Appellant's Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc with Cover Letter

    o o
B U T Z E L ,  L O N G ,  G U S T ,  K L E I N  S  V A N  Z I L E L E O  M.  B U T Z E L  

1 8 7 -4 - 1 9 6 1

T H O M A S  G .  L O N G  
R O C K W E L L  T .  G U S T  
A .  H I L L I A R D  W I L L I A M S  
V I C T O R  W.  K L E I N  
T .  G O R D O N  S C U P H O L M  
A L F R E D  W.  M A S S N I C K  
M A R T I N  L .  B U T Z E L  
P H I L I P  T .  V A N  Z I L E ,  n  
A D D I S O N  D .  C O N N O R  
G E O R G E  E .  B R A N D ,  J R .  
J A M E S  D.  R I T C H I E

1881 F I R S T  N A T I O N A L  B U I L D I N G

D E T R O I T ,  M I C H I G A N  4 8 2 2 6

( 3 1 3 ) 9 6 3 - 8 1 4 2 F R E D  J .  K E N  N E D Y  

1 8 9 1 - 1 0 6 ©

F R A N K  D .  E A M A N  

1 6 7 7 - 1 9 6 2

W I L L I A M  M S A X T O N  
H A R O L D  A . R U E M E N A P P  
L E S L I E  W.  F L E M I  N G 
E L E A N O R  S .  P A Y N  E 
W I L L I A M  L .  P O W E R S  
R O B E R T  J .  B A T T I S T A  
J O H N  P.  W I L L I A M S  
R O B E R T  M . K L E I N  
X H A F E R  O R H A N  
L A W R E N C E  R .  V A N  T I L  
J O H N  B .  W E A V E R  
G E O R G E  H . Z I N N . J R .

D e c e m b e r  22, 1972
D A V I D  W.  K E N D A L L  

O F  C O U N S E L

C A B L E  A D O R E S  S 

S T A R Z E LH N  H.  D U D L E Y ,  J R .
B E R T  M . V E R C R U Y S S E  

R I C H A R D  E . R A S S  EI ­
R E  U B  E N M.  W A T E R M A N ,  J R .  
G E O R G E  J .  L U B E R D A
j o n  h  . w .  C l a r k
E D W A R D  M . K R O N  K 
C H E S T E R  E .  K A S l B O R S K I ,  J R .

Ja m e s  A .  H igg ins ,  C le r k  
United States C ou rt  of  A p p ea ls  

f o r  the Sixth C ir c u i t  
R o o m  607 - F e d e r a l  Building 
100 East  Fi f th  Street  
Cincinnati ,  Ohio 45202

D e a r  M r .  Higgins :

E n c lo s e d  h erew ith  p lease  find tw enty - f ive  (25) c o p ie s  of  " P e t i t i o n  of 
Appe l lants  A l le n  P a r k  Pu b l i c  S c h o o ls ,  et al , Southf ie ld  P u b l i c  S choo ls  
and S ch o o l  D i s t r i c t  o f  the City of  R o y a l  Oak f o r  R e h e a r in g  and Suggest ion  
f o r  R eh ear in g  In B a n c " f o r  f i l ing in the a b o v e -e n t i t l e d  m atter .  C op ies  
of  sa id  " P e t i t i o n "  have been  s e r v e d  upon C ou nse l  of  R e c o r d .

R e :  B r a d le y ,  et al .  v. M i l l iken  et al
C ase  Nos .  72 -18 09  - -  72 -1 8 1 4

V e r y  truly yours

B U T Z E L ,  LOh LE

4 4 / l j d
e n d s

c c :  Cou nse l  of  R e c o r d



Nos. 72-1809 - -  72-1814

IN THE UNITED S T A T E S  COURT OF A P P E A L S  

FO R TH E SIXTH CIRCUIT

R O N A L D  B R A D L E Y ,  E T A L . ,

Pla int i f fs  -A p p e l l e e s ,

v.

W IL L IA M  G. M IL LIK EN ,  G o v e r n o r  
of  Michigan ,  etc .  ; BOARD OF ED U ­
CATION OF THE C ITY  OF D E T R O IT ,

D e fen d an ts -A p p e l lan ts ,

and

D E T R O IT  F E D E R A T IO N  OF TEAC H E RS,
L O C A L  231, A M E R IC A N  F E D E R A T I O N  
OF T E A C H E R S ,  A F L - C I O ,

D e fe n d an t - In te rv e n o r  -A p p e l l e e ,

and

A L L E N  P A R K  P U B L IC  SCHOOLS, ET A L .  ,
Defendants  - Intervenor  s - Appe l lants ,

and

K E R R Y  G REEN , E T  A L .  ,

Defendants  - Inter v e n o rs  - A p p e l l e e s .

A p p e a l  f r o m  the United States D i s t r i c t  Court  
f o r  the E a stern  D i s t r i c t  of  M ich igan ,  Southern D iv is ion .

