealing" 

a "problem," namely effective desegregation of other schools 

resulting from the omission of Utica from plaintiffs' modifica­

tion. On cross-examination Mr. Henrickson admitted that the 

"problem" of actual pupil desegregation fox* these other 

schools could be "solved," that all schools within Cluster 4 

could be effectively desegregated, and that Cluster 4 was 

smaller than the Detroit Board Cluster 6 . The objection was

thus narrowed to the possibility that a suburban high school 

constellation feeder pattern might have to be split between two



Detroi'c i.trgii

ci e s e gre g a t e . 

cilso contain 

36

Several of the D 

two Detroit high 

. Th.1 s objection

e t:r o i. t B o a r d ' s e 1 u s t e r s 

school feeder patterns. 

, splitting an existing

pattern, was raised-directly in reference to Cluster 

neither instance, however, did Mr. Henrickson suggest

however

|
* feeder 

3 2 . In 

that the

e

time or distance of transportation involved was too long or 

that it would present administrative difficulty in.devising 

a pupil assignment plan for either cluster. The objection 

relates solely to a matter of administrative convenience, 

namely the use of existing feeder patterns in preparing 

pupil assignments.. For example, Mr. Henrickson previously 

admitted that in drawing a pupil assignment plan, an 

alternative to use of existing feeder patterns would be to 

"wipe the slate clean," and disregard existing feeder patterns.

In fact one of the State plans suggested use of census tracts
15 / . . . .as an alternative. On numerous occasions in the past

Mr. Henrickson himself has reassigned parts of one feeder 

pattern to another school in order to relieve overcrowding and/ 

or accomplish desegregation. The objection to such practice, 

therefore, is admittedly insubstantial.

37. The third objection relates to the exchange 

of Detroit Northern for Detroit Murray in Clusters 6 and 15 

requiring that the students transported, if they proceed on 

their entire journey lay way of the expressway, encounter an 

interchange which tends to be rather slow-moving. Such 

transportation time and distance, however, is well within the 

rough criteria for reasonableness and is shorter than or 

comparable to the maximum trips required in the Detroit Board's 

clusters. In other instances, Mr. Henrickson admitted that 

pupils in the Detroit proposal might also have to travel 

through similar interchanges. Moreover, the objection to this



particular increase in travel tirue must be weighed ugainst the

apparent general decrease in time v. nxch would ba required in
i

plaintiff's1 modified clusters as compared with the Detroit 

Board's clusters. In any event the desegregation panel, 

based on its investigation of all aspects of pupil assignment, 

remains free to suggest a xnodification or these clusters in 

order to reduce the time and number of children requiring 

transportation.

38. With that caveat, the court finds that 

plaintiffs' modification of the Detroit Board's clusters 

provides a workable, practicable, and sound framework for the 

design of a plan to desegregate the Detroit public schools.

C. Pupil Assignment and Transportation

39. Example of various methods of pupil assignment 

to accomplish desegregation have been brought to the attention 

of the court by the parties: pairing, grouping, and clustering 

of schools; various strip, skip, island, and non-contiguous 

zoning; various lotteries based on combinations of present 

school assignment, geographic location, name, or birthday.

Judicious use of these techniques— coupled with reasonable 

staggering of school hours and maximizing use or existing 

transportation facilities— -can lead to maximum actual desegregation 

with a minimum of additional transportation.

40. Quite apart from desegregation, under any . 

circumstances, transportation for secondary pupils living 

more than 1 1 / 2 miles, and elementary pupils living more 

than 1 mile from school, is often demanded by parents and 

should be provided. Moreoever, it is essential to the 

effectiveness of any desegregation plan that transportation 

be provided free to all students requiring it under that

■ vcriteria. • ' fBrevrcr ' :v.. '.Dorfolk Board ol Education,____ f .-----



(Apr i 1 1972) (4 th C i r .) .)

41. In 1-1)o rcocnu punt 11- 1 uuc.ii j00, COO pupiIn 

in the tri-county area regularly rode to school on some type 

of bus; this figure excludes the countless children who •

arrive at school in car pools, which are many, many times 

more dangerous than riding on the school bus. •

42. Throughout the state approximately 35-40% of

all students arrive at school on a bus. In school- districts 

eligible for state reimbursement of transportation costs in 

the three affected counties, the percent of pupils transported 

in 1969-70 ranged from 42 to 52%. ’ -

43. In' comparison approximately 40%, or 310,000, 

of the 780,000 children within the desegregation area will 

require transportation in order to accomplish maximum 

actual desegregation.

44. Hence, any increase in the numbers of pupils

to be "transported upon implementation of a complete desegrega­

tion plan over the number presently transported, relative to 

the state and the tri-county area, should be minimal. Indeed, 

any increase may only reflect the greater numbers of pupils 

who would be transported in any event but for the state 

practice, which affected the segregation found in this 

case, and which denies state reimbrusement to students and 

districts wholly within city limits regardless of the
16 %

distance of the child from the school to which assigned. 

(Ruling on Issue of Segregation at 14.) The greatest change 

is the direction of the buses.

45. There is uncontradicted evidence that the

actual cost of transportation for a two-way plan of

desegregation should be no greater than 50 to 60 dollars per
17 /

pupil transported,---comparable to the present costs per .

pupil through the state. Increases in the total costs



•  •
of pupi 1 transportation in the descgr.■•ration area, therefore, 

will result primarily from evicting a3J children requiring 

transportation a free ride instead of imposing the costs of 

transportation for many on the families in districts which are 

ineligible fox* state reimbursement and which fail to provide 

transportation. ■ 1

46* By multiple use of buses, careful routing, and 

economies of scale resulting from a comprehensive system of 

pupil transportation, it may be possible to achieve savings 

in per pupil costs. For example in 1969-1970 many school 

districts in the tri-county area which used the same bus for 

even two loads per day lowered their per pupil costs to $40 

ox* less. In a coordinated, urban pupil transportation system 

it may be possible to raise the bus use factor to thx~ee or 

more. (See "First Report" State Survey and Evaluation.)

47. In the tri-county area in the recent past there

were approximately 1,800 buses (and another 1 0 0 smaller vans) 

used for the tx*ansportation of pupils. Assuming a rough 

average of 50 pupi1s per bus carrying three loads of students 

pex* day, this transportation fleet may prove sufficient to 

carry.some 270,000 pupils. .

48. Various public transit authorities now transport 

an additional 60,000 pupils on theix* regular public runs.

