Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "6283008",
    "label": "Busing, June 1, 1976 (1)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283008"
}

{
    "id": "6283008",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283008",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Busing, June 1, 1976 (1)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283008",
    "collections": [
        "White House Special Files Unit Files",
        "Issue Decision Papers for the President"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Busing for school integration",
        "Education, Elementary",
        "Education, Secondary",
        "Legislation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/8/2830/6283008/content/library/document/0010/6283008.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/8/2830/6283008/content/library/document/0010/6283008.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/8/2830/6283008/content/library/document/0010/6283008.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283008",
    "naId": 6283008,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "day": 25,
        "logicalDate": "1976-06-25",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-04-01",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/8/2830/6283008/content/library/document/0010/6283008.pdf",
    "mediaId": "c800216488354824",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 4, folder \"Busing, June 1, 1976 (1)\" of the White\nHouse Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 4 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 1, 1976\nNOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT\nHere are the memoranda for\nyour meeting tomorrow on\nbusing.\nIf you are pressed for time,\nI would suggest that you read\nthe two-page memo on Busing\nLegislation and the five-page\nmemo on Alternatives to Court\nOrdered Busing.\nJain 1m Cannon\nGERALU\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 1, 1976\nDECISION\nMEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nSUBJECT:\nAlternatives Jun to Court Ordered Busing\nJIM CANNON\nPURPOSE\nTo offer for your consideration possible alternatives to\ncourt ordered busing which the Federal government could\nmake available to a community seeking remedies to school\nsegregation.\nISSUE\nBusing has become the most controversial remedy ordered\nby the Federal courts to facilitate desegregation.\nAs an appropriate remedy to desegregate, busing was first\naffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1971, 17 years after the\nBrown decision. A chronology of the major school desegre-\ngation decisions is at Tab A.\nThe school bus started to become a major element of elemen-\ntary and secondary education in the 1920's as consolidated\nschool districts replaced the little red school house.\nToday, more than 21 million school children, 51% of the\ntotal school enrollment of 41 million, are bused to school.\nBusing for better education has been widely accepted in\nthis country, but decisions by Federal courts to order\nbusing of children against prevailing community opinion\nare often resisted and accompanied by violence and dis-\norder.\nSince most situations in which desegregation is occurring\nwill involve some voluntary or involuntary busing, the\nneed is to find a means by which the Executive Branch can\nbest assist a community to undertake voluntary or coopera-\ntive busing plans rather than leaving it to the courts to\nimpose forced busing.\n-2-\nBACKGROUND\nOn August 21, 1974 you signed the Education Amendments\nof 1974 which included the \"Esch Amendments. \" These\namendments (Tab B) are designed to place legislative\nlimits on the extent to which busing could be ordered\nby Federal courts or agencies.\nLast Fall you directed the Attorney General and the\nSecretary of HEW to explore better ways to bring about\nschool desegregation than court ordered busing.\nIn an October 27, 1975 meeting with Senator Tower you\ndirected Phil Buchen to ask Justice and HEW to review\nthe busing situation with the objective of seeking alter-\nnative remedies.\nOn November 20, 1975, you met with Attorney General Levi\nand Secretary Mathews and requested that they consider and\ndevelop:\n1.\nmeans of helping local school districts stay\nout of court.\n2.\nalternative remedies and legal theories which\na court might find acceptable once a school\ndistrict was in court.\nI have been working with HEW and others in your Administra-\ntion on item 1 while Phil Buchen has been regularly in\ncontact with the Attorney General on item 2.\nOn February 17, 1976, we outlined approaches and concepts\nunder consideration. You indicated four which you felt\nmerited further examination.\nOn April 12, 1976, I reported to you that we were develop-\ning approaches based on these premises:\n1.\nCommunities should find solutions on their own\nrather than have them imposed by the Federal\ngovernment.\n2.\nRemedies can best be reached before any court\naction begins.