P E T IT IO N  OF A P P E L L A N T S  A L L E N  P A R K  PU B LIC  
SCHOOLS, et al , SO U TH FIE LD  P U B L IC  SCHOOLS AND 
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY  OF R O Y A L  OAK FOR 

REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING
IN BAN C _______________________ _



Nos.  72-1809 - -  72-1814

IN THE UNITED S T A T E S  COURT OF A P P E A L S  

FO R THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

R O N A L D  B R A D L E Y ,  E T  A L. ,

P la int i f fs  -A  p p e l l e e s , 

v.

W IL L IA M  G. M ILLIKEN , G o v e r n o r  
o f  M ich igan ,  etc .  ; B O AR D  OF E D U ­
CATION OF THE C IT Y  OF D E T R O IT ,

Defendants  -A ppe l lan ts ,

and

D E T R O I T  F E D E R A T I O N  OF T E AC H E RS,
L O C A L  231, A M E R I C A N  F E D E R A T IO N  
OF T E A C H E R S ,  A F L - C I O ,

Defendant - Inter ven o r - A p p e l l e e ,
and

A L L E N  P A R K  PU B L IC  SCHOOLS, ET A L .  ,

Defendants  - In tervenors  -A p p e l lan ts ,

and

K E R R Y  G REEN , ET A L .  ,
Defendants  - I n t e r v e n o r s - A p p e l l e e s .

A p p e a l  f r o m  the United States D i s t r i c t  Court  
f o r  the E a stern  D i s t r i c t  of  M ich igan ,  Southern D iv is ion .

P E T IT IO N  OF A P P E L L A N T S  A L L E N  P A R K  PU B LIC  
SCHOOLS, et al, SOU TH FIELD  PU B L IC  SCHOOLS AND 
SCH OOL D ISTRICT OF THE CITY OF R O Y A L  OAK FOR 

REHEARIN G AND SUGGESTION F O R  REHEARING
IN BANC ________________________ __

NOW C O M E  Appel lants  A l le n  P a r k  Pu b l i c  S ch o o ls ,  et al ,  Southfield  

Pu b l i c  S choo ls  and S choo l  D i s t r i c t  of  the City of R o y a l  Oak and r e sp e c t fu l l y



V

pet it ion this Court  to r e h e a r  the instant c a s e .  It is submitted  that the 

d e c i s i o n  i s su ed  by this Court  on D e c e m b e r  8, 1972, o v e r l o o k e d  or  m i s ­

apprehended  contro l l ing  p r in c ip le s  of  law ap p l i cab le  to this c a s e  and is in 

c o n f l i c t  with  p rev ious  holdings of  this Court  and the S uprem e C ou rt  of  the 

United States.  The C o u r t ' s  D e c e m b e r  8th d e c i s i o n  cannot be  r e c o n c i l e d

with its p r i o r  p ronouncem ents  in Mapp v. B o a r d  o f  Education of  the City of

[1] •Chattanooga , ____F2d____ ( 6th Cir .  , Oct.  11, 1972); D ea l  v. Cincinnati

B o a r d  of  Educat ion , 369 F2d  55 ( 6th C ir .  , 1966), cert.  den. 389 U. S. 847 

(1967);  and D e a l  v. Cincinnati  B o a r d  of  Educat ion , 419 F2d  1387 ( 6th Cir .  , 

1969), nor  with  r e ce n t  d e c i s i o n s  of  the United States S u p re m e  Court  in 

S p e n c e r  v. K u g l e r , 32 6 F .  Supp. 1235 (N .J .  , 1971),  a f f 1 d . 404 U .S .  1027 

(1972) and Swann v. C h a r lo t t e -M e ck le n b u rg  B o a rd  of Educat ion , 402 U .S .  1 

(1971).

Pursuant  to Rule  35 of  the F e d e r a l  Ru les  o f  Appe l la te  P r o c e d u r e  

and Rule  3 (b) of  the Rules  o f  the United States Court  o f  A p p ea ls  f o r  the 

Sixth C ircu i t ,  Appel lants  suggest  that this m atter  is ap p ro p r ia te  f o r  

r e h e a r in g  in b a n c .

The d e c i s i o n  of  this Court  holds that w h e r e  acts  of  de ju re  s e g r e g a t io n

[2l • -l im ited  to the internal  o p e r a t io n 1 ' o f  a s ingle  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  (i. e. , Detro it )

- 2 ­

M R eh ear in g  in banc granted N o v e m b e r  28, 1972.

[2] T h e r e  is no c la im ,  ev idence  o r  f indings  in this c a s e  that the boun dar ies  of 
the D e tro i t  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t ,  o r  any o ther  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t ,  w e r e  es ta b l i sh ed  
with the purp ose  or  f o r s e e a b l e  e f fe c t  of  c rea t ing  or  perpetuating r a c ia l  s e g r e ­
gation in the s c h o o l s .



o c c u r ,  and by the happenstance  of  d e m o g r a p h i c  patterns  a r a c i a l  imbalance 

is extant v i s - a - v i s  D e tr o i t  and other  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s ,  such  unrelated  and 

independent c i r c u m s t a n c e s  e m p o w e r  a D i s t r i c t  Court  to o r d e r  the c r o s s ­

s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  a ss ig n m e n t  and t ranspor ta t ion  of  hundreds  of  thousands of 

s c h o o l  ch i ldren  " throughout  the D e tr o i t  m e tro p o l i ta n  a r e a " .