49. The degree to which these plausible bus-use

factors can be realized to their maximum, and whether these 

public transit facilities may be fully utilized in a plan of 

desegregation, must be answered upon careful investigation by 

a panel of experts. ■■

50. There is no disagreement among the parties, and 

the court so finds, that additional transportation facilities, 

at least to the number of 350 buses,-will hove to b e  p u r c h a s e d  

*to meet' the 'increase in the number of students who should be



p r o v i d c d t r a n s p a r t a 11 o n for e.i i.hct an interim or final plan 01

d e s e gr e g a t i o n

51. For all the reasons stated heretofore including

>1 s— desegregation withintime, distance, and transportation facto: 

the area described is physically easier and more practicable 

and. feasible, than desegregation efforts limited to the corporate

geographic limits of the city or Detroit.

52. The issue of transportation of kindergarten 

children, and their inclusion in part or in full in the 

desegregation plan, may require further study. There was 

general agreement among the experts who testified that kinder­

garten, but for "political" considerations, should be included, 

if practicable, in the desegregation plan. Kindergarten, 

however, is generally a half-day program. Transportation of 

kindergarten children for upwards of 45 minutes, one-way, does 

not appear unreasonable, harmful, or unsafe in any way. In 

the absence of some compelling justification, which does not 

yet appear, kindergarten children should be included in the

final plan of desegregation. .

5 3 , Every effort should be made to insure that 

transportation and reassignment of students to accomplish 

desegregation is "two-way" and falls as fairly as possible

on both races. Although the number of black and white children 

transported and reassigned at the outset will be roughly equal, 

it is inevitable that a larger proportion of black children will 

be transported for a greater proportion of their school years 

than white children, if transportation overall is to be 

minimized. To mitigate this disproportion, every effort should 

be made at the outset to randomize the location of particular 

grade centers. In the short term, full utilization of vastly 

V under-capacity inner-city schools may also help to mitigate Inc 

disproportion for some black children; and in the long tc u.«,



s c • ioo J. c cii■ ■ cic x u\5 ( co11 s x '■ x o i’11' \•’xth v.>xii&x con x fc x111 c ioi1;.11

'C O ir u r s a n c ■ - L 1 : c .1...... x  O  } i  B  r  C: ci ci IX d

the surrounding arc!, should be added in Detroit, in relative

P i .  j - i u i .  u y o o c o i i c e n o r - j 1.l? £*• X / .1. < ■-.. o c.' •- ■*.i J, U P * j X Ci O z i C

D. Restructuring of Facilities and Reassignment of Teachers

54. In the reassignment of pupils to accomplish 

desegregation the court finds that facilities must be substantially 

reallocated and faculty substantially reassigned by reason of

the clustering, pairing and grouping-of schools.

55. In order to make the pupil desegregation process

fully effective the court finds that it is essential to integrate 

faculty and staff and to insure that black faculty and staff 

representation at every school is more than token. The court 

has previously found and reaffirms that "a quota or racial 

balance in each school which is equivalent to the system-wide 

ratio and without mere" is educationally unsound, and that 

the desideratum is the balance of staff by qualifications for 

subject and grade level, and then by race, experience and 

sex. It is obvious, given the racial composition of the 

faculty and staff in the schools in the metropolitan plan .

area, and the adjusted racial composition of the students, 

that vacancies and increases and reductions in faculty and 

staff cannot effectively achieve the needed racial balance, 

in this area of the school operation. Active steps must be 

taken to even out the distribution of black teachers and staff 

throughout the system. , .

. 56. In the desegregation area approximately 16% of

the faculty and 12% of the principals and assistant principals 

are black. In this context "token" means roughly less than 

10% black. Moreover, where there is more than one building 

administrator in any - school, ■ a bi-racia.1 administrative team

20™



•  •
is required wherever possible«

57. Every effort should be made to hire and promote,

and to increase such on-going efforts as there may be to hire 

and promote, additional black faculty and staff. Because of 

the systematic and substantial under-employment of black 

administrators and teachers in the tri-county area, an 

affirmative program for black employment should be developed 

and implemented. ' - .

58. The rated capacity of classrooms in the Detroit 

public schools is 32; in some of the suburban districts the 

average rated capacity is as low as 24 or 25. Utilization 

should be redetermined on a uniform basis.

59. In respect to faculty and staff, school 

facilities, and the utilization of existing school capacity, 

normal administrative practice in handling the substantial 

reallocation and reassignment incident to pupil desegregation 

should produce schools substantially alike.

60. In the circumstances of this case, the pairing,

grouping and clustering of schools to accomplish desegregation 

with minimum transportation often requires use of grade 

arrangements such as K-4, K-5, or even K-6 . In so planning 

pupil reassignments, it is sometimes necessary, and often 

administratively practicable, to include grades K- 8 or even 

K-9 to achieve the maximum actual desegregation with the 

minimum transportation. Grade structures in most elementary 

schools in the desegregation area is a basic K-6 ; however, 

almost all other combinations are found. They differ within 

and among various districts. ' .

61. In the reassignments of pupils and teachers 

and tlie reallocation of equipment and facilities required to 

accomplish desegregation, the elementary grades and schools 

present relatively few administrative difficulties, while the



h iqn liooi uxeaier

cl 1 f f 1. C l.1 til •: *• 13, r't j r*;; ! c\ -■ ] y With S O e C1 : 1 A,, am

curriculum,

62. For h

interim choices must be made because of the impossibility of

.immediate desegregation of all grades, schools, and clusters 

in the desegregation area, the weight of the evidence is, and 

the court so finds, that desegregation should begin-first 

at the earliest grades for entire elementary school groupings 

throughout as many clusters as possible.

' E. School Construction ;

63. Relative to suburban districts the Detroit

public schools, as a whole, are considerably over-capacity.

(See also Finding 58, supra.) To alleviate this overcrowding, 

equalize rated capacity and minimize and equalize transportation 

burdens borne by black pupils in the city, needed new school
i

capacity, consistent with other requirements of a desegregation 

plan, should be added on a priority basis in the city of 

Detroit.

64. Relevant to the court's choice of a desegregation 

area more limited than the Detroit Board Proposal is the 

testimony, elicited on cross-examination from two of the 

primary authors of that proposal, related to the effects of 

controlling new school construction. The broader area in the 

Detroit proposal was chosen without any real consideration •

of the impact of controlling school construction in an area 

larger than the desegregation area. Upon reflection, both 

Dr. Flynn and Mr. Henrickson admitted that closely 

scrutinizing and limiting the addition of capacity to areas 

outside the desegregation area might lead them to re-evaluate 

the need,■in the context of maintaining now and hereafter a 

unitary system, to include an area as sweeping as recommended



by the Detroit Board proposal.