\n3.\nAny approach must be in accord with Federal\nlaw enforcement responsibilities.\n-3-\nOn May 17, 1976, I reported to you that we were in the\nprocess of refining and further examining three possible\napproaches to help a community avoid a court order to bus.\nALTERNATIVES TO COURT ORDERED BUSING\nThe following proposals have evolved as the most respon-\nsible courses of action available to be offered to a com-\nmunity to better enable it to desegregate its schools\nprior to the initiation of legal action. While it is\nlikely that each of the alternatives would result in some\nbusing the intent is to have such plans be developed by a\ncommunity itself rather than imposed on it by the courts.\nAlternative I: Mediation Service\nEstablish a Community Mediation Service, somewhat\nparallel to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation\nService, to provide mediation assistance to a com-\nmunity in its efforts to desegregate. As proposed,\nit would be available to a community both before\nand after it was under a court order to desegregate.\nSuch service could head off busing by court order\nby providing assistance to a community, at its\nrequest, to develop an acceptable plan to desegre-\ngate its schools. If any busing were involved it\nwould result from a community decision assisted\nby the mediation process, not from a court order.\nWe believe such a mediation service could be set\nup by Presidential Executive Order.\nAlternative II: Presidential Representative\nAt the request of a community, the President would\ndesignate a nationally known person to be his\nspecial representative to insure that the full\nresources of the Federal government were made\navailable to communities who were initiating\nefforts, prior to legal action, to desegregate\ntheir schools.\nThis Presidential representative would seek to\nfacilitate the use of the many existing Federal\nresources and also to involve religions, academic,\nbusiness and labor groups in the response to a com-\nmunity's request for assistance.\nThis could be done by Presidential action.\n-4- -\nAlternative III: National Community and Education\nCommission\nSecretary Mathews proposes the establishment of a\nNational Community and Education Commission to\nassist communities in preparing for desegregation\nactivities and for avoiding community violence and\ndisruption. (Tab C)\nThe bipartisan Commission would be independent of\nboth HEW and Justice and would be composed of nine\nmembers who were nationally representative of busi-\nness, education, labor, community leadership and\nlocal government.\nThe Commission would have a staff of approximately\n50 and an annual budget of $2 million.\nIts responsibilities would be to work through local\ncommunity leaders, using existing Federal resources,\nto encourage and facilitate constructive, comprehen-\nsive planning for school desegregation at the local\nlevel. Its approach would be to work quietly with\na broad spectrum of local leaders --\n--\nto identify problems before they develop.\n--\nto informally mediate so that communities\nthemselves can cooperatively devise solu-\ntions.\n--\nto expedite Federal assistance, both tech-\nnical and fiscal, from existing programs.\n--\nto encourage assistance from the private\nsector.\nIt would specifically not serve as a court-appointed\nintermediary between parties in a legal suit related\nto desegregation.\nWe believe such a Commission could be created by\nPresidential Executive Order.\nGERRINS\nDISCUSSION\nThe various advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives\nand the related staff comments and recommendations can,\nwe believe, best be covered in the discussion at Wednesday's\n-5-\nmeeting with the Attorney General, the Secretary of HEW,\nSecretary of Labor and other members of your staff.\nDECISION\nAlternative I: Mediation Service\nApprove\nDisapprove\nAlternative II: Presidential Representative\nApprove\nDisapprove\nAlternative III: National Community and Education\nCommission\nApprove\nDisapprove\nA\nCHRONOLOGY OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION DECISIONS\nA.\nBrown V. Board of Education (1954)\nThe landmark Supreme Court decision in the school\ndesegregation area in this century was Brown V.\nBoard of Education (of Topeka), decided in 1954.\nIn Brown, the Supreme Court held that segregation\nin public schools on the basis of race, even though\nthe physical facilities and other \"tangible\" fac-\ntors may be equal, denies children of the minority\ngroup the equal protection of the laws in violation\nof the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Brown decision,\nthe Supreme Court did not prescribe any specific\nmethod for accomplishing desegregation.\nB.\nBrown II (1955)\nIn a follow-up to its 1954 Brown decision, the\nSupreme Court in 1955 directed that desegregation\nproceed with \"all deliberate speed.\"\nC.