In rea l i ty ,  the d e c i s i o n  of this Court  ig n o re s  the p u rp ose  and l i m i ­

tations of  the const itut iona l  c o m m a n d  to s im p ly  e l im inate  the ve s t ig e s  of  

segregat ion  w h e r e  s e g r e g a t io n  was found (i. e. , D etro i t ) ,  and d e c r e e s  that 

the s c h o o l  c h i ld re n  of both r a c e s  shall  be  used  in an e f fo r t  to integrate  the 

r a c e s  in the s c h o o l  s y s t e m s  throughout the D e tr o i t  m e tro p o l i ta n  a r e a .  A s  

stated in the m a jo r i t y  opinion in M ap p , supra - ­

[3]
, " . . .  This is a far  c r y  f r o m  B r o w n  I and B r o w n

Il[ -* and invo lves  im p ingem ent  on the constitut iona l  rights  
of  the c h i ld re n  who  do not w is h  to be  so  used. "  Mapp, 
s u p r a , sl ip  opinion, page 8.

The d e c i s i o n  of  this Court  is u nprecedented  and portends  a r e m e d y  

a f fec t ing  the l ives  of  perhaps  one m i l l i o n  ch i ld ren  and their parents ,  and 

the expenditure  of  m i l l i o n s  of  d o l la r s .  The leg i t im ate  publ ic  c o n c e r n  o ver  

the d isrup t ive  c o n s e q u e n c e s  f o r  ch i ld ren ,  parents  and the educat iona l  s y s ­

tem  of the State of  M ich igan  w h ich  a re  inherent f r o m  the d e c i s i o n  of this 

Court  patently m ake  this c a s e  m o s t  a p p ro p r ia te  f o r  an in banc hearing.

- 3 -

^  B row n  v. B o a rd  of  Education of T o p e k a , 347 U. S. 483 (1954).

^  B row n  v. B o a rd  of  Education of Topeka,  349 U. S. 294 (1955).



While  publ ic  r e a c t io n  cannot be p erm it ted  to d e te rm in e  the c o u r s e  of  

ju d i c ia l  d e te rm in a t io n ,  this Court  in G oss  v. B o a r d  of  Education of the_ 

City of K n o x v i l l e , 444 F2d  632, 639-40 ( 6th C ir .  , 1971),  noted that - -

" . . .  Strident and truculent  ju d i c ia l  c o m m a n d s  
could  indeed e x a c e r b a te  what m a y  now r e m a in  of r a c i a l  
b ias  and p r e j u d i c e . "

It is d i f f i cu l t  to c o n c e iv e  of  a c a s e  m o r e  ap p r o p r ia te  f o r  an in banc 

rehear ing  than the instant c a s e .

A S O - C A L L E D  M E T R O P O L I T A N  P L A N  
OF D E S E G R E G A T IO N  IS NOT 

C O N S T IT U T IO N A L L Y  REQU IRED OR 
W A R R A N T E D  B E C A U S E  A D E  JURE 
S E G R E G A T E D  SCH OOL S Y S T E M  HAS 

B E E N  FOUND IN O P E R A T IO N  IN D E T R O IT .

The under ly ing i s sue  in this c a s e  as f r a m e d  by  the p leadings  

(A. Ia 8 - 2 2 ) ^  f i led  h e re in  and as d e te rm in e d  by  the D i s t r i c t  C ou rt  (A. Ia 

1 9 4 - 2 2 1 ) is w hether  a de ju re  publ ic  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  has been  and is in 

op erat ion  in the City of  D etro i t .  The D i s t r i c t  Court  found that the D e tro i t  

B o a rd  of  Education  and a g e n c ie s  of  the State of  M ich iga n  " c o m m i t t e d  acts  

w h ich  have been  c au sa l  f a c t o r s  in the s e g r e g a te d  cond it ion  of the publ ic  

s c h o o l s  of  D e tr o i t "  (A. la 210).  A s s u m in g ,  a r g u e n d o , that this f inding is 

c o r r e c t ,  there  is no e v id ence  or  f inding that the r a c ia l  c o m p o s i t i o n  of the 

D e tr o i t  publ ic  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  v i s - a - v i s  other s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  throughout

- 4 -

Kl p a r e n t h e t i c a l  r e f e r e n c e s  indicate  pagination in the Joint Appendix  unle 

o th e rw is e  indicated .



the D e tr o i t  m e tro p o l i ta n  a r e a  is c a u s a l ly  c onnected  with the acts  found to 

constitute  de ju re  s e gre ga t io n .

The D i s t r i c t  Court  found that in the d e c a d e  betw een  I960 and 1970 

the B la ck  student population in D e tro i t  in c r e a s e d  by  o v e r  40% (A. la 197) 

and c o m p r i s e d  63. 8% of the D e tr o i t  student population in 1970 (A. Ia 198) by 

v ir tue  of population trends (A. Ia 197). The g e o g r a p h i c a l  boun dar ies  of  the 

D e tro i t  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  have been c o t e r m in o u s  with the boundaries  o f  the 

City of  D e tr o i t  f o r  130 y e a r s ^  and there  is no ev id e n ce  or  f inding that the 

D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  w as  es ta b l i sh ed  s o  as to c r e a te  or  perpetuate  r a c ia l  

s e g r e g a t i o n ^ .  With r e s p e c t  to the es ta b l i sh m en t  of  o ther  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  

in the D e tr o i t  m e t ro p o l i t a n  a rea ,  the D i s t r i c t  Court  m ade  no f indings .