65. in our Ruling on Issue or ;t:.grcg<. Lion, PP- 

this court found that the ''residential segregation throughout 

the larger metropolitan area is substantial, pervasive and or 

long standing" and that "governmental actions and inaction at

a h r, i _j. _ -ann Tnfpil hav© combined wi eh all levels, Federal, State and lo-ar, na.o ^

those of private organizations, such as loaning institutions 

and real estate associations and brokerage firms, to establish 

and to maintain the pattern of associations and brokerage 

firms, to establish and to maintain the pattern of residential 

segregation through the Detroit metropolitan area." Be also 

noted"that this deliberate setting of residential patterns had 

an important effect not only on the racial composition of 

inner-city schools but the entire School District of the City 

-of Detroit. (Ruling on Issue of segregation at 3-10.) Just 

as evident is the fact that suburban school districts in the 

main contain virtually all-white schools. The white population 

of the city declined and in the suburbs grew; the black 

population in the city grew, and largely, was contained theiem 

by force of public and private racial discrimination at all

levels. -
6 6 . We also noted the important interaction of

school and residential segregation; "Just as there is an inter­

action 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 schools." 

Ruling on Issue of Segregregation at 10. Cf. fhi§nn__v_. 

rhar 1 ottc-Mecklenberg, 402 U.S. 1, 20-21 Pt'0i- 1

gravitate toward school facilities, just as schools arG ~

in response to the needs of people. The location of schools 

may thus influence the patterns of residential development of a 

metropolitan area and have important impact on c.c -ul ' ’



t
of inner city no ign borl..oocir . "

67. Within the context ot the seyrcgaeory Housing

market, it is obvious that the white families who left the .

city schools would not bo as likely to leave in the absence of

schools, not to mention white schools, to attract, or at least
1 Q /serve, their children. Immigrating families were affecued

in their school and housing choices in a similar manner. Between 

1950 and 1969 in the tri-county area, approximately 13,900

"regular classrooms," capable of serving and attracting over
19/ . . . .  .400,000 pupils, were added in school districts which were less

than 2% black in their pupil racial composition in the 1970-71
school year. (P«M. 14; P.M„ 15).

0 3 . The precise effect of this massive school

construction on the racial composition of Detroit area public

schools cannot be measured. It is clear, however, that the
2 0 / , - ,effect has been substantial.”  Unfortunately, the State,

despite its awareness of the important impact of school 

construction and announced policy to control it, acted in 

keeping generally, with the discriminatory practices which 

advanced or perpetuated racial segregation in these schools."

Ruling on Issue of Segregation at .15; see also id., at 13.

69. In addition to the interim re-evaluation of new

school construction required in the order, pursuant to the 

State Board's own requirements, the final plan will consider 

other appropriate provisions for future construction throughout 

the metropolitan area. .

F. Governance, Finance and Administrative Arrangements

70. The plans submitted by the State Board, the 

Detroit Board, and the intervening defendants Magdowski, ct al.,

discuss generally possible governance, finance, and administrative
2 1 / v;hich may be appropriate for operation of an arrangements— w " ' J -1- ~ J

"interim or final plan of desegregation. V!ithout parsing m

O  A



#
1 1 C 1 1 i v. C:r CS L1n -j

■*■11 at >?a< ’ll contcm! >la1

overlaying come blood educational authority over the $rea,
" “ " . I .

use or eventual redrawing of: existing districts), ana 

considerable input at the individual school, level. The court 

has made no decision in this regard and v/ill consider the

matter at a subsequent hearing. -

73 Each concept needs to be "fleshed-out" in the

hard prospect of implementation of a final plan of 

desegregation and what is necessary and essential, and only 

that, for the successful operation of that plan of school 

desegregation now on an interim basis and hereafter on a 

permanent foot ing.

72.. There are now some 8 6 school districts in the 

tri-county area of varying size, numbers or pupils, shapes, 

and wealth.
73. In another context, the State Board ox Education 

found each related to a "metropolitan, core city" (Detroit) as 

"city," "town," or "urban fringe" districts.

74. The boundaries of these school dis’ m

general bear no relationship to other municipal, county,
22 /

or special district governments, needs or services":..

75. Some educational services are already 

provided to students on an interdistrict, county, inter­

county, or metropolitan basis; and many support services 

are provided by the intermediate school districts and the 

State Department of Education. For various reasons many

pupils already cross school district lines to attend school
. £ 1 /or receive educational services.

76. In many respects— pattorns of economic life, woih, 

play, population, planning, transportation, health services- the



comma) n: . ! C ;ut th the Urn. S t a t c i

C ensus Bxxreau, s m J.e .rci metropolitan statistic area.

77, Local, units of government in the metropolitan* 

area have in many instances joined together for the purpose 

of providing better solutions to problems confronting them.

In such instances various units of government have either 

disregarded local boundaries or have concluded that the 

problems were such as to call for a metropolitan solution.

In some cases they have created overlay organizations,

SEli COG, recreational authorities, a metropolitan sewage system, 

SEMTA, and the Detroit Water System are examples of these

metropolitan approaches. ' .

78. Indeed, the State defendants at this very 

moment are attempting in state court to strike down one 

irrationality, and the discriminatory effect, of the existing 

school district arrangement, j_. e_. , finance, apparently in the 

hope of moving to a virtual state-wide assumption of costs.

7 9 > In such circumstances there has been no showing 

that the existing school district boundaries are rationally 

related to any legitimate purpose; and the court finds that the 

particular welter of existing boundaries for 8 6 school districts 

is not necessary to the promotion of any compelling state 

interest. ■

BO. On the basis of the present record, the court 

is of the view that the shifts in faculty, staff, resources 

and equipment and the exchanges of pupils necessary to 

accomplish maximum actual desegregation may be made, at least 

on an interim basis, by contractual agreements or otherwise 

among and between the existing school districts. The court 

has serious reservations, however, whether such procedures 

will inevitably threaten the continuing effectiveness of a



I

• 0

plan or cnar.:cgr>;pa rion ever tno icny-unerar bn 1he:- >■; leeaos

rn o r e e  v i. d e  r> c e a;nd further hearings v/i}I bo neccscary bef:or<

r e a  c h  i n g  a  f i n a  1 c>. e c i s i oi i - 1

81 T h e S t a i: e d e f  e n d a n t s , Said in par
|

ticular the

State Board of }ducation which is chSrged with the primary

re s  p on sib i1i t y for public education in Michigan , are the

p r i m a r y  p a r t i e s  t o  b e  c h a r g e d  w i t h  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  t o  u n d e r t a k e  

t h a t  v i t a l  i n q u i r y  a n d  r e t u r n  w i t h  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  a b o u t  t h o s e  

g o v e r n a n c e , f i n a n c i a l ,  a n d  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  a r r a n g e m e n t s  w h i c h  

a r e  n e c e s s a r y  a n d  e s s e n t i a l  t o  t h e  s u c c e s s f u l  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  

o f  a  p l a n  o f  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  o n  a n  i n t e r i m  a n d  c o n t i n u i n g  b a s i s .

