Memo RE: Rough Draft Statement of Decision Impact

    LDF MEMORANDUM 

TO: Herschel Johnson 

FROM: Dennis Parker 

RE: Sheff v. O’Neill 

DATE: March 18, 1999 

  

Here is a rough draft of a statement regarding the impact of the recent Sheff decision. 

In July, 1996, the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down the historic decision in 

Sheff v. O'Neill. Agreeing with many of the claims raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel, including the 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.!, the Court found that "the system of public 
education in Hartford and the Hartford region deprives Plaintiffs’ schoolchildren of the right 

to a substantially equal educational opportunity based on racial and ethnic isolation and 

segregation [that] exists in the Hartford Public Schools and among school districts in the 

Hartford region." Noting both the severity of the constitutional isolation and the decades-long 

history of repeated studies and ineffective programs, the Supreme Court issued a clear and 

unequivocal directive to the State defendants to "put the search for appropriate remedial 

measures at the top of the their respective agendas" and insisted that this be done " in time to 

make a difference before another generation of children suffers the consequences of a segregate 

Public School education." 

  

Hopeful that the Supreme Court's straightforward and unambiguous mandate would spur 

the State to take steps to deal effectively with the unconstituted condition of the educational 

system, the plaintiffs waited patiently for legislation which would, finally, reverse the pattern of 

increasing racial and ethnic isolation in the Hartford metropolitan area. 

Instead, the Plaintiffs watched with mounting frustration as racial and ethnic isolation 

increased-in Hartford alone, the minority population, which accounted for 90% of student 

enrollment when the lawsuit was filed, increased to 94% minority by the 1997-98 school year. 

In the face of this rising level of racial and ethnic isolation, Plaintiffs watched as the State re- 

presented slightly modified versions of existing programs which had already proven unsuccessful 

at reducing racial and ethnic isolation. 

  

! Other members of the legal team include the American Civil Liberties Union, the 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, Hartford 

Neighborhood Legal Services and attorneys John Brittain, Wesley Horton, Martha Stone 

and Marianne Engelman Lado. 

 



  

Convinced that there was nothing in the State’s legislature response that promised to 
remedy unconstitutional racial and ethnic isolation, the Plaintiffs availed themselves of their 

right under the Supreme Court opinion to return to the Superior Court for vindication of their 
constitutional rights. 

At the hearing conducted over two weeks in September of 1998, the Plaintiffs presented 
evidence that the welter of educational programs which the State presented as a comprehensive 
response was neither comprehensive nor responsive to the Supreme Court’s mandate. The 
Plaintiffs faulted the State both for its ineffectiveness to date and for the unlikelihood that the 
programs would lead to significant reduction of racial and ethnic isolation in the future. Most 
significantly, Plaintiffs’ experts testified that the State’s programs could not taken together, be 
described as a plan to reduce racial and ethnic isolation and that such a plan was essential to 
the successful reduction of racial and ethnic isolation. 

On March 3, 1999, Judge Julia Aurigemma of the Superior Court denied the Plaintiffs’ 
call for steps to be taken immediately holding that the Plaintiffs had not allowed the State 
sufficient time to remedy the violation. 

Although the Plaintiffs believe that the Judge’s decision gives short shrift to the Supreme 
Court’s emphasis on urgency. It in no way relieves the State of its obligation under the 
Supreme Court order to reduce racial and ethnic isolation. Over the coming months, Plaintiffs 
will carefully monitor the results of the State’s efforts with an eye toward returning to court if 

necessary. In the meantime, the Plaintiffs will continue to attempt to exert pressure on the 

State to take further action through outreach to the community at large and the State 

legislature.