" It  should be  noted that the court  has taken no p r o o f s  
with r e s p e c t  to the e s ta b l i sh m en t  of  the boun dar ies  of  the 86 
publ ic  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  in the counties  of  Wayne,  Oakland 
and M a c o m b ,  nor  bn the i s su e  o f  whether ,  with  the exc lu s io n  
of  the c i ty  of  D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t ,  such  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  
have c o m m it t e d  acts  of  de ju r e  s e g r e g a t i o n . "  (A. Ia 497-498) .

On the r e c o r d  b e f o r e  this Court  it is c l e a r  that no s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t ,  

inc luding D etro i t ,  was es tab l i sh ed  f o r  the p u rp ose  of f o s t e r in g  r a c ia l  

s e g r e g a t io n .  With o r  without  the acts  of  c o m m i s s i o n  and o m i s s i o n  by 

the D e tro i t  B o a rd  of  Education  and the State of  M ich igan  w hich  this

- 5 -

^  See Ex R e l  W o rk m a n ,  18 M ic h  399, 408 (1869) and MSA 15. 3 18 1 and 1 5. 3 182.

^  The r e c o r d  shows ,  f o r  exam p le ,  that in 1910 the ent ire  b la ck  populat ion in 
D e tr o i t  was  only 1 .2%  of the total City populat ion (A. Ia 198).



• •
Court  found to constitute  de ju re  se g re g a t io n ,  the student population within 

the p e r i m e t e r s  of the City o f  D etro i t  s c h o o l  s y s te m  would  be the s a m e  as 

it is today.

In its d e c i s i o n  of  D e c e m b e r  8 , 1972, this Court  stated that - -

. . B ig  c i ty  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  f o r  b lacks  surroun ded  
by suburban s c h o o l  s y s te m s  f o r  whites  cannot r e p r e s e n t  
equal  p ro te c t io n  o f  the l a w . "  Slip opinion,  page 65. [E m p has is  
added.]

Such sta tem ent  is c l e a r l y  e r r o n e o u s  in the context  of  the instant c a s e .

T h e r e  is no e v id e n ce  w hatever  that the D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  is ,  o r  e v e r  

w as ,  es ta b l i sh ed  o r  o p era ted  f o r  B la ck s ,  w hi le  suburban s c h o o l  s y s te m s  

a r e ,  o r  have e v e r  been,  op erated  fo r  Whites .  M ich igan  law s ince  1867 

has e x p r e s s l y  p r o v id e d  that - ­

" A l l  r e s id e n ts  of  any d i s t r i c t  shal l  have an equal 
right to attend any s c h o o l  t h e r e i n . "  Pu b l i c  A c t s  of 
M ich igan ,  1867, A c t  No. 34, Sect ion  28.

Th is  Court ,  in d i s r e g a r d  of the fac ts ,  has in re a l i ty  d e c l a r e d  that 

a b ig  c i ty  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  w hich  is p redom inant ly  B la ck  due to r e s id e n t ia l  

patterns ,  surroun ded  by suburban s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  w hich  a re  predom inant ly  

White,  due to r e s id e n t ia l  patterns,  const itutes  a denia l  o f  equal p ro te c t io n  

o f  the l a w . In S p e n ce r  v. K u g l e r , 32 6 F . Supp. 1235, 1240 (N. J. , 1971), 

a f f ’ d. 404 U. S. 1027 (1972), the Court  stated as f o l l o w s :

-6



" . . .  R a c ia l l y  ba lanced  m unic ip a l i t ie s  a re  beyond 
the pale of  e ither  ju d i c ia l  or  leg i s la t iv e  in te r v e n t io n . "

And in Mapp, s u p ra , this Court  stated:

" W e  do not b e l i e v e  that B o a rd  of Education  can be 
faulted  f o r  the res id ent ia l  patterns of  a c ity ,  or  f o r  the 
heavy  co ncentra t ion  of b la c k  or  white population in cer ta in  
a r e a s ,  o r  f o r  the m o b i l i t y  of  both r a c e s .  ' Ih e s e  a re  
m a t te rs  o v e r  which  the s c h o o l  s y s t e m  has no con tro l ,  
ne ither  doe it have authority  to a s s u m e  such  c o n t r o l . "
Sl ip opinion at page 9.