G . I n v o l v e m e n t  o f  A f f e c t e d  P e r s o n s  a n d  C o m m u n i t i e s  a n d  

P r o t e c t i o n  A g a i n s t  R a c i a l  D i s c r i m i n a t i o n  i n  t h e  

D e s e g r e g a t i o n  P r o c e s s

8 2 .  T h e  c o u r t  h a s  r e c e i v e d  

i n  t h e  p l a n s  f i l e d  b y  e v e r y  p a r t y  a n d  

a d v i c e  i n  s e v e r a l  b r i e f s  a m i c u s  c u r i a e  

t h a t  t h e  f o l l o w i n g  a d d i t i o n a l  f a c t o r s

uncontroverted evidence 

in t e s t imony, and 

, and the court finds, 

are essentia1 to

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  a n d  o p e r a t i o n  o f  a n  e f f e c t i v e  p l a n  o f

d e s e g r e g a t i o n  i n  t h e  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  o f  t h i s  c a s e :

( a )  B i - r a c i a l  c o u n c i l s  m a d e  u p  o f  t h e  p a r e n t s  a n d  

s t a f f ,  a n d ,  w h e r e  a p p r o p r i a t e ,  p u p i l s ,  s h o u l d

. b e  s e t  u p  a t  e a c h  s c h o o l ;  t h e  p e r s o n s  m o s t  

a f f e c t e d  m u s t  b e  e n c o u r a g e d  a n d  g i v e n  e v e r y  

o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  p a r t i c i p a t e  i n  t h e  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  

o f  d e s e g r e g a t i o n .

( b )  C u r r i c u l u m  c o n t e n t ,  a n d  a l l  c u r r i c u l u m  m a t e r i a l s  

a n d  s t u d e n t  c o d e s ,  m u s t  b e  r e - e v a l u a t e d  a n d  

r e f l e c t  t h e  d i v e r s i t y  o f  e t h n i c  a n d  c u l t u r a l  

b a c k g r o u n d s  o f  t h e  c h i l d r e n  n o w  i n  t h e  s c h o o l s .

' A s  f a r  a s  p o s s i b l e ,  t h o s e  i m m e d i a t e l y  a f f e c t e d

b y  t h e s e  d e c i s i o n s  a t  t h e  i n d i v i d u a l  s c h o o l  

l e v e l  s h o u l d  p a r t i c i p a t e  i n  t h a t  p r o c e s s .

( c )  I n - s e r v i c e  t r a i n i n g  f o r  f a c u l t y  a n d  s t a f f  l o r  

m u l t i - e t h n i c  s t u d i e s  a n d  h u m a n  r e l a t i o n s  s h o u l d  

b e  r e q u i r e d ;  w e  m u s t ,  a f t e r  a l l ,  r e l y  p r i m a r i l y

*'"■  . o n  o u r  t e a c h e r s  a n d  c h i l d r e n  t o  r e s p e c t ,  n u r t u r e ,

a n d  d e a l  w i t h  t h e  d i v e r s i t y  o f  s t u d e n t s  p r e s e n t -  

i n  t h e  d e s e g r e g a t e d  s c h o o l .

. . ( d )  T h e  e n t i r e  g r a d i n g ,  r e p o r t i n g ,  c o u n s e l l i n g ,  a n d

, • t e s t i n g  p r o g r a m  s h o u l d  b o  r e v i e w e d  i n  l i g h t  oi.

O *7



Is c t . r e d  to traditional 
id iio.posi.riC! the effects of 
■ on the eh a Iclren , Ttack.lfiq,
a : ; i 0 1.. 0 Cl , vOi.... eh b£iS

do? ■ d:: s c r i  >d pa

racial effects should not be utilizecl;j within 
schools a pattern oi; classes which are:

• r . -v *| -s f -  -j - -• - *1 1  > -t • v- - - *  ■ •; -  - p  4- p  o  -.•** ~ p r - ' F! 1

composition from the relevant school or grade 
mix should be closely scrutinised and maintained 
only if necessary to promote a compelling 
e d u c a t i on a 1 object i ve. .

83. In making the finding above, we remind the

parties that this court's task is to enforce constitutional 

rights not to act as a schoolmaster;! the court’s task is to 

protect the constitutional rights here found violated with as 

little intrusion into the education process as possible. The 

court’s objective is to establish the minimum constitutional 

framework within which the system of public schools may operate 

now and hereafter in a racially unified, non-discriminatory 

fashion. Within that framework the body politic, educators, 

parents, and most particularly the children must be given the 

maximum opportunity to experiment and secure a high quality, 

and equal, educational opportunity. However, experience has 

proven that specific goals, deadlines and methods of 

reporting and review must be required in all desegregation 

cases to insure compliance. •

show why desegregation for all schools, grades, classrooms, 

and pupils in the desegregation area should not proceed now, 

i_.e_. , in the context of this litigation, for the 1972 fall 

term. The design and implementation of desegregation plans 

for all grades in 15 clusters— including pupil assignments, 

necessary reassignment of faculty and restructuring of 

facilities, planning and acquiring the needed transportation 

-.facilities— is conceded .by all parties to be a major undertakin 

Yet next fall will already be a full year, not just four or six

II. Timing

84. The burden remains with State defendants to



• •
S C; "i O O j f ’ f < i 7  ] 2 S 0 (1970) ,  aTtey the initial rv. l ' no

by this court of the need for maximum fear.ito-le desegrpgation
i

•s* t *"now. In such ciro i c~ ■* ■ y- Th r' fy p b o "~<r] I;O DfOVG 1the

i n f ea sit o i1 ity of implementation of complet e relief is high.

85. The deseqregation panel, theref ore , must make

every e f f or t t o p 1 a n to implement as much actual de s e g r eg a t i on

for as many clusterI ,  schoo 1 s ,  g rad es ,  c 1 aasrooms , and student

as pos sible .

8 6 . At a minimum, there is agreement among, and

evidence from, the experts that desegregating severa1 g rad e s,

and more particularly entire elementary schools, within many, 

if not all, clusters-may toe accomplished in the fall.

87. In view of pindings 60 to 62, supra, if 

hard choices must toe made for the fall, any interim plan 

should attempt to desegregate grades K—5, K~8 , or K--9 

in as many entire clusters as possible; and, in the absence 

of some other showing, there appears no reason why a complete 

plan may not toe implemented toy fa3.1 1973. ' "

8 8 . A heavy burden rests with those who seek delay 

in any way, shape, kind, degree or extent to convince the 

court that maximum actual desegregation cannot proceed .

effectively forthwith.

89. In view of the time constraints, the need 

to discharge this burden forthwith, the State defendants'

default in assisting this court to determine the appropriate 

desegregation area, and the State defendants' asserted and 

evident lack of available planning capacity suited to the 

task, the court finds that some additional entity must toe 

charged with the task of preparing a pupil assignment plan to 

accomplish maximum actual desegregation and a transportation 

plan within the framework this day established. To that end



a pane] of ski lied experts, broadly representative of the

a s s i q n e d t h a t t a sk requn. red to uxscnarqe erreetiveb

and promptly these two tasks,

90. State defendants remain charged with the duty, 

however,•of coming forward with, other necessary reports and 

plans concerning those governance, administrative, and 

financial'arrangements necessary and essential to the 

implementation of an effective plan of desegregation on an 

interim and on-going basis.