\n\"Freedom of Choice\"\nIn the years immediately following Brown, from 1954\nto 1964, the courts wrestled with the issue of\nappropriate remedies in cases of de jure segregation,\nfinally concluding in a number of cases that the\n\"freedom of choice\" method of dismantling dual\nschool systems was an acceptable approach. Under\nfreedom of choice, school districts merely gave\nstudents -- black and white -- the choice of the\nschools they wished to attend. The result was a\nmodest degree of desegregation, as some blacks\nelected to attend formerly white schools. However,\nrarely did whites choose to attend formerly black\nschools. The result was that only 1.2 percent of\nblack students in the 11 southern states attended\nschools with whites in 1963-64.\nD.\nCivil Rights Act of 1964 and Bradley Case\nShortly after passage of the Civil Rights Act of\n1964, the Supreme Court stated in Bradley V. School\nBoard of Richmond (1965) that \"delays in desegrega-\nting school systems are no longer tolerable.\" The\n-2-\nCivil Rights Act of 1964 provided additional\nsupport for the desegregation process through\nTitles IV and VI. Under Title IV, technical\nassistance may be given to applicant school\nboards in the preparation, adoption, and imple-\nmentation of plans for desegregation of public\nschools. If efforts to secure a school district's\nvoluntary desegregation failed, administrative\nenforcement proceedings under Title VI would be\ninitiated.\nE.\nGreen Decision (1968)\nIn April 1968, HEW's Office for Civil Rights\ndirected that, where freedom of choice plans had\nnot effectively eliminated dual school systems,\nthe systems should adopt plans that would accom-\nplish this task. During that year, the Supreme\nCourt strengthened the HEW position in deciding\nGreen V. New Kent County School Board (Virginia).\nIn Green, after noting that in many areas desegre-\ngation was not yet a reality, the Court said that\nthe time for mere \"deliberate speed\" had run out.\nThe Court held that where a freedom of choice assign-\nment plan failed to effectively desegregate a school\nsystem, the system had to adopt a student assignment\nplan which \"promised realistically to work now.\"\nThis was the death, since rarely, if ever, did\nfreedom of choice result in effective school desegre-\ngation.\nF.\nAlexander V. Holmes (1969)\nIn the summer of 1969, the Court decided Alexander\nV. Holmes County Board of Education (Mississippi),\nholding that school districts had a constitutional\nobligation to dismantle dual school systems \"at once\"\nand to operate now and hereafter as unitary systems.\nThe Court, quoting from Green, reiterated its deter-\nmination that school systems must develop desegregation\nplans that \"promise realistically to work now. \" Thus,\nAlexander clearly reaffirmed the Court's position on\nthe issue of timing in desegregation cases.\nG.\nBusing - Swann V. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of\nEducation (1971)\nIn the spring of 1971, the Supreme Court handed down\nthe first \"busing\" decision in the case of Swann V.\n-3-\nCharlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (North\nCarolina). In Swann, the Court held that:\n1.\ndesegregation plans could not be limited\nto the walk-in neighborhood school;\n2.\nbusing was a permissible tool for desegre-\ngation purposes; and,\n3.\nbusing would not be required if it\n\"endangers the health or safety of children\nor significantly impinges on the educa-\ntional process.\nThe Court also held that, while racial balance is\nnot required by the Constitution, a District Court\nhas discretion to use racial ratios as a starting\npoint in shaping a remedy.\nH.\nHEW Responsibilities to Enforce (1973)\nThe immediate desegregation mandate of Alexander\nand the insistence in Swann that schools having\ndisproportionately minority enrollment were pre-\nsumptively in violation were not acted upon by HEW,\nwhich permitted these districts to remain \"under\nreview.' HEW attempted to secure compliance through\npersuasion and negotiation, and the Title VI enforce-\nment mechanism fell into disuse. These conditions\nled to the initiation of Adams V. Richardson, in\nwhich HEW was charged with delinquency in desegre-\ngating public educational institutions that were\nreceiving Federal funds.\nThis suit alleged that HEW had defaulted in the\nadministration of its responsibilities under Title VI\nof the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court\n(District of Columbia) stated on February 16, 1973,\nthat, where efforts to secure voluntary compliance\nwith Title VI failed, the limited discretion of HEW\nofficials was exhausted. Where negotiation and con-\nciliation did not secure compliance, HEW officials\nwere obliged to implement the provisions of the\nTitle VI regulations: provide for a hearing; determine\ncompliance or noncompliance; and, following a deter-\nmination of noncompliance, terminate Federal finan-\ncial assistance.