P e rh a ps  the D e tro i t  B o a rd  of Education and a g e n c ie s  of  the State of 

M ich igan  can be faulted  f o r  the r a c ia l  c o m p o s i t i o n  of p a r t i cu la r  s c h o o l  

buildings  in D etro i t ,  but there  is no bas is  f o r  the c o n c lu s i o n  that the 

im b a la n ce  betw een  B la ck  and White students in D e tr o i t  as c o m p a r e d  to the 

suburban s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  is attr ibutable  to any s e g r e g a t o r y  ac t  o f  ei ther 

the D e tr o i t  B o a r d  or  the State of M ich igan .  It is submitted  that this Court  

has c l e a r l y  m isa p p r e h e n d e d  law in attr ibuting the cau se  of  r a c i a l  im ba lance  

to the defendants h ere in  and then using such  im b a la n ce  to support  a f inding 

of  a denia l  of  const itut iona l  rights  and the bas is  f o r  a s o - c a l l e d  m e tro p o l i ta n

d e s e g r e g a t i o n  re m e dy .

In the d e c i s i o n  of D e c e m b e r  8, 1972, this Court  stated:

" T h e  c l e a r e s t  e xa m p le  of  d i r e c t  State part ic ipat ion  
in encourag ing  the s e g r e g a te d  condit ion of  the D e tro i t  publ ic  
s c h o o l s ,  h o w e v e r ,  is that of  s c h o o l  c o n s tr u c t io n  in D etro i t  
and the s u r ro u n d in g suburban a r e a s . Until 1962 the State 
B o a rd  of  Education  had d i r e c t  s tatutory  c o n t r o l  o v e r  site 
planning f o r  new s c h o o l  c o n s tru c t io n .  During that t ime,  as

-7 -



w as  pointed  out above ,  the State ap p r o v e d  s c h o o l  c o n s tru c t io n  
w h ich  f o s t e r e d  s e g r e g a t i o n  throughout  the D e tr o i t  m e t r o p o l i ­
tan a r e a . (See supra  pp. 3 4 - 4 0 ) . S ince  1962 the State B o a r d  
has continued to be invo lved  in a p p r o v a l  of  s c h o o l  co n s tru c t io n  
p l a n s . "  Slip opinion,  page 49. [E m p h as is  added.]

The  C o u rt ' s  attention is invited to pages 34 -40  of  its opinion.  The te s t im o n y  

there  r e f e r r e d  to m ak es  no r e f e r e n c e  w hatever  to any s c h o o l  co n s tru c t io n  

in any s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  other  than D etro i t .

The c o n c l u s i o n  of the Court  that s c h o o l  c o n s tr u c t io n  in surrounding  

suburban a r e a s  e n co u ra g e d  s e g r e g a t i o n  within D e tr o i t  is not supported  by 

the r e c o r d  in this c a s e .  The extent,  l o ca t ion  and bas is  f o r  site s e l e c t i o n  

of  suburban s c h o o l  c o n s t r u c t i o n  is not exp l i ca ted  in the r e c o r d  in this ca se .  

The Court  o f f e r s  no b a s i s  w h atever  f o r  its naked c o n c lu s i o n  that s c h o o l  

c o n s t r u c t io n  outs ide  the D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  f o s t e r e d  s e g r e g a t i o n  within 

D etro i t ,  and unless  it is const itut iona l ly  i m p e r m i s s i b l e  f o r  a s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  

to c o n s t r u c t  s c h o o l s  within its own g e o g r a p h i c a l  l im its  to a c c o m m o d a t e  the 

r e s id e n ts  therein ,  no bas is  f o r  the C o u r t ' s  c o n c lu s io n  can be  p e r c e iv e d .

In D ea l  v. Cincinnati  B o a rd  of Education,  419 F2d  1387, 1393 ( 6th 

C ir .  , 1969),  this Court  noted as f o l l o w s :

"In the s e l e c t i o n  o f ' s c h o o l  s i tes  the B o a rd  had to 
take into ac cou n t  a num ber  of f a c t o r s .  It was re q u ire d  to 
c o m p l y  with  the Ohio statute, Ohio R ev .  Code,  Sect ion  
3 3 1 3 .4 8 ,  by s e le c t in g  lo ca t ions  in a r e a s  of  the h eav iest  
c o n c e n tra t io n  of ch i ldren .  Even in the a b s e n c e  of  such  a 
statute it would  s e e m  prudent  to lo ca te  the s c h o o l s  w h e r e  
they w i l l  be e a s i ly  a c c e s s i b l e  and conven ient  to m o s t  o f  the 
ch i ld ren  and without the n e c e s s i t y  of  buss ing  the ch i ld ren

- 8 -



or  their c r o s s i n g  dangerous  t h o r o u g h fa r e s . The B o a rd  
should c o n s id e r  lo ca t ions  in a r e a s  that a re  being d eve lop ed  
w here  la rge  population i n c r e a s e s  a r e  antic ipated,  and l o ­
cat ions  in a r e a s  w here  the B o a r d  a l r e a d y  owns p ro p e r ty .
We find no abuse  of d i s c r e t i o n  in the lo ca t ion  of  the s c h o o l s .  
Nor  do  we think that w e  should tell  the B o a r d  w h e r e  to lo ca te  
s c h o o l s  in the f u t u r e . "  [E m p has is  added.]