- I. The Plan ■

91. Based on the entire evidence amassed in this 

case, the court finds that an educationally sound, 

administratively feasible, constitutionally adequate, 

practicable and effective plan of desegregation rnay be developed 

implemented and operated hereafter for'the desegregation area

as set forth in findings .1-90 above. ■

3 0 -



CO

1. The court has continuing jurisdiction of this 

action for all purposes, including the granting of effective ' 

relief. Bradley v. Milliken, Ruling on Issue of Segregation, 

September 27, 1971; Findings of Fact and Conclusions or Law 

on Detroit-Only Plans of Desegregation, March 28, 1972.

2 . A de jure segregation violation having been found, 

the minimum remedy is maximum actual desegregation, taking
21

into account the practicalities of the situation. V Bradley v,

Mil,liken, Oral Order, October 4, 1971; Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only Plans of Desegregation,

March 28, 1972; Brown v„ Board of Education, 347 IBS. 383 (1954), 

349 UoS0 294 (1954); Green v, County School Bd., 391 U„S„ 430

(1968) ; Alexander v. Holmes Coun.ty Bd._of Ed« , ‘396 U.S. 19

(1969) ; Carter v. West Feliciano School Bd., 396 U 0S 0 290 (1970); 

Swann v. Char .lotto fleck lonberg Bd, of Ed., 402 U 0S. 1 (1971) ;

Davis v . Board of _School Commissioners of Mobile , 402 U DS . 33 

(1971); Davis v. School District of City of Pontiac, 443 F.2d 

573, cert, denied, 925 U 0S„ 233 (1971).

3. The remedial obligation rests with school 

authorities; but where in any way they fail, or are unable 

because of the circumstances of the case, to fulfill any part 

of the obligation promptly and fully, the court has broad 

equity power, and the duty, to insure that demonstrable progress 

be made now; that a schedule for planning be adopted forthwith; 

and that necessary planning be specifically ordered and 

immediately undertaken in order that a constitutionally adequate 

plan may be fashioned and finally ordered implemented as soon 

as possib 1 e . Swann_ v.. Chariot! c---Hccklonhorg Board of EdiKxytjmgn., 

311 'F- Supp- 265 (VhBJLC. 1970) , nff^d, 402 U*S. 3 (1973 );

Carter v. West Feliciano School Bd., 396 U.S. 226, 2 2 7 - 2 2 8



• •
(1569) , on'r. xr c* ') Q { 1 Q 7 •'■V} . Arr-,(. ., _ ■ ■ , y j?r>-

F cd . R . n i - p p 7\ ;> p v. .MVciiSsi i 3 J4 F
1

a Supp. 1247,

1266™7 (E ,D . Pa . 1971) . <Only then will the courfc i. n fc. li x s

case be apprised fully of the practicalities of the situation

and what is reasonable and feasible, in order that a final 

order may issue, School authorities, of course., will be given 

an opportunity to (.1) raise relevant objections, (2 ) make 

suggestions for modifications, (3} or present an alternative 

plan of desegregation; and their judgment and expertise will 

be considered and given appropriate weight by the court.

4. Funds must either be raised or reallocated, where 

necessary, to remedy the deprivation of plaintiffs' constitutional 

rights and to insure that no such unconstitutional neglect 

recurs again. Shapiro v. Thompson, 397 U„S. 254, 265-266 (1970); 

Bod die v . Con n e c t i c u t , 91 S.Ct. 780, 788 (1971) ; Griffin v. 

Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U„S0 

365, 374-375 (1971); Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 197 (1971);

Griffin v« Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 (1964); Hoosier v.

Evans, 3.14 F. Supp. 316, 320-321 (D„St. Croix, 1970) ; United 

States v. School District 151, 301 F. Supp. 201, 232 (N.Do

111. 1969), aff'd as modified, 432 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1970), 

cert, denied, 402 U CS. 943 (1971); Plaquemines Parish School 

Board v. U 0S ., 415 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1970); Bradley v.

Richmond, ___ __F. Supp.______ _ (April 1971); Brewer v. Norfolk,

No. 71-1900 (4th Cir., March 7, 1972)(Slip op. at pp. 7-8).

It would be a cruel mockery of constitutional law if a

different rule were to be applied to school desegregation cases. 

After all schooling is this nation's biggest industry and the 

most important task of government left to the states by the 

...Constitution. In this case, were a different rule to be 

applied, it would constitute a aiaantic hvoocr i s v : A f t e r a 1.1



iii«3xnLc$ in  in  9 Lnt- s c cj r o 9 & *c gg cone' x i; i  on f ■£ Jig x" g 1  z t ti i v  g 3 y si^nl 1 

amounts of money required to undo that segregation can be 

found. The law, surely, reoujpc’s a t ! o; ■ st -f- ’, -■? -?- jnp m -,„ 

application of the.commands of Swarm does require that in almost 

every senool desegregation case which has been brought to this 

court's attention. .

5* In the substantial reassignment of faculty and 

restructuring of facilities required by the clustering, pairing, 

and grouping of schools to accomplish pupil desegregation, 

normal administrative practice should lead to schools with 

substantially like facilities, faculty and staff, and equipment. 

Swcann, supra, 402 U.S. at 18-20. Moreover, special care should 

be taken in the necessary reassignment of faculty to avoid 

creating or maintaining the racial identification of schools 

simply Jay reference to the racial composition of teachers and 

staff." Swann, supra, 402 U.SC at 18. In any event, the 

equitable discretion of the court is broad enough to insure 

that those aspects of faculty desegregation and equalization 

Oj_ facilities which are essential to the effective operation of 

a desegregation plan are included in the planning and final 

order, Swann, supra, 402 U.S. at 15; UkS. v. Montgomery County 

jjoprcL.0f Ed.. , 395 U0S c 225 (1969) ; Hecht v . Bowles ; 321 U.S . 

329-330 (1944); and no contract, union agreement or otherwise, 

or Board policy or practice may impede these Fourteenth ■

Amendment obligations. U.S._v. Greenwood Municipal Separate

^ 1 2 °LJDl§trict, 406 F . 2 d 1086, 1094 (5th C i r.) , cert, denied ,

395 U.S. 90/ (1.969) ; Berry v. Benton Harbor, _ F. Supp.

(W.D.Mich. 1971).