\n-4-\nThe district court's decision was modified and\naffirmed by the Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit,\n1973) . Essentially, the district court order\nrequires that HEW properly recognize its statutory\nobligations, ensuring that the policies it adopts\nand implements are consistent with those duties\nand not a negation of them.\nI.\nKeyes - \"Segregative Intent\" (1973)\nIn June 1973, the Supreme Court rendered its deci-\nsion in Keyes V. School District No. 1 (Denver,\nColorado). This was the Court's first decision on\nthe merits in a school desegregation case arising\nin a State which did not have an official policy\nof racial dualism in 1954. In Keyes, the Court\nheld that where it could be demonstrated that a\nschool board had acted with \"segregative intent\"\nto maintain or perpetuate a \"dual school system\"\nthis was tantamount to de jure segregation in viola-\ntion of the Constitution. A finding of de jure\nsegregation as to one part of the system creates\na presumption that segregative intent existed in\nthe entire system and in such cases, the school\nboard had \"an affirmative duty to desegregate the\nentire system 'root and branch'\".\nJ.\nMilliken - Cross District Busing (1974)\nIn its most recent ruling respecting school desegre-\ngation, Milliken V. Bradley (Detroit, Michigan),\nthe Supreme Court refused to require busing between\nschool districts absent a showing that there has been\na constitutional violation within one district that\nproduced a significant segregative effect in another\ndistrict.\nB\nTAB B\nESCH AMENDMENTS (1974)\nYou signed into law on August 1974, Amendments to the\nElementary and Secondary School Act which included\nthe Esch amendments which were designed to place\nlegislative limits on the extent to which busing\ncould be ordered by Federal Courts or agencies.\nThe key elements of those provisions are:\nA.\nRemedies to Correct Segregation\nWhen formulating desegregation plans, Federal\nCourts and agencies must use following\nremedies in order listed:\n(1) Assign students to closest school\n(considering school capacity and\nnatural physical barriers).\n(2) Assign students to closest school\n(considering school capacity only).\n(3) Permit students to transfer from\nschool where their race, color\nor creed is a majority to one\nwhere it is a minority.\n(4)\nCreate or revise attendance zones\nor grade structures without requiring\nbusing beyond that described below.\n(5) Construct new schools or close\ninferior ones.\n(6) Construct or create \"magnet\" (high\nquality) schools.\n(7) Implement any other educationally\nsound and administratively feasible\nplan.\nB.\nAdditional Restrictions on Federal Courts or\nAgencies\n(1) No ordered busing of students beyond\nschool next closest to home.\n-2-\n(2) No ordered busing at risk of students'\nhealth.\n(3) No new desegregation plans may be\nformulated to correct shifts in atten-\ndance patterns once school system\ndetermined non-segregated.\n(4) No desegregation plans can ignore or\nalter school district lines unless\nsuch lines were drawn to, or tend to,\npromote segregation.\n(5) No ordered busing shall be effective\nuntil the beginning of an academic\nschool year.\nC.\nRights Granted to Individuals and School Districts\n(1) Allows suits by individuals (or\nAttorney General on individuals'\nbehalf) under the Act.\n(2) Permits voluntary busing beyond limits\noutlined.\n(3) Allows reopening of pre-existing Court\norders or desegregation plans to achieve\nTitle II compliance.\n(4) Requires termination of court-ordered\nbusing if Federal Court finds school\ndistrict non-segregated.\nIt should be noted that the priority of remedies set\nforth in the Esch Amendments is merely a slight\nelaboration on existing case law. A review of the\ncases from Swann on up to Boston and Louisville clearly\nshows that the Courts have always turned to busing as\na last resort. Moreover, since several of the prior\nremedies set forth in the Esch Amendments (such as\nconstruction of new schools) would not accommodate\nimmediate desegregation of a school system, it is\ndoubtful that, as a matter of constitutional law, they\nare binding as to the Courts. Finally, as to the appli-\ncation of the Esch Amendments to Federal agencies\n(notably the Office of Civil Rights in HEW) it appears\nthat OCR has never required busing on a massive scale and\nhas, since their enactment, observed the terms of the\nAmendments.\nC\nHEALTH\nATIONAND\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE\nRTMENT\nWASHINGTON.D.C.2020I\nDEF\nMAY 20 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nPursuant to our conversation, I have prepared for your consideration\na proposal to establish a National Community and Education Commission\nto assist communities in preparing for desegregation activities and\nin avoiding trauma, violence and disruption. At Tab A I have enclosed\na brief discussion of the nature and functions of such a Commission\nand at Tab B a proposed draft Presidential Executive Order estab-\nlishing the Commission. I would call to your attention the following\ntwo specific issues in terms of this approach.