T h e r e  is not a sc in t i l la ,  indeed not a tittle,  of  e v id ence  that s c h o o l  con  

s truc t ion  in the suburban s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  outs ide D e tro i t  was  p red ica ted  

upon any fa c t o r s  other  than e asy  a c c e s s i b i l i t y  and con ven ien ce  to the 

r e s id e n ts  of  such  d i s t r i c t s  and antic ipated  population i n c r e a s e s .  Unless  

there  is one rule  of  law perta ining to s c h o o l  c o n s tr u c t io n  in Cincinnati,  

Ohio,  and another  perta ining to s c h o o l  c o n s tr u c t io n  in suburban s c h o o l  

d i s t r i c t s  in that undef ined a r e a  ca l l e d  m e tro p o l i ta n  D etro i t ,  this Court  has

m isa p p r e h e n d e d  its own pron ou n cem en t  in D e a l , s u p r a , or  has o v e r r u  

D e a l  without so  stating.

Jed

This  Court ,  l ike the D i s t r i c t  Court ,  has conc lud ed  that (i) the 

D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  is operated  as a de ju re  s e g r e g a te d  s y s te m ,  (ii) the 

State o f  M ich igan  through acts  of  c o m m i s s i o n  and o m i s s i o n  has countenanced  

or  abetted the situation found extant in D etro i t ,  (iii) a l l  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  are  

instrum enta l i t ies  o f  the State and, (iv) t h e r e fo r e  the D i s t r i c t  Court  m ay  use 

a l l  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  in the D e tr o i t  m e tro p o l i ta n  a re a  to e f fe c t  a change in the 

r a c ia l  c o m p le x io n  of the D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  s y s te m .  Such s y l l o g i s t i c  reason ing  

ign ores  con tro l l ing  p r in c ip le s  of law as enunciated by the United States Supr em e  

Court  and r e c o g n i z e d  by this Court  in other  c a s e s .

-9 -



In Swann et a l  v. C h a r lo t t e -M e ck le n b u rg  B o a rd  o f  Educat ion , 402

U. S. 1, 15 (1971),  the Court  said:

" T h e  o b je c t iv e  today r e m a in s  to e l im inate  f r o m  the 
publ ic  s c h o o l s  a l l  v e s t ige s  of  s tate - im p o  sed segrega t ion .  
S e gre g a t io n  was the ev i l  s truck  down by B row n  I as c o n ­
t r a r y  to the equal p ro te c t io n  guarantees  of  the Constitution.  
That was the v io la t ion  sought to be  c o r r e c t e d  by  the r e m e d ia l  
m e a s u r e s  o f  B ro w n  II. "

A s s u m in g ,  a r g u e n d o , the va l idity  of  the findings of  the D i s t r i c t  Court ,  

the only const itut iona l  v io la t ion  in this c a s e  is the op era t ion  of the D e tr o i t  

s c h o o l  s y s t e m  on a s e g r e g a t o r y  b a s i s  w h ich  denies  B la ck  ch i ld ren  a c c e s s  to 

c e r ta in  s c h o o l s  within the D e tro i t  s c h o o l  s y s te m .  T h e re  is no ev idence  that 

B la c k  ch i ld ren  have been  denied  a c c e s s  to any suburban d i s t r i c t  s c h o o l  on 

any ground other  than lack  o f  r e s id e n c e  within the s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t ,  a r e q u i r e ­

m e n t  equal ly  ap p l i cab le  to White ch i ldren .  The e f fe c t  of  the de ju re  s e g r e ­

gation  op erat ion  of  the D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  s y s te m ,  and the v e s t ige s  of  such  

s e g r e g a t io n ,  is that but f o r  the acts  c o m pla in e d  of  ch i ld ren  in D e tr o i t  would  

be  attending s c h o o l s  having a r ac ia l  c o m p o s i t i o n  m o r e  n e a r ly  in a c c o r d  

with the r a c i a l  student m a k e -u p  of  the D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t .

A c c o r d i n g  to the teachings  of  Swann, supra., at page 16 - -

" . . .  The task is to c o r r e c t  by  a ba lancing  of  the 
individual and c o l l e c t i v e  in te re s ts ,  the cond it ion  that offends 
the C o n s t i tu t io n . " ;

and, in this r e ga rd ,

" ,  . . the nature o f  the v io la t ion  d e te r m in e s  the 
s c o p e  of the r e m e d y . "  Swann, s u p r a , at page 16.

-10 -



Apply ing  the teachings  of  Swann, the condit ion  that o f fends the Const itution is 

the m atter  of  pupil  a s s ig n m e n ts  to s c h o o l s  within the D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  

and the r e m e d y  is to prohibit  the denia l  of  a c c e s s  to s c h o o l s  in D e tro i t  on 

a c c o u n t  of  r a c e  and r e m o v e  the ve s t ig e s  of  s e g r e g a t i o n  by  r e -a s s i g n i n g  

D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  ch i ld ren  to the s ch o o ls  n e a r e s t  their  r e s i d e n c e  or  to r e - a s s i g n  

them to s c h o o l s  on a ba s i s  w h ich  is m o r e  n e a r ly  r e f l e c t i v e  of  the condit ion  

w h ich  would p r e v a i l  had the D e tro i t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  been  o p era ted  as a unitary 

s c h o o l  s y s te m ,  to wit,  a s y s t e m  "with in  w h ich  no p e r s o n  is to be  e f fe c t iv e ly  

exc lud ed  f r o m  any s c h o o l  b e c a u s e  of r a c e  or  c o l o r " .  ®  It is submitted  that 

this C ou rt ' s  d e c i s i o n  of D e c e m b e r  8, 1972, m isa p p r e h e n d s  the law as d e c l a r e d

in Swann.