6 . The Federal courts have repeatedly rejected plans 

exempting the lower grades from integration, relying less on



iCU

< {n v t} > o non of; the lav/. See,

e.q., United States v . o r fere on C o u n t y Bd . of fcliic. , 372 

2d 8^6 (9t h C '<" 1 f'sr<) - •" * " 1 ■ , 380

F . 2d 385 (5th Cir. 19G7) . 

from a desegregation plan 

"root and brancli. " Green

To leave grades K through 3 exempt 

is not to eliminate segregation 

v. Countv'School Board of New Kent

County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). .

7. The consistent application of settled const!- 

tuional law invests this court with the equitable power, and 

the duty, to order preparation, and thereafter implementation, 

of a practicable and sound plan which embodies the principles

set forth in these findings and conclusions and the attached 

memorandum and order. See, generally, Ruling on Propriety of 

Considering a Metropolitan Remedy to Accomplish Desegregation 

of the Public Schools of the City of Detroit, March 24, .1972;

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Detroit-Only

Plans, March 24, 1972; oral ruling on offers of proof, April 13, 

1972; and the cases cited therein.

8 „. School construction practices throughout the 

metropolitan area have added to and reinforced the pattern of 

segregation referred to. Although there were vacant seats 

throughout the city to which students could have been assigned 

at lesser cost and with the achievement of integration, 

continued sums were expended for construction of new schools 

designed to service particular areas of racial concentration, and 

such schools opened as and have continued to be racially 

ientifiahle in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Swann v. 

Chari o11 o-Meck3,enberg Bd i of F.duc. , 402 U.S 0 1, 18-20 (1971) ;

. United States v. School pis!, 15 3., 404 F.2d 1125, 1132-33 ,

(7th Cir. 1968); Davis v. School Pi st . of Pontiac, 309 F. Supp.



• > '; i / ,

1971) : :
-y ; p \ (> u 1 i L 5.

50.1, !> i. 1 ~~18 (Cc LJ V ■ v O,, .1. J. J- «. ...t, .F / U l t In w i v, Son Franc i sco

limit 1uu 5ch oo.l J •' A > t- t f C.- j.. V » i\ O • L» i ’*-3 J. O ..L { i\ & JJ o C cl X J- i

April 28, 1971,) ; Brower v. School Board of the City of

Norfolk, 397 F. 2d 37, 42 (4th Cir. 1968) ; C f , S1 oa n v. Tenth

S ch ao 1 D i. s t. o f SOD Oaunty, F. 2d (6 th Cir. 1970) ;

Unit e0 Sta te s v. Board of Educ. of Polk County, F . 2d

(4th Cir. 1968) r Kc1 lev v,. Altheime;r, F . 2 d (8 u li. 0 x it o

.1967) ; Bradley v. School Bd. , F • Supp....._ (E„Do Va.

1971) ; Clark v. Boa r d _ _qf E d u c v o f Ilittle Rock., 401 U 0S. 971

(1971) .

9. The legal effects of racially discriminatory 

confinement to a school district are not different from the 

effects of such containment within a district. E_. , Lee v .

Macon County Board of Education, 558 F,2d 746 (5th Cir. 1571); 

ilanev v. County Board Sevier, 410 F.2d 920 (8 th Cir. 1969) , 429 

F . 2d 364 (8 th Cir. 1970).

10. Where the actions of state defendants and local

school authorities throughout the metropolitan area have had 

the natural, foreseeable, and actual effect of building upon, 

taking advantage of, and encouraging racially segregated 

demographic patterns deliberately fixed by governmental action 

at all levels with the effect of creating and maintaining racial 

segregation in the public schools, there is a present obligation 

to eliminate the continuing effects of such violation; and .

the District Court has the duty, upon default by school 

authorities, to intervene to secure compliance with the 

Constitution pursuant to the sound exercise of traditional equity

powers consistent with the practicalities of,the local situation.

Swann v. Char] ntte-Mec onberg, '4 02 II, 1, 15-16, 20-21, 31-



A"X » J J )

established, it is the responsibility of school authorities and

abandonment is.not used and does not serve to perpetuate or 

re-establish the violation. Swann, supra, 402 U 0S 0 at 21.

are substantially implicated in the segregation violation found 

and are ultimately responsible f.or public schooling throughout 

the state, the consistent application of constitutional 

principles requires that this court take all steps necessary 

and essential to require them to desegregate the Detroit public 

schools effectively and maintain, now and hereafter, a racially 

unified, non-discriminatory system in the absence of a showing 

that the judicial intervention here contemplated will frustrate 

the promotion of a legitimate and compelling state policy or 

interest. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U 0S C 533, 575 (1964); Hunter v. 

City of Pittsburg, 207 U,S. 161, 178-179 (1907); Phoenix v. 

Kolodziejski, 399 U 0S. 204, 212-213 (1970); Kramer v. Union 

Free School District, 395 U 0S. 621, 633 (1969); Williams v. 

Illinois, 399 U 0S 0 235, 244-45 (1970); Shelton v. Tuckcr,

364 U 0S„ 479, 488 (1966); Green v. County School Bd., 391 U 0S 0 

430, 439, 442; Swann v , Char1otte-Mook 1enberg, 402 U 0S. 1 (1971) 

Davis v. Bd. of School Commissioners, 402 U 0S 0 33 (1971);

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U 0S 0 483 (1954); Brown v. Board 

of Education, 349 U CS. 292, 300 (1955); Monroe v. Board of 

Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450, 459 (1968). -

district courts to see to it that future school construction and'

1 1 . Moreover, where the State, and named defendants,



•  •

1 . In the main such proof entirely misses the point: 
the violation here found has to do with school segregation 
caused in substantial part by force of public authority and 
action; yet the intervening defendants' questions and .offer of- 
proof speak mainly to educational theory and recent and some­
times contradictory research about narrowly measured educational 
effects, mostly on achievement test scores, of quite limited 
beginnings of racial, or socio-economic integration of various 
types and as compared with the effects of dollar or other 
resource inputs and continued segregation. .This court does 
not understand, however, that such research, from the Coleman 
report to its many reanalyses, formed the primary bases for 
the Brown decision or any of its progeny. See, e.g.', Brunson v. 
Bd. of Trustees, 429 F.2d 820, 826 (4th Cir. 1970) (J. Sobeloff,
concurring). In a context similar to newly intervening 
defendants' objections to desegregation, the Supreme Court in 
Swann specifically held that such factors constitute an 
impermissible limit upon the duty to desegregate. 402 U CS* 
at 24, Fn. 8 . Citation to such research, either in support 
or rejection of school desegregation, misses the primary point: 
insofar as pupil assignments are concerned, the system of 
public schooling in every state must be operated in a racially 
non-discriminatory, unified fashion; until that objective is 
met, the very system of public schooling constitutes an invidious 
racial classification. The adoption of an education theory 
having the effect of maintaining a pattern of de jure segre­
gation is therefore clearly impermissible. (Whether such 
theories, research, or evidence on educational quality or

__  _ T 4 J -  _C J -  V , ^   ̂ ^  4  r -  v  o>  ̂ -y -C v»  v* ^  -4 i  4  c> 1  r~ \r\
/  i  w .'—i a - c- y J- v_/ i i i  t m -  c* .x. O  j  -<•** ~ ^  -

and relief in. the absence of a finding of de jure segregation • 
is a question this court need not face.) •

In any event, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit held, on June 19, 1970, that greater, not less, 
desegregation is the proper manner to alleviate the problem of 
disparity in achievement. Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 
Jackson, Tenn., 427 F.2d 1005, 1008 (C0A„ 6 , 1970) .

