Ruling on Desegregation Area and Order for Development of Plan of Desegregation

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

.: . - )
Plaintiffs )

v. )
. )

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., ' )
• )
Defendants )

and )
. • ) 

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

)
Defendant- )
Intervenor )

and )
' )

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., )
)

Defendants- )_
Intervenor )

et al. )
----------------------------------------- )

CIVIL ACTION NO: 
35257

RULING ON DESEGREGATION AREA 
AND

ORDER FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN OF DESEGREGATION

On September 27, 1971 the court made its Ruling on 

Issue oi 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
' *  L ..

develop and submit plans of desegregation, designed to

achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, 

taking into account the practicalities of the situation. The 

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

and a "Metropolitan" plan.

EXHIBIT E



Plans for the desegregation of the Detroit schools 

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-
t ■ t •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 Magdowski, et al., . 

the Detroit Board of 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 

desegregation. None of the submissions represent a complete .

-2-



plan for the effective and equitable desegregation of the 

metropolitan area, capable of implementation in its present 

form. The court will therefore draw upon the resources of 

the parties to devise, pursuant to its direction, a 

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, and the 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed herewith,

IT IS ORDERED:

I.

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 Superintendent 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 McCutcheon, 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. ' •

•k

The designees of the State Superintendent of Public 
Instruction and newly intervening defendants shall be communicated 
to the court within seven days of the entry of this order. In 
the event the nc-wly intervening defendants cannot agree upon a 
designee, they may each submit a nominee within seven days from 
the entry of this order, and the court shall select one of the 
nominees as representative of said defendants.

-3-



Should any designated member of this 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 the 

circumstances, which are to be detailed in particular, the 

panel may recommend immediate implementation of an interim 

desegregation plan for grades K-6, K-8 or K-9 in all or in . 

as many clusters as practicable, with complete and final 

desegregation to proceed 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 luter th^n 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.

- 4 -



C. The parties, their agents, successors.employees,

and ail 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

referred to as the "desegregation area":

Lakeshore 
Lakeview . 
Roseville 
South Lake 
East Detroit 
Grosse Pointe 
Centerline '
.Fitzgerald 
Van Dyke 
Fraser . 
Harper Woods ' 
Warren
Warren Woods
Clawson
Hamtramck
Lamphere
Madison Heights
Troy

Birmingham 
Hazel Park 
Highland Park 
Royal Oak 
Berkley 
Fernaale 
Southfield 
Bloomfield Hills 
Oak Park 
Bedford Union 
West Bloomfield 
Clarcnceville 
Farmington 
Livonia 
South Redford 
Crestwood 
Dearborn 
Dearborn Heights

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



Provided, however, that if in the actual assignment of

pupils it appears necessary and feasible to achieve effective 

and complete racial desegregation to reassign pupils of 

another district or'other districts, the desegregation panel 

may, 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 to 

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 d Appropriate and safe transportation arrangements 

shall be 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

portation, 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,

-6-



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 particular schools.

. S. 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 ail

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, ana tnen oy race, experience and sex. In the context 

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

assignment of no less than 10% 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.

-7-



G. In the hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion, 

and dismissal of faculty and staff, racially non-discriminatory 

criteria must be developed and used; provided, however,

there shall be no reduction 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 

administration. .

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. '

. I. The State Board of Education and the State

Superintendent of Education shall with respect to all school 

construction and expansion, "consider the factor of racial 

balance along with other educational considerations in 

making decisions about new school sites, expansion of 

present facilities * * *"; and shall, within the desegregation

area disapprove all proposals for new construction or expansion 

of existing facilities when "housing patterns in an area would 

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

all in accordance with the 1966 directive issued by the State
' . t. ■ ' •

Board of Education to local school boards and the State 

Board's "School Plant Planning Handbook" (see Ruling on Issue 

of segregation, p. 13.).

J. Pending further orders of the court, existing 

school district and regional boundaries and school governance

-8-



arrangements will be maintained and continued, except to

the extent necessary to effect pupil and faculty desegregation 

as set forth herein; provided, however, that existing administra­

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 Qach 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.

Tne 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 tne schools within the desegregation area, including steps 

for unifying, or otherwise making uniform the personnel

-9-



contracts, and property arrangementspolicies, procedures, 

of the various school districts. •

Within 15 days of the entry of this order, the 

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 state law; 

where state law provides a convenient and adequate framework 

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

state law either is silent or conflicts with what is necessary 

to achieve the objectives of this order, the Superintendent 

■shall independently recommend what he deems necessary. In 

particular,' the Superintendent shall examine and choose one 

appropriate interim arrangement to oversee the immediate 

implementation of a plan of desegregation.

' IV.

Each party may file appropriate plans or proposals

for inclusion in any final order which may issue in this
)

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

to proceed apace with the task before us: fashioning an •
* t

effective plan for the desegregation of the Detroit public 

schools. •

Fifteen days after the filing of the reports .

required herein, hearings will begin on any proposal to modify 

any interirfi plan'prepared by the pdnel and all .other matters

-10-3



which may be incident to the adoption and implementation of 

any interim plan of desegregation submitted. The parties 

are placed on notice that they are to be prepared at that 

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.

-11-