This  Court  has conc luded ,  in a g r e e m e n t  with  the D i s t r i c t  Court ,  that 

no D e tr o i t  only plan can a ch ie v e  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  of  the D e tro i t  public  s c h o o l  

s y s te m .  This  c o n c lu s i o n  is p r e m i s e d  on the fa c t  that even if the D e tro i t  

s c h o o l  s y s t e m  w e r e  op erated  so  that no pupil  in D e tr o i t  was  denied  a c c e s s  to 

any s c h o o l  o r  c l a s s r o o m  on a cco u n t  of  r a c e ,  the student r a c ia l  c o m p o s i t i o n  

o f  the d i s t r i c t  as a w ho le  would st i l l  be  a p p r o x im a te ly  65% B la c k  and 35%

White,  with the p r o s p e c t  that future population changes  would i n c r e a s e  the 

B la c k  to White  ratio.

The ho lding that the D e tr o i t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  can only be  d e s e g r e g a t e d  by 

m eans  of a m e tro p o l i ta n  r e m e d y  e r r o n e o u s l y  a s s u m e s  that d e s e g r e g a t i o n  m eans  

e f fec t ing  a r a c ia l  ba lance  w hich  is p re d o m in a te ly  White  i r r e s p e c t i v e  of  the 

r e s id e n t ia l  patterns  of  the s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  to be  d e s e g r e g a t e d .  Such rat ionale

- 11-

$  A le x a n d e r  v. H o lm e s  County B oard  of E ducat ion , 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969).



is patently at odds with d e c i s i o n s  of the United States S up rem e  Court  and this 

Court .

In M ap p , s u p r a , the m a jo r i t y  opinion noted as f o l l o w s :

" W e  do not read  Swann and re lated  c a s e s  as requ ir ing  
a f ixed  r a c ia l  ba lance  or  quota in each  and e v e r y  s c h o o l  in a 
c i ty ,  i r r e s p e c t i v e  of  the r e s id e n t ia l  patterns of  the c ity.
Slip opinion at page 7.

. . The S up rem e  Court  in Davis  held that ' s c h o o l  
author it ies  should m ake  e v e r y  e f fo r t  to a ch ie v e  the g re a te s t  
p o s s ib l e  d e g r e e  of  ac tua l  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  taking into accou n t  
the p r a c t i c a l i t i e s  of  the situation. We have not found w h e r e  
the S up rem e  C ou rt  used  the w o rd s  ' m a x i m i z e  integrat ion  .
If m a x i m i z e  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  and m a x i m i z e  integrat ion  m ean  
one and the s a m e  thing, then the use  of  these w o r d s  would 
be  p r o p e r .  The d i f f i cu l ty  is that the D i s t r i c t  Court  m ay  w e l l  
have unders tood  the w o rd s  to r e q u i r e  integrat ion  of  the r a c e s
in each  publ ic  s c h o o l  in the s y s te m ,  r e g a r d l e s s  of  w here  
pupils l ive ,  and r e g a r d l e s s  of  their e c o n o m i c  c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

v  V 0  V J .  l l u i . the .e q u i r 0s ciny sucti  tiling* n Slip
opinion at page 1 0 .

" T h e r e  s e e m s  to have grow n  up a c r o s s  the land an 
idea by m o s t  United States D i s t r i c t  Judges that extens ive   ̂
busing m u st  be o r d e r e d  to obey  the c o m m a n d s  of Brovm_I and 
B row n  II. They turn to Swann f o r  their authority .  Swann did 
not d e c id e  anything of the kind. "  Slip opinion at page 13.

In Swann, s u p r a , at page 23, the S u p re m e  Court  stated that the 

o b je c t iv e  in dealing with  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  c a s e s  was to see  that s c h o o l  

author it ies  exc lude  no pupil  of a r a c i a l  m in o r i t y  f r o m  any s c h o o l  on account  

of  r a c e .  The Court  noted that d e s e g r e g a t i o n  does  not m e an  e f fec t ing  a r a c ia l

ba lance ,  saying:

-12 -



. . If w e  w e r e  to read  the holding of the D is t r i c t  
Court  to r e q u ir e  as a m atte r  of  substantive constitut iona l  
right,  any p ar t i cu lar  d e g r e e  of  r a c ia l  ba lance  or  mix ing ,  
that a p p r o a c h  would be  d isa p p r o v e d  and we would  be ob l iged  
to r e v e r s e .  The constitut iona l  c o m m a n d  to d e se g r e g a te  
s c h o o l s  does  not m ean  that e v e r y  s c h o o l  in e v e r y  com m u n ity  
m u st  a lways  r e f l e c t  the r a c i a l  c o m p o s i t i o n  of the s ch o o l  
s y s t e m  as a whole .  "  Swann, s u p r a , at page 24.