\nImplementation Strategy - Executive Order or Legislation\nAlthough the Commission could be established either through legislation\nor an Executive Order, the Executive Order approach appears preferable\nfor the following reasons:\nThe chances of Congress considering legislation to implement\nthis proposal in the near future are very slight.\nYou have the authority and precedent to create an action-type\ncouncil or commission by Executive Order. As long as the\nExecutive Order does not contradict or supersede any statutes,\nyou may create councils, commissions, and committees to carry\nout any function from studying a problem to developing programs.\nYou may also give such bodies review and regulatory authority and\nthe power to mediate.\nIt is common practice for such commissions to receive appro-\npriations from Congress without authorizing legislation. In\nFOR\nmost cases, the \"parent\" Department (in this case HEW) requests\nfunds for the commission as a line item in its appropriation.\nGERALD\nAlthough the Executive Order approach does not require Congressional\naction, it is imperative that consultations with minority members on\nthe appropriate committees be initiated promptly if such a proposal\nis approved by the Administration. Unless handled carefully, the\nDemocratic Congress could endanger the proposal by arguing that the\nPage 2 -- Memorandum For The President\nAdministration is taking away Congress' authority to legislate. Even\nwith an Executive Order, Congress' support and tacit approval is\nneeded to enable the Commission to succeed in its complex mission.\nAppropriations Strategy - Commission\nTo accomplish its mission effectively, the Commission would require\na permanent staff of approximately 50 persons, as well as the ability\nto hire such consultants as it may need for specific projects. Support\ncosts for such an enterprise would be around $2 million annually. As\nnoted above, HEW would request funds for the Commission as a line item\nin its appropriation. Although funds could be requested through an\nemergency supplemental or obtained through a reprogramming of present\nHEW funds, the preferred course of action is a budget amendment which\nwould fund the Commission as of October 1.\nI believe the approach suggested herein provides the most viable and\neffective strategy for the Administration to demonstrate it is truly\nconcerned about the issue of the disruption of communities because\nof desegregation activities. I would recommend your approval of this\napproach and the issuance of such an Executive Order after appropriate\nconsultation with the Congress.\nEnclosures\nHEALTH.\nOF THINK PREMIUM AND\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20201\nU.S.A.\nMAY 2 0 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nPursuant to our conversation, I have prepared for your consideration\na proposal to establish a National Community and Education Commission\nto assist communities in preparing for desegregation activities and\nin avoiding trauma, violence and disruption. At Tab A I have enclosed\na brief discussion of the nature and functions of such a Commission\nand at Tab B a proposed draft Presidential Executive Order estab-\nlishing the Commission. I would call to your attention the following\ntwo specific issues in terms of this approach.\nImplementation Strategy - Executive Order or Legislation\nAlthough the Commission could be established either through legislation\nor an Executive Order, the Executive Order approach appears preferable\nfor the following reasons:\nThe chances of Congress considering legislation to implement\nthis proposal in the near future are very slight.\nYou have the authority and precedent to create an action-type\nGERALD R\ncouncil or commission by Executive Order. As long as the\nExecutive Order does not contradict or supersede any statutes,\nyou may create councils, commissions, and committees to carry\nout any function from studying a problem to developing programs.\nYou may also give such bodies review and regulatory authority and\nthe power to mediate.\nIt is common practice for such commissions to receive appro-\npriations from Congress without authorizing legislation. In\nmost cases, the \"parent\" Department (in this case HEW) requests\nfunds for the commission as a line item in its appropriation.\nAlthough the Executive Order approach does not require Congressional\naction, it is imperative that consultations with minority members on\nthe appropriate committees be initiated promptly if such a proposal\nis approved by the Administration. Unless handled carefully, the\nDemocratic Congress could endanger the proposal by arguing that the\nPage 2 -- Memorandum For The President\nAdministration is taking away Congress' authority to legislate. Even\nwith an Executive Order, Congress' support and tacit approval is\nneeded to enable the Commission to succeed in its complex mission.