Complaint (Exhibit F)

    TNjA-,5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT (IRT 
FOlflrHE EASTERN DISTRICT OF M^IIQAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY and RICHARD BRADLEY, ' )
by their Mother and Next Friend, )
VERDA BRADLEY; JEANNE GOINGS, by )
her Mother and Next Friend, BLANCHE ) 
GOINGS; BEVERLY LOVE, JIMMY LOVE and ) 
DARRELL LOVE, by their Mother and )
Next Friend, CLARISSA LOVE; CAMILLE ) 
BURDEN, PIERRE BURDEN, AVA BURDEN, )
KYRA BURDEN, MARC BURDEN and STEVEN ) 
BURDEN, by their Father and Next )
Friend, MARCUS BURDEN; KAREN )
WILLIAMS and KRISTY WILLIAMS, by )
their Father and Next Friend, )
C. WILLIAMS; RAY LITT and MRS. )
WILBUR BLAKE, parents; all parents )
having children attending the public ) 
schools of the City of Detroit, )
Michigan, on their own behalf and )
on behalf of their minor children, . )
all on behalf of any persons )
similarly situated; and NATIONAL )
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT )
OF COLORED PEOPLE, DETROIT BRANCH, )

)• Plaintiffs, )
)vs. ).
)WILLIAM J. MILLIKEN, Governor of )

.the State of Michigan and ex- )
officio member of Michigan State )
Board of Education; FRANK J. KELLEY, ) 
Attorney General of the State of )
Michigan; MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF )
EDUCATION, a constitutional body )
corporate; JOHN W. PORTER, Acting )
Superintendent of Public Instruction, ) 
Department of Education and ex- )
officio Chairman of Michigan State )
Board of Education; BOARD OF )
EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, )
a school district of the first )
class; PATRICK MCDONALD, JAMES )
HATHAWAY and CORNELIUS GOLIGHTLY, )
members of the Board of Education )
of the City of Detroit; and NORMAN )
DRACHLER, Superintendent of the )
Detroit Public Schools, . )

)
Defendants. )

CIVIL ACTION
NO.

35257

C O M P L A I N T

The Jurisdiction of this Court is Invoked under 28 U.S.C. 
Sections.1331(a), 13^3(3) and (4), this being a suit in equity

EXHIBIT F
[NOTE: ATTACHMENTS TO ORIGINAL COMPLAINT DELETED]



authorized by 42 Sections 1983* 1988 an^ 2000d, to redressI*he deprivation under color of Michigan law, statute, custom and/or 
usage of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the 
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the 
United States. This action is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 
1981 which provides that all persons within the Jurisdiction of 
the United States shall have the same rights to the full and equal
■benefits of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons

t
and property as is enjoyed by white citizens. Jurisdiction is 
further invoked under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, this being 
a suit for declaratory Judgment declaring certain portions of Act 
No. 48 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1970 (a copy of which is . 
attached hereto as Exhibit A) unconstitutional. This is also an 
action for injunctive relief against the enforcement of certain 
portions of said Act No. 48 and to require the operation of the 
Detroit, Michigan public schools on a unitary basis. ,

II. .
. . Plaintiffs, Ronald Bradley and Richard Bradley, by their
. s. _

Mother and Next Friend, Verda Bradley; Jeanne Goings, by her Mother 
and Next Friend, Blanche Goings; Beverly Love, Jimmy Love and 
Darrell Love, by their Mother and Next Friend, Clarissa Love;
Camille Burden, Pierre Burden, Ava Burden, Myra Burden, Marc Burden 
and Steven Burden, by their Father and Next Friend, Marcus Burden; 
Karen Williams and Kristy Williams, by their Father and Next Friend, 
C. Williams; Ray Litt and Mrs. Wilbur Blake, parents, are all 
parents or minor children thereof attending schools in the Detroit,
Michigan public school system. All of the above-named plaintiffs 
are black except Ray Litt, who is white and who Joins with them 
to bring this action each in their own behalf and on behalf of 
their minor children and all persons similarly situated.

Plaintiff, National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, Detroit Branch, is an unincorporated association with 
offices at 242 East Warren Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, which sues 
on'behalf of its membership who are members of the plaintiff class.

2



Plaintiff, N.A.A.G^^., has as one of its pur^^jes the advancement 
of equal educational opportunities through the provision of 
integrated student bodies, faculty and staff. '

■ III. .
Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of 
all persons in the City of Detroit similarly situated. There are 
common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of plaintiffs 
arid the rights of the members of the class. The members of the 
class are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them 
all before the Court. A common declaratory and injunctive relief 
is sought and plaintiffs adequately represent the interests of the 
members of the class.. ‘

• . IV. '
The defendants are: .
1. William J. Milliken, Governor of the State of Michigan 

and ex-officio member of the State Board of Education;
• v 2. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of

v  . •

Michigan, who is responsible for enforcing the public acts and 
laws of the State of Michigan;

3- The Michigan State Board of Education, a constitutional 
body corporate, which Is generally charged with the power and 
responsibility of administering the public school system In the 
State of Michigan, Including the City of Detroit;

4. John W. Porter, Acting Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion, Department of Education, in the State of Michigan, and ex­
officio member of the State Board of Education; ■

t
5. The Board of Education of the City of Detroit, a school '

district of the first class, organized and existing in Wayne County, 
Michigan, under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan 
and operating the public school system In the City of Detroit, 
Michigan; ’ .

6. Patrick McDonald, James Hathaway and Cornelius Gollghtly, 
all residents of Wayne County, Michigan, and. elected members of the

3



Board of Education ^  the City of Detroit; • •
• 7. The remaining board members of the Board of Education 
of the City of Detroit;

8. Norman Drachler, a resident of Wayne County, Michigan, 
and the appointed Superintendent of the Detroit Public Schools.

V.
, l
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment declaring the last

sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2a and the entirety of
Section 12 of Public Act No. 48 of the Michigan Public Acts of
1970 unconstitutional. * .

The challenged portion of Section 2a reads as follows:
Regions shall be as compact, contiguous and 

■ nearly equal as practicable..
’ t

Section 12 reads as follows:
. The implementation of any attendance provisions

• for the 1970-71 school year determined by any
first class school district board shall be . .
delayed pending the date of commencement of 

■ . functions by the first class school district
boards established under the provisions of this 

. amendatory act but such provision shall not 
. impair the right of any such board to determine
. V . and implement prior to such date such changes
• ■ ■ in attendance provisions as are mandated by

• practical necessity. In reviewing, confirming,
. . establishing or modifying attendance provisions .
■ • the first class school district boards established

. • . under the provisions of this amendatory act shall
• have a policy of open enrollment and shall enable

students to attend a school of preference but 
. providing priority acceptance, insofar as practi-

• • cable, in cases of insufficient school capacity,
. to those students residing nearest the school

and to those students desiring to attend the
school for participation in vocationally oriented •
courses or other specialized curriculum.

Plaintiffs also s@§k a temporary restraining order and prelim­
inary and permanent injunctions against the enforcement of said 
provisions of Act 48.

VI.
This is also a proceeding for a permanent injunction enjoin­

ing the defendant, Board of Education of the City of Detroit, its • 
members and the Superintendent of Schools from continuing their 
policy, practice, custom and usage of operating the public school 
system in and for the City of Detroit, Michigan, in a manner which

44



hac the purpose and^ffcct of perpetuating a ^.aclal segregated 
public school system, and for other relief, a^iereinafter more 
fully appears. .

VII.
On August 11, 1969, the Governor of the State of Michigan 

approved Act No. 2 M  of the Public Acts of 1969 (Mich. Stats. Ann. 
Section 15.2298), said Act being entitled, "AN ACT to require first 
class school districts to be divided into regional districts and 
to provide for local district school boards and to define their 
powers and duties and the powers and duties of the first class 
district board." (A copy of Act' No. 24^ is attached hereto as 
Exhibit B). Act No. 2*U applies exclusively to the Board of Educa­
tion of the School District of the City of Detroit, that being the 
only first class school district in the State of Michigan. The 
essence of Act No. 2*1*1 is that it provides the mandate and means 
for the administrative decentralization of the Detroit school system 
and the extent thereof.
. On March 2, 1970, the Detroit School Board's attorney rendered 
an opinion (attached hereto as Exhibit C) advising the Board that .
in effectuating decentralization under Act No. 2*1*1 the law imposed 
three limitations: ' ' .

1. The Act itself required each district to have not less 
than 25,000 nor more than 50,000 pupils;

2. The United States Constitution required each district to 
be in compliance with the "one man, one vote" principle;

3. The United States Constitution, above all, required that 
the districts be established on a racially desegregated basis.