The d e c i s i o n  of  this Court  c a r e fu l ly  avo ids  the use of  the w o r d s  " r a c i a l  

ba lanc ing"  but said d e c i s i o n  nonethe less  equates r a c i a l  ba lancing  with 

des  egr  egation.

This  Court  stated in its D e c e m b e r  8th d e c i s i o n  that - -

" .  . . T h e re  should not be  one law f o r  the South and 
a d i f fe rent  one f o r  the North. " Slip opinion at page 50.

It is submitted  that c o n t r a r y  to sa id  statem ent  this Court  has es ta b l i sh ed  a 

d i f f e re n t  law f o r  M ich igan .  T h e re  is not a s ingle  r e p o r te d  S up rem e  Court  

o r  Court  of  A p p ea ls  d e c i s i o n  w h e r e  s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t s  which  have been  

op erated  on a unitary  bas i s  have been  used to d e s e g r e g a t e  a s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  

w h ich  has op erated  on a s e g r e g a t e d  b a s i s .  M o r e o v e r ,  it should be  noted 

that in W right  et al  v. Counc i l  of  the City of  E m p o r i a , 407 U. S. 451 (1972),  

the S up rem e  Court  upheld a d e s e g r e g a t i o n  plan resu lt ing  in a s c h o o l  s y s te m  

w h ich  would be  66% N e g r o  and 34% White notwithstanding the fac t  that the 

r a c i a l  c o m p o s i t i o n  of  the State of  V i rg in ia  was  a p p r o x im a t e ly  81% White

[91and 18. 6% N e gro .  L7J

- 1 3 -

U. S. Dept,  of  C o m m e r c e ,  B u rea u  of  the Census ;  U. S. Census of P o p u ­
lation, 1970. B y  c o m p a r i s o n  a D e tr o i t  only d e s e g r e g a t i o n  plan would  resu l t  
in a s c h o o l  s y s t e m  a p p r o x im a t e ly  65% B la ck  and 35% White  in a State in 
w hich  the r a c ia l  c o m p o s i t i o n  is 87% White  and 13% Black .



The mandate o f  B r o w n  I, supra ,  and B ro w n  II, s u p r a , is to d i s ­

mantle  dual s c h o o l  s y s te m s  w h e re  ch i ldren  a r e  denied a c c e s s  to s ch o o ls  

s o l e l y  on ac cou n t  of  their r a c e .  B row n  and its p ro ge n y  have al l  a d d r e s s e d  

t h e m se lv e s  to this o b je c t iv e .  Th is  Court  has m isa p p re h e n d e d  the law and 

has gone far  beyond the d e s e g r e g a t i o n  of a s c h o o l  s y s t e m  in d e c r e e i n g  that 

the publ ic  s c h o o l s  m a y  be used  to c o u n te ra c t  r es id en t ia l  patterns  of  an 

ent ire  m a j o r  m e tro p o l i ta n  a re a  by using the c h i ld re n  to integrate  the s c h o o l  

s y s te m s  in such  a r e a .  F r o m  a s o c i o l o g i c a l  viewpoint ,  such  o b je c t iv e  m a y  

o r  m a y  not be  d e s i r a b le .  The point, h o w e ve r ,  is that f r o m  a const itut iona l  

standpoint  such  o b je c t iv e  is neither p erm it ted  nor  requ ired .

Appel lants  r e sp e c t fu l l y  subm it  that this Pet i t ion  f o r  R eh ear in g  

should be granted f o r  the re aso n s  h e re in ab ove  stated and that an in 

banc rehear ing  is ap p rop r ia te .

CONCLUS ION

R e s p e c t fu l l y  submitted,

B U T Z E L ,  LONG, GUSdV K LEIN  & V A N  Z I L E

X. Ofhan
1881 F i r s t  Nat ional  Building 
D etro i t ,  M ich igan  48226 
Te lephone :  (313) 963-8142  
A t to rn e ys  f o r  Def  endants - Inter v e n o r s -

Appel lants  A l l e n  P a rk  Pu b l i c  S c h o o ls ,  et al

-14 -



CONDIT AND M C  G A R R Y ,  P. C.

By " A . . , . ; / ■  Yc>^ h f ~
R ic h a rd  P.  Condit 

8 60 W est  Long Lake Road  
B l o o m f i e l d  H i l l s ,  M ich igan  48013 
Te lep hon e :  (313) 645-5205 
A t to r n e y s  f o r  D e fe n d a n t - In te r v e n o r -  

A pe l lan t  Southf ie ld  Pu b l ic  Schoo ls

H A R T M A N ,  B E IE R ,  H O W L E T T ,
M C  C O N N E L L  & GOOGASIAN

/
Kenneth B. M c C o n n e l l  

74 W est  Long Lake Road  
B l o o m f i e l d  H i l ls ,  M ich igan  48013 
T e lephon e :  (313) 645-9400  
A t to r n e y s  f o r  D e fend an t-L atervenor -

A ppe l lant  S choo l  D i s t r i c t  of  the City 
of  R o y a l  Oak

Dated: D e c e m b e r  22, 1972