\nAppropriations Strategy - Commission\nTo accomplish its mission effectively, the Commission would require\na permanent staff of approximately 50 persons, as well as the ability\nto hire such consultants as it may need for specific projects. Support\ncosts for such an enterprise would be around $2 million annually. As\nnoted above, HEW would request funds for the Commission as a line item\nin its appropriation. Although funds could be requested through an\nemergency supplemental or obtained through a reprogramming of present\nHEW funds, the preferred course of action is a budget amendment which\nwould fund the Commission as of October 1.\nI believe the approach suggested herein provides the most viable and\neffective strategy for the Administration to demonstrate it is truly\nconcerned about the issue of the disruption of communities because\nof desegregation activities. I would recommend your approval of this\napproach and the issuance of such an Executive Order after appropriate\nconsultation with the Congress.\nEnclosures\nGERALD is FORD\nHEW\n[-]\nA\nB\nA\nESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY AND EDUCATION COMMISSION\nA MAJOR INITIATIVE IN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION\nSummary Description\nIn an effort to encourage and facilitate constructive, comprehensive\nplanning for school desegregation at the local level, it is proposed\nthat the National Community and Education Commission be established by\nExecutive Order. The Commission would be a Presidentially-appointed,\nbipartisan group of distinguished citizens drawn from business and\nother professional circles. Its charge would be to assist local\ncommunities in carrying out desegregation planning activities designed\nto build lines of communication, avert disorder, and encourage con-\nstructive interracial classroom environments through the example of\nconstructive interracial community environments.\nSpecific Function\nThe Commission's chief responsibility would be to advise local com-\nmunity leaders at the earliest stages of desegregation planning.\nAssistance would be initiated at the request of the affected community,\nand at that point a determination would be made by one or more Com-\nmission members as to what course of Commission activity offered the\ngreatest promise of success within the particular community. In general,\nhowever, the orientation of the Commission would be toward working\nquietly with a broad spectrum of local leaders to identify problems\nbefore they develop and to devise solutions which could be carried out\nlocally. While working within a community, the Commission would function\nprimarily in a supportive and advisory role.\nIn the course of its consultations with the community and the school\ndistrict, one of the Commission's chief functions would be to inform\nlocal leaders of additional sources of desegregation assistance (Federal,\nState, local and private) and encourage that these sources be investi-\ngated. Such sources include direct funding through the Emergency School\nAid Act; technical assistance through OE's General Assistance Centers;\nOE's ten regional offices, and the Justice Department's Community\nRelations Service; formal mediation service through the Federal\nMediation and Conciliation Service; and other forms of aid through\nthe U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, State human relations agencies,\nand related private agencies.\nAlthough the Commission's activities will overlap to some extent with\nthose of the organizations mentioned above, the Commission should be\nGERALD\n-2-\nable to minimize unnecessary duplication through careful liaison\nwith these other resources. It will be particularly important to\nwork out non-duplicative roles with the Community Relations Service\n(CRS) since the function of CRS -- helping communities defuse tensions\nand conflicts arising from inequities or discrimination based on race,\ncolor, or national origin -- is notably similar to that of the pro-\nposed Commission. The CRS focuses less of its attention on pre-crisis\nintervention now than it did prior to FY 1974. Budget cuts that year\neffectively removed CRS from its earlier pre-crisis role, even though\nsome individuals have held that the nature of the CRS function and\nexpertise makes the agency particularly well suited to pre-crisis\nassistance. Thus, although CRS may not be currently active in some\nof the Commission's more important roles, its staff probably will\nhave valuable insights and experiences to share with the Commission.\nIn keeping with its general functions already described, the Commis-\nsion's role would not be to serve as a court-appointed intermediary\nbetween parties in a legal suit related to desegregation. Mediation\nwould be a proper role for the Commission only in instances where it\nwas conducted informally and with the voluntary participation of the\nmajor elements of the community. Similarly, the Commission would not\nbe empowered to act for any State or Federal agency in an enforcement\nor compliance capacity. Moreover, it would not be expected to draw\nup desegregation-related student assignment plans at the request of\na State or Federal agency.