' VIII.
In the 1969-70 school year, the Detroit Board of Education 

operated 21 high school constellations providing a public education 
for 281,101 school children (excluding 12,758 students not listed 
in high school constellations and In adult programs). 6l.9* of 
these students were Negro, 3 6 .*1# were white, and 1.7% were of other 
racial-ethnic minorities. Of the 21 high school constellations 
operated by the Detroit School Board in 1969-70, 1*1 were racially

5



The high schoolidentifiable as "whi^j^" or "Negro" constellati^^*. 
constellations contain within them 208 elementary schools, 53 

Junior high schools, and 21 senior high schools. Of the 208 
elementary schools (enrolling 1 6 6 , 2 5 8 pupils), 114 (enrolling 
92,225 pupils) are identifiable as "Negro" schools and 71 (enrolling
46,‘448 pupils) are identifiable as "white" schools. Of the 5 3 .
Junior high schools (enrolling 6 3 , 4 7 6 pupils), 24 (enrolling 
31,201 pupils) are identifiable as "Negro" schools and 18 (enrolling
21,507 pupils) are identifiable as "white" schools. Of the 21 .
senior high schools (enrolling- 54,394 pupils, 11 (enrolling 25,351 
pupils) are identifiable as "Negro" schools and 6 (enrolling 
19,183 pupils) are identifiable as "white" schools. ■
. IX. '

On April 7 , 1970, the Detroit Board of Education adopted a 
limited plan of desegregation (Exhibit D, attached hereto) for 
the senior high school level, which plan was to take effect on a 
stair-step basis over a period of four years so that by 1972, there 
would be substantially increased racial integration. This plan 
for high school desegregation contemplated a change in high schoolo
boundary lines, thereby changing the Junior high feeder patterns 
in twelve of Detroit's 21 senior high schools. The plan was 
designed so that by the year 1 9 7 2, only three (as compared to the 
present 1 7) of Detroit’s senior high schools would be racially 
Identifiable as "Negro" or "white" high schools. The plan also 
provided that' a student presently enrolled in a Junior high school 
and who has a brother or sister presently enrolled in a senior 
high school would continue in senior high school at the school 
his brother or sister was presently attending. All those presently 
enrolled In senior high school would not, due to the stair-step 
feature of the plan, be affected and they would continue through 
graduation at the segregated senior high school they were presently 
attending. The April 7 plan did not involve, nor did it affect, 
the existing racially segregated pattern of pupil assignments In 
the elementary and Junior high schools.-

6



Identifiable as "whiw" or ’’Negro" constellation^. The high school
W  * £

constellations contain within them 208 elementary schools, 53 
Junior high schools, and 21 senior high schools. Of the 208 
elementary schools (enrolling 166,258 pupils), llll (enrolling 
92,225 pupils) are Identifiable as "Negro" schools and 71 (enrolling 

pupils) are identifiable as "white" schools. Of the 53. 
Junior high schools (enrolling 63,^76 pupils), 2*1 (enrolling 
31,201 pupils) are identifiable as "Negro" schools and 18 (enrolling 
21,507 pupils) are identifiable as "white" schools. Of the 21 .
senior high schools (enrolling-5^, 39^ pupils, 11 (enrolling 25,351- 
pupils) are Identifiable as "Negro" schools and 6 (enrolling 
19,183 pupils) are identifiable as "white" schools. •
. IX. '

On April 7, 1970, the Detroit Board of Education adopted a 
limited plan of desegregation (Exhibit D, attached hereto) for 
the senior high school level, which plan was to take effect on a 
stair-step basis over a period of four years so that by 1972, there 
would be substantially Increased racial integration. This plan 
for high school desegregation contemplated a change in high schoolo
boundary lines, thereby changing the Junior high feeder patterns 
in twelve of Detroit's 21 senior high schools. The plan was 
designed so that by the year 1972, only three (as compared to the 
present 17) of Detroit’s senior high schools would be racially 
identifiable as "Negro" or "white" high schools. The plan also 
provided that' a student presently enrolled in a Junior high school 
and who has a brother or sister presently enrolled in a senior 
high school would continue in senior high school at the school 
his brother or sister was presently attending. All those presently 
enrolled In senior high school would not, due to the stair-step 
feature of the plan, be affected and they would continue through 
graduation at the segregated senior high school they were presently 
attending. The April 7 plan did not involve, nor did It affect, 
the existing racially segregated pattern of pupil assignments In 
the elementary and Junior high schools.-

6



X.
On April 7, 1970, the Detroit Board of Education by a four- 

to-two vote (the seventh member, now deceased, expressing his

.boundary plan (attached hereto as Exhibit D) for administrative 
decentralization consisting of seven regions. The seven regions 
as established by the Board on April 7, 1970 contained an average 
of 38,802 pupils per region with the smallest region containing 
33,0^3 pupils and the largest region containing ^6,592 pupils, or 
a range of deviation of 13,5^9 pupils with an average deviation 
of. 2,892 pupils per region. The racial complexion of the pupil 
enrollment in the seven regions averaged 61.7? Negro with the 
lowest percent Negro region being and the largest percent
Negro region being 76.7%, or a range of deviation of 1J2.3? Negro 
with an average regional deviation of 10.5? Negro. . .

"community hostility". A movement to recall the four members of 
the Detroit School Board who voted in favor of the April 7, 1970 
action was initiated by white citizens. The recall movement was 
resolved by the Detroit voters (of which a majority are white) 
at the August A, 1970 election, which resulted in the removal of 
the four board members who had voted in favor of the April 7, 1970 
plan. The April 7th plan created a similar reaction in the 
Michigan State Legislature which culminated in the passage of 
Public Act h3, interposing the State and voiding the partial 
desegregation plan, which Act was approved by the defendant, ' 
Governor Milliken, on July 7, 1970.

On July 28, 1970, the attorney for the Detroit Board of 
Education rendered an opinion (attached hereto as Exhibit F.) that 
Act has both the design and the effect of comnletely eliminating 
the provisions of the April 7th plan adopted by the Board. Section

approval by letter from his hospital bed) adopted a regional

XI.
The actions of the Detroit School Board on April 7, 1970 

approving a desegregation plan resulted in expressions of

XII.

7



2a of the Act p r o v e s  that ."[regions shall £  as compact, 
contiguous and nearly equal in population as practicable." This 
provision was intended to and does eliminate the efforts of the 
Board on April 7, 1970 to create racially integrated regions.
Section 12 of Act 48 eliminates all provisions of the Board's 
April 7th plan aimed at desegregation of the Detroit public schools 
by, first, delaying the implementation of the attendance provisions 
until January 1, 1971 and, second, by mandating an open enrollment 
( freedom of choice ) policy qualified only by a provision providing 
students residing nearest a school with an attendance priority 
over those residing farther away. Section 12 has the further effect 
of eliminating two policies of the Detroit Board of Education:

■ Cl) prior to the adoption of Act 48, a student could transfer to 
a school other than the one to which he was initially assigned 
only if his transfer would have the effect of increasing desegrega­
tion in the Detroit school system; (2) prior to the adoption of 
Act 48, whenever pupils had to be bused to relieve overcrowding, 
they were transported to the first and nearest school where their 
entry would ’increase desegregation.
. . . XIII. .. • .

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2a of Act 48, the 
defendant, Governor William G. Milliken, on July 22, 1970 appointed 
a three-member commission known hereafter as the Detroit Boundary 
Line Commission to draw the boundary lines for the eight public 
school election regions mandated by Act 48. On August 4, 1970 
the Detroit Boundary Line Commission adopted its plan and presented 
Its boundary lines for the eight election regions as called for In 
Act 48. The Boundary Line Commission's August 4th plan (a copy of 
which Is attached hereto as Exhibit P) is a complete negation of 
the Board's April 7th region plan. The August 4th plan creates 
eight regions with an average of 33,582 pupils In each region with 
a range of deviation of 19,942 (the largest region contains 43,025 
pupils while the smallest region contains 23,083) and an average 
deviation for each region of 22.92. Under the plan adopted by the



Detroit Boundary Lin— Commission on August 4, * .0, there will
be new racially segregated school regions estaWRshed in the 
defendant school system. •

XIV.
Section 12 of the Act was enacted with the express Intent of 

preventing the desegregation of the defendant system. It applies 
to but one school district in the State and reestablishes a policy 
found by the United States Supreme Court to be an Inadequate method 
for elimination of segregated school attendance patterns. It seeks

.It • •to reverse a finding of the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Michigan In Sherrill School Parents Committee 
v. The Board of Ed. of the School District of the City of Detroit, 
Michigan, {}22092, E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 1964, that the "Open School" 
program does not appear to be achieving substantial student Integra­
tion In the Detroit School System presently or within the foreseeable

ofuture. •'
■ XV.

Plaintiffs allege that in the premises Public Act 48 on its 
face and as applied violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States; the Act pertains solely to the 
Detroit Board of Education and thereby deliberately prohibits the 
Detroit Board of Education from making pupil assignments and 
establishing pupil attendance zones In a manner which all other 
school districts in the State of Michigan are free to do. Public 
Act 48 thereby creates an Irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary 
classification which contravenes the equal protection and due 
process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The distinction made 
by Public Act 48 Is further unconstitutional by the fact that It 
applies solely to the Detroit school district where the bulk of 
Negro school children In the State of Michigan are concentrated.

. XVI.
Public Act 48 further violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution In that the Act impedes the legally 
mandated integration of the public schools; the effect of the Act

9



is to perpetuate thc^egregatlon and racial legation of the past 
and give it the stamp of legislative approval. The Act, building 
upon the .preexisting nubile and private housing segregation, had 
the purpose, intent and effect of intensifying the present segrega­
tion and racial isolation in the Detroit public schools. The Act 
further violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it constitutes 
a reversal by the State of Michigan of action taken by the Detroit 
School Board which action was consistent with and mandated by the 
Constitution of the United States. In addition, Public Act 48 
infringes upon the Thirteenth ‘Amendment in that its effect Is to 
relegate Negro school children In the City of Detroit to a position 
of Inferiority and to assert the inferiority of Negroes generally, 
thereby creating and perpetuating badges and incidents of slavery; 
and, also, In that It denies to black persons in Detroit the same 
rights to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings 
as white citizens enjoy. .

XVII.

• v The defendants, Board of Education of the City of Detroit and
s. _

Michigan State Board of Education, are- charged under Michigan law 
and the Constitution and laws of the United States with the 
responsibility of operating a unitary public school system in the 
City of Detroit, Michigan.

XVIII.
Plaintiffs allege that they are being denied equal educational 

opportunities by the defendants because of the segregated pattern 
of pupil assignments and the racial identifiability of the schools 
in the Detroit public school system. Plaintiffs further allege

. rthat said denials of equal educational opportunities contravene . 
and abridge their rights as secured by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth 
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

XIX. '
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants herein, acting under 

color of the laws of the State of Michigan, have pursued and are 
presently pursuing a policy, custom, practice and usage of operating,

10



• nging and c e n t r ^ n g  the said public schoo^ system in a manner
, . v  u  •  • A‘'bat has the purpose and effect of perpetuatJ^^ a segregated public 
school system. This segregated public school system is based 
predominantly upon the race and color of the students attending 
said school system; attendance at the various schools is based upon 
race and color; and the assignment of personnel has in the past and

A • •
remains to an extent based upon the race and color of the children .

1
attending the particular school and the race and color of the 
personnel to be assigned. •

- XX.
The plaintiffs allege that the racially discriminatory policy,' 

custom, practice and usage described in paragraph XIX has included 
assigning students, designing attendance zones for elementary 
junior and senior high schools, establishing feeder patterns to 
secondary schools, planning future public educational facilities, 
constructing new schools, and utilizing or building upon the existing 
racially discriminatory patterns in both public and private housing 
on the basis of the race and color of the children who are eligible 
to attend said schools. The said discriminatory policy, custom, 
practice, and usage has resulted in a public school system composed 
of schools which are either attended solely or predominantly by 
black students or attended solely or predominantly by white students.

XXI.
The plaintiffs allege that the racially discriminatory policy, 

custom, practice and usage described In paragraph XIX has also 
Included assigning faculty and staff members employed by defendants 
to the various schools in the Detroit school system on the basis 
of the 'race and color of the personnel to be assigned. Consequently, 
a general practice has developed whereby white faculty and staff 
members have been assigned on the basis of their race and color to 
schools attended solely or predominantly by white students and 
Negro faculty and 3taff members have been assigned on the basis of 
their race and color to schools attended solely or predominantly by 
black students. .

11



XXII.
The defendants nave failed and refused toWake all necessary 

steps to correct the effects of their policy, practice, custom and 
usage of racial discrimination in the operation of said school 
system and to Insure that such policy, custom, practice and usage 
for the 1970-71 school year, and thereafter, will conform to the 
requirements of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• . . XXIII. .

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and affected on whose 
behalf this action is brought .are suffering Irreparable Injury and 
will continue to suffer Irreparable injury by reason of the provi­
sions of the Act complained of herein and by reason of the failure 
or refusal of defendants to operate a unitary school system In the 
City of Detroit. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete 
remedy to redress the wrongs complained of herein other than this

. c

action‘for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. "Any other 
remedy to which plaintiffs could be remitted would be attended by 
such uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief, would

N. _ .

involve a multiplicity of suits and would cause further Irreparable 

Injury. The aid of this Court Is necessary In assuring the citizens 
of Detroit and particularly the black public school children of 

the City'of Detroit that this Is truly a nation of laws, not of 
men, and that the promises made by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth 
Amendments are and will be kept.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that upon the filing 
of this complaint the Court:

1. Issue, pendente llte, a temporary restraining order and 
a preliminary Injunction: '

a. Requiring defendants, their agents and other persons 
acting In concert with them to put Into effect the 
•partial plan of senior high school desegregation 
adopted by the defendant, Detroit Board of Education, 
on April 7, 1970, which plan called for its Implemen­
tation at the start of the 1970-71 school term, pro­

vided, however: (1) that the plan shall not be

12



a c c o r d Alexander v. Holmes C^^nty Board , 396 
U.S. 19 (1 9 6 9), become completely, and fully effective 
at the beginning of the coming (1970-71) school year;

. and (2) that those provisions which exclude a pupil
who has a brother or sister presently enrolled in a 
senior high school from being affected by the plan 
shall be deleted in accord with Ross' v. Dyer, 312 
P .2d 191 (5th Cir. 1 9 6 3);

b. Restraining defendants, their agents and other persons 
acting in concert with them from giving any force or

. ■ effect to Sec. 12 of Act No. A8 of the Michigan Public
. • Acts of 1970 insofar as its application would impair 

■ or delay the desegregation of the defendant system;
c. Restraining defendants from taking any steps to 

implement the August , 1970 plan, or any other plan, 
for new district or regional boundaries pursuant to 
Act Jj8, or from taking any action which would prevent

v. or impair the implementation of the regions established
under the defendant Board's earlier plan which provided 

• for non-racially identifiable regions;
d. Restraining defendants from all further school construc­

tion until such time as a constitutional plan for 
operation of the Detroit public schools has been 
approved and new construction reevaluated as a part 
thereof;

e. Requiring defendants to assign by the beginning of 
the 1970-71 school year principals, faculty, and other

. school personnel to each school in the system in • 
accordance with the ratio of white and black principals, 
faculty and other school personnel throughout the 
system.

2. Advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing 
f this action according to lav/ and upon such hearing:

13



a. Enter ^pudgmcat declaring the p^^isions of Act 

No. *18 complained of herein unconstitutional on 
their face and as applied as violative of the 
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 
States Constitution;

b. Enter preliminary and permanent decrees perpetuating
the orders previously entered; ' ~ ■

c. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
employees and successors from continuing to employ 
policies, customs, practices and usages which, as 
described hereinabove, have the purpose and effect 

of leaving intact racially identifiable schools;
d. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 

employees and successors from assigning students 
and/or operating the Detroit school system^in a 
manner which results in students attending racially 

identifiable public schools;
e. Enter a decree requiring defendants, their agents, 

employees and successors to assign teachers, 
principals and other school personnel to schools 
to eliminate the racial identity of schools by 
assigning such personnel to each school in accordance 
with the ratio of white and black personnel throughout 
the system.

f. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
employees and successors from approving budgets, 
making available funds, approving employment and 
construction contracts, locating schools or school ‘ 
additions geographically, and approving policies, 
curriculum and programs, which are designed to or 
have the effect of maintaining, perpetuating or 

supporting racial segregation in the Detroit school 

system.

li»



g. Lntcr a^^-'crcc directing defendants co present a 

complete plan to be effective for^he 1970-71 school 
year for the elimination of the racial Identity of 
every school in the system and to maintain now and 
hereafter a unitary, nonracial school system. Such 
a plan should include the utilization of all methods 
of integration of schools including rezoning, pairing, 
grouping, school consolidation, use of satellite 
zones, and transportation.

h. Plaintiffs pray that the Court enjoin all further . 
construction until such time as a constitutional plan

. has been approved and new construction reevaluated 
as a part thereof. ‘ .

i. Plaintiffs pray that this Court will award reasonable 
counsel fees to their attorneys for services rendered 
and to be rendered them in this cause and allow them 
all out-of-pocket expenses of this action and such 
other and additional relief as may appear to the Court 
to be equitable and just.

Respectfully submitted,

Nathaniel Jones, General Counsel 
N.A.A.C.P., .
1790 Broadway 
New York, New York

Louis R. Lucas 
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee ■

Bruce Miller and 
Lucille Watts, Attorneys for 
Legal Redress Committee 
N.A.A.C.P., Detroit Branch 
3^26 Cadillac Towers 
Detroit, Michigan, and
Attorneys for Plaintiffs