2. Chief Justice Burger in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg
Bd. of Educ., 402 U„S. 1, 6 . .

3. DefendantsMagdowski, et al., originally opposed to 
desegregation, during the course of the taking of proofs on 
the issue of segregation, conceded that the public schools of 
the city of Detroit were in fact segregated, and took the 
early lead in suggesting that the only effective avenue for 
desegregation was a metropolitan plan. The Detroit Board of 
Education, while continuing to deny that it has been guilty of 
any act of segregation, took the position that if desegregation 
were to be undertaken it could be done only on a metropolitan 
basis. So that now the white parents of the city of Detroit and 
its Board of Education— the .parties most, directly involved with 
the lot of the students in the Detroit school system— see no 
alternative to, and, for all practical purposes seek a 
metropolitan solution to the basic Detroit school problem.

• 4. . In the context of this hearing, the defendant Detroit
Board of Education is not in a position to act as the usual

i



"school a 
appropria 
does not 
Detroit. 
expertise

uthority" primarily responsible for suggesting an 
te desegregation area' simply because its authority 
extend beyond the geographic limits of the city of 
The competence, knowledge of local conditions, and 
of those schoolmen who helped prepare the Detroit

Board's proposal, however, may be utilized and given appropriate
weight.

5. In Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, #K88-71,
Judge Fox pointed out the primary responsibility of the state: 
"The State of Michigan is represented by two entities, but 
the entity is an agent of the State . . . [T]he Constitution
says something about your [the State's] responsibility."
The court went on to order the State to take an active role. 
Pre-trial order and transcript, May 1, 1972.

6 . The Detroit Board plan places heavier reliance on 
white flight and socio-economic factors, while the Magdowski 
•proposal in addition places an emphasis on maintaining a minimum 
percentage black in each school. These considerations in
no way determine the court's choice of a desegregation area 
necessary to meet constitutional requirements. In fairness, 
however, it also should be noted that the desegregation area, 
which the court deems to best meet constitutional requirements, 
also happens in the main, to meet the other concerns expressed 
in these two proposals. That the Board's interest in socio­
economic integration is largely met by racial desegregation 
is not surprising. - There is uncontroverted evidence in the 
record, and the court so finds, that there is a high correlation 
between blacks and nersons of a low sori o—econom.i c status , the 
result, in the main, of the cumulative effects of past and • 
present'racial discrimination including discrimination in 
education. At some point hereafter, of course, school 
authorities with responsibility for implementation and operation 
of the racially-unified non-discriminatory school system 
contemplated, or parts thereof, may and should include in its 
plan other educational goals and needs whether or not they are 
required by the law or any court. Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenberg, 402 U.S. at 16. •

7. If a state is constitutionally forbidden to institute 
a system of racial segregation by the vise of artifical 
boundary lines, it is likewise forbidden to perpetuate a system 
whose effect is to maintain segregation. "There is no legally 
protected vested interest in segregation. If there were, then 
Brown v. Board of Education and the numerous decisions based 
on that case would be pointless. Courts will not say in one 
breath that public school systems may not practice segregation, 
and in the next that they may do nothing to eliminate it." 
Wanner v. School Bd. of Arlington County, 357 F.2d 452, 
(Soboloff, Cir. J.), pp. 454 and 455. The historic fact is 
that existing conditions are based on a design to segregate 
the races. To hold that segregation, once accomplished, is 
sacrosanct and beyond constitutional reach, is to say that the 
united Staves Constitution and its Amendments, find their 
provisions for equality, are mere rhetoric.

• 8 . See Findings 70-78, infra.

ii



•  •
9. The interplay of these two factors summarizes two 

other guideposts or starting points: maximum feasible desegregation 
and eliminating racially identifiable schools. Factors such as 
time and distance limitations, together with the rough definitions 
of substantial disproportion with the relevant school community's’ 
pupil racial composition, in turn largely determine the meaning 
of "eliminating racially identifiable schools" and what con­
stitutes "maximum feasible desegregation," in the particular 
circumstances here present and in the-context of a prior finding 
of segregation. •'

10. The Detroit Board Proposal contemplates desegregation 
on a "minority"-white basis. The proof in this cause, however, 
has been aimed at the segregation of black children and white 
children; similarly the remedy has been so defined, argued, 
and in the main presented by parties. The court finds, 
therefore, that the area, and further planning, should, in the 
main, be confined to a black-white breakdown.

11. To the Southwest, Plaintiffs' Proposal falls on the 
side of less time in transit than the 40-minute guideline 
because inclusion of more area is not required to desegregate. 
(See Finding 27, infra.)

12. Moreover, in the main, the areas, schools, and pupils 
in these districts are not as fully members of the greater 
Detroit school community: many are less urban; they are the 
furthest in terms of time, distance, and contact from the 
Detroit area's economic and social acitivities; and many are 
more oriented, if anything, to urban areas other than Detroit, 
for example, the Ann Arbor - Ypsilanti area.

13. The court notes, however, that the range of average 
socio-economic status for the various regions or clusters 
in Plaintiffs' Proposal is similar to that in the Detroit Board 
Proposal: based on the Michigan Assessment the range in 
Plaintiffs' Proposal happens to be 44.7 to 53.7, while in the 
Detroit Board Proposal the range is 46.3 to 53; and only three 
of the 15 clusters of schools in Plaintiffs' Proposal fall 
below 46.3.

14. Because of the closeness of the question, particularly 
as it relates to any problems which may arise hereafter in .
establishing a pupil desegregation plan, the court feels that 
some opportunity should be given to the expert panel to suggest 
a modification of this tentative resolution. See also Findings 34­
38 below. ' . .

15. A common practice in other cases is the use of "pupil
locator" maps. See Northcross v. School Board of City of 
Memphis,____F.2d____ (6 th Cir. 1971).

16. For years these city-contained school districts, 
which include some suburban districts in the desegregation areai, 
as well as the Detroit Public Schools, have demanded without 
-success that this inequitable state practice be changed so that 
all districts could be reimbursed on the same basis for pupil 
transportation.

!



17. The figure almost twice that which appears in 
several of the State "plans" was based on the assumption that 
busing would be "one-way" with black children being assigned to 
suburban schools. Mr. Wagner, the state official in charge of 
pupil transportation, provided the information on wbicjh that 
estimate was based and also informed his superiors that a two­
way plan of desegregation and transportation would cost much 
less per pupil. The State defendants did not bring this 
important fact to the court's attention in any of their 
submissions; it was uncovered and fully explored in the 
deposition of Mr. Wagner taken by plaintiffs. •

18. This phenomenon was noted in Swann, 402 U.S. 1, 20-21.
The principle was long known, and actively, supported by the 
F.H.A. For example, consider that public agency's early 
understanding in its 1936 manual that white subdivision 
developments require white schools: "if the children of
people living in such area are compelled to attend school 
where the majority or a good number of the pupils represent
a far lower’ level of society or an incompatible racial element, 
the neighborhood under consideration will prove far less stable 
and desirable than if the condition did not exist."

19. This figure assumes 30 children/regular classroom.
Although rated capacities may be lower, the figure for 
regular classrooms does not include several types of 
instructional, recreational, laboratory, and other rooms which 
add overall pupil capacity to schools. .

20. The resulting pattern is unmistakable: "Residential 
segregation within the city and throughout the larger 
metropolitan area is substantial, pervasive and of long standing. 
Black citizens are located in separate and distinct areas within 
the city and are not generally 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 or racial 
discrimination, both public and private, which have and do 
restrict the housing opportunities of black people. Perhaps
the most that can be said is that all of them [various 
governmental units], including school authorities, are, in 
part, responsible for the segregated condition which exists." 
Ruling on Issue of Segregation, 8 and 10. Moreover, an 
examination of PX 181, 192 and 185 shows that black children often 
remain isolated in predominately black schools in the few 
suburban school districts' with any numbers of black pupils.
In the last several weeks the local press has reported that 
the United States Office of Education cut off funds for one 
such district.

21 . Included in this set of arrangements are contract 
.relationships of various types concerning personnel, property 
and debts. •

22. The defendant, William G. Milliken, Governor of the 
v.State of Michigan, in his amicus brief filed in the Supreme 
'Court of tire United States, No. 71-1332, San Antonio Independent
School District v. Demetrio P. Rodriguez, says, page II:



"1 . Amici, whose individual and particular interests 
are set forth in more detail below, are the Governors of the 
above-listed States. As Governors and chief executive 
officers of their respective States, Amici are responsible 
for upholding and carrying out the commands of the 
Constitutions and laws of their various States, including - 
the provisions thereof requiring the establishment of 
public schools and school districts and commanding the 
children of their States to attend school. Amici are 
responsible for financial decisions affecting all State 
operations, including those pertaining to support and 
financing of the public schools.

• "Amici are deeply concerned about the ongoing and
continuing crisis in public education and the difficulties 
facing public educational systems in their States and around 
the nation. Amici recognize that grave inequities exist 
because of variation in local property tax bases upon which 
local school districts must rely in order to support their 
school systems. Amici believe that these inequalities in 
educational resources violate the requirements of the 
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution and that these inequalities 
must be eliminated* * * *"

The Governors' amicus brief, speaking of the 
State of Texas, could as well be said of the State of Michigan, when 
it used these words:

"It is also undisputed that the local school districts and 
’ their boundaries, and hence the aggregate value of the property 

they contain, are entirely the creation of and their main­
tenance is the responsibility of the State of Texas. Further­

. more, the detailed regulation of public education financing 
in Texas * * * is a state not a local responsibility.
Indeed, the school districts have the power to raise funds 
for education only as a result of delegation by the State of 
its own power to tax for the general welfare." (Page 8 of 
brief.)

"Since the State could not discriminate directly against 
students residing in,poorer localities, it should not be 
permitted to accomplish the same result by dividing its 
responsibility for equal education with .local school districts 
and failing to supplement the funds raised by the school 
districts sufficiently to eliminate discrimination." * (Page 11 
of brief.)

* Compare Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218 (1964) . 
While a State may delegate certain of its functions to smaller 
subdivisions such as cities or counties, it cannot escape 
accountability for their actions. Such subdivisions are "created 
as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental 
powers of the State as may be entrusted to them* * * * The
number, nature, and duration of [their] powers * * * and
the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the 
absolute discretion of the State." Hunter v. City of Pittsburg,
207 U 0S 0 161, 178 (1907). . ■

23. For years black children in the Carver School District
were assigned to black schools in the inner city because no white 
suburban -district (or white school in the city) would take the 
children. ‘

v



•  •
24. These findings are made on the basis of the present 

record and are subject to modification based on evidence which 
may be developed once the specific problems o'f actual desegrega 
tion are faced in the planning process.

25. See, Kelley, et al. v. Metropolitan Bd. of Educ., -
CCA 6 , Nos. 71-1778-79, page 22, slip opinion, May 30, 1972:

"Perhaps the primary thing that the Swann case 
decided was that in devising plans to terminate such 
residual effects, it is appropriate for the school system 
and the District Judge to take note of the proportion of 
white and black students within the area* and seek as 
practical a plan as may be for ending white schools and 
black schools and substituting therefor schools which 
are representative of the area in which the students live.

*The area referred to in this case is all of Davidson 
County, including the City of Nashville, which is 
included in the jurisdiction of defendant
.Metropolitan Board of Education.



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

ORDER '.
FOR ACQUISITION OF TRANSPORTATION
At a session of the United States 
District Court, Federal Building, 
Detroit, Michigan, on the /.J 
day of ___19727

The Court has received a recommendation from the Panel 
appointed under its previous orders that 295 buses,which it had 
determined are available, should be acquired for the purpose of 
providing transportation under an interim plan. The Court also 
had before it the still pending motion of Plaintiffs for the
purchase of 350 buses. Having heard the arguments of counsel, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

t f

1. The Defendant Detroit Board of Education shall
acquire by purchase, lease or other contractual arrangement at 
least 295 buses for use in the "interim desegregation plan during 
the 1972-73 school year.- All financial obligations incurred as

APPENDIX E



*

the result of this Order shall be the sole financial obligation 
of the State Defendants, including the added State Defendant 
State Treasurer Allison Green, as set forth below in Paragraph 2. 
Said order, lease, or other contract shall be entered into by 
negotiation and without the necessity for bids forthwith and in 
no event later than Thursday, July 13, 1972.

2. The State Defendants shall bear the cost of this
acquisition and State Defendants, including the added State __
Defendant Green, shall take .all necessary steps utilizing existing 
funds and sources of revenue, to be acquired State funds, legis­
latively authorized and funds directed by the State Constitution 
to the State School Aid Funds and by re-allocation of existing or 
new funds to pay for said transportation acquisition either 
directly or through the Defendant Detroit Board.

Approved as to form only:

George T. Roumell, Jr.
Attorney for Defendant Detroit 

Board of Education, and other 
Defendants

United States District.Judge

' -2