\nFederal Incentives for Comprehensive Community Planning\nThe Commission is intended primarily to provide help to school districts\nwhich have not yet adopted or been issued a desegregation plan (although\ndistricts at other points in the desegregation process certainly would\nnot be precluded from receiving assistance from the Commission). In\norder to provide support for districts which are conducting compre-\nhensive, community-based planning for desegregation, it is proposed\nthat a specified amount of funds in the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA)\ndiscretionary account be set aside to support local planning acti-\nvities, including those initiated with Commission involvement.\nThe ESAA discretionary account (Section 708 (a)) is the only part of\nthe ESAA under which a school district without an eligible desegregation\nplan may receive funds. Therefore, it would be possible to stipulate by\nregulation that a community which showed proof of effort to conduct\ncommunity-wide desegregation planning could receive funding to conduct\nsuch planning and other activities authorized under ESAA. The intention\nwould be that this planning would involve all major sectors of the\ncommunity, including business and housing representatives.\nBERALD R.\n-3-\nStructure\nThe Commission would be made up of nine members who would be appointed\nby the President for three-year terms of office. To provide continuity\nwithin the Commission, terms of office for individual members would be\nstaggered at one-year intervals. The Commission chairman would be\nselected by the President, with the first chairman appointed for a\nfull three-year term. Commission members would be expected to main-\ntain their regular occupations but would be compensated at EL IV for\nthe days they work on Commission activities. To ensure bipartisan\nrepresentation, restrictions would be placed on the number of Commis-\nsion members permitted from each political party. The Commission would\nhave the authority to hire staff on an excepted service basis and to\nretain consultants as needed for specific projects.\nSERALD\nA B T\nB\nHEW\nDRAFT\nEXECUTIVE ORDER\nNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND EDUCATION COMMISSION\nThroughout the history of our Nation, the education\nof our children, especially at the elementary and secondary\nlevel, has been a community endeavor. The concept of public\neducation began in the community and continuous support for\npublic schools has been provided by the community. Although\nthe States, and to some extent the Federal government, have\nbeen providing increasing financial assistance for education,\nit has become clear that the solution of many of the most\npressing problems facing our schools lies within the\ncommunity which supports those schools.\nThis fact has particular relevance to the problem of\nschool desegregation. Over the past two decades, communities\nhave been under pressure from the courts, the Department of\nHealth, Education, and Welfare, and in some cases the States,\nto institute changes in the assignment of students to schools.\nToo often this has been accomplished without the involvement\nof the community or with its involvement only after confron-\ntions have occurred and community positions have been\nestablished.\nGERALD LIBRARY FORD\n2\nThe problems that have arisen in the process of school\nintegration have not been due to the inadequacy of law or\nthe lack of appropriate resources. Rather, they can be\nattributed to the fact that the burden of initiating and\nenforcing school desegregation has been borne by the courts\nand the Federal government without the benefit of those\nforces from within the community that are uniquely able to\nbring about necessary change in an orderly and peaceful\nmanner.\nIt is therefore the purpose of this executive order to\nprovide a means to activate and energize effective local\nleadership in the desegregation process at an early stage in\norder to reduce the incidence and severity of the trauma\nthat would otherwise accompany that process, and to provide\na national resource that will be available to assist\ncommunities in anticipating and resolving difficulties\nencountered prior to and during desegregation.\nNOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in\nme as President of the United States of America, it is hereby\nordered as follows:\n3\nSection 1. Establishment of the Commission. (a) There\nis hereby established a National Community and Education\nCommission (hereinafter referred to as the \"Commission\"),\nthe purpose of which shall be to consult with, provide\ntechnical assistance to, and informally mediate between,\ncommunity groups and State and local governmental organizations\n(including educational agencies) in order to anticipate\nand resolve problems and conflicts relating to the\ndesegregation of schools.\n(b) Composition of the Commission. The Commission\nshall be composed of nine members who shall be appointed\nby the President from among individuals who are nationally\nrecognized and respected in business, education, government\nand other fields and whose experience, reputation, and\nqualities of leadership render them uniquely capable of\ncarrying out the purposes of the Commission. No person\nwho is otherwise employed by the United States shall be\nappointed to serve on the Commission. No more than five\nof the members of the Commission at any one time shall\nbe members of the same political party.\n4\n(c) Terms of members. The term of office of each\nmember of the Commission shall be three years, except that\nof the members first appointed to the Commission three shall\nbe appointed for a term of one year and three shall be\nappointed for a term of two years. Any member appointed\nto fill an unexpired term on the Commission shall serve\nfor the remainder of the term for which his predecessor\nwas appointed.\n(d) Chairman; quorum. The Chairman of the Commission\nshall be designated by the President. Five members of the\nCommission shall comprise a quorum.\n(e) Compensation of members. Each member of the\nCommission shall be compensated in an amount equal to that paid\nat level IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule, pursuant\nto section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, prorated on\na daily basis for each day spent on the work of the Commission,\nincluding travel time. In addition, each member shall be\nallowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of\nsubsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5,\nUnited States Code, for persons employed intermittently\nin the Government Service.\n5\n(f) Executive Director; staff. The Commission shall\nhave an Executive Director, designated by the Chairman\nwith the approval of a majority of the members of the\nCommission, who shall assist the Chairman and the Commission\nin the performance of their functions as they may direct.\nThe Executive Director shall be appointed without regard\nto the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing\nappointments in the competitive service. The Commission is\nalso authorized to appoint, without regard to the provisions\nof title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the\ncompetitive service, or otherwise obtain the services of,\nsuch professional, technical, and clerical personnel,\nincluding consultants, as may be necessary to enable the\nCommission to carry out its functions. Such personnel,\nincluding the Executive Director, shall be compensated\nat rates not to exceed that specified at the time such\nservice is performed for grade GS-18 in section 5332 of\nthat title.\nGERALD\n6\nSec. 2. Functions of the Commission. The functions of\nthe Commission shall include, but shall not be limited to:\n(1) Consulting with leaders in the community and local\ngroups in determining means by which such leaders and groups\ncan, through early involvement in the development of, and\npreparation for, school desegregation plans, contribute\nto the desegregation process in such a way as to avoid\nconflicts and the invocation of judicial procedures.\n(2) Encouraging the formation of broadly based local\ncommunity organizations to develop a program designed to\nencourage comprehensive community planning for the desegre-\ngation of schools.\n(3) Providing advice and technical assistance to\ncommunities in preparing for and carrying out comprehensive\nplans to desegregate the schools, involving the broadest\npossible range of community interests and organizations;\n(4) Consulting with the Community Relations Service\nof the Department of Justice (established under title X\nof the Civil Rights Act of 1964), the Office for Civil\nRights in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,\nthe National Institute of Education, the U.S. Office of Education,\n7\nGeneral Assistance Centers (funded under title IV of the\nCivil Rights Act of 1964), the United States Civil Rights\nCommission, and State and local human relations agencies\nto determine how those organizations can contribute to the\nresolution of problems arising in the desegregation of\nschools within a community; and\n(5) Providing informal mediation services among\nindividuals, groups, and agencies within a community in\norder to resolve conflicts, reduce tensions, and develop\nacceptable means of desegregating schools without resort\nto administrative and judicial processes.\nSec. 3. Limitations on activities of the Commission.\nIt shall not be the function of the Commission--\n(1) to prepare desegregation plans;\n(2) to provide mediation services under the order\nof a court of the United States or of a State; or\n(3) to investigate or take any action with respect\nto allegations of violations of law.\nSec. 4. Cooperation by other departments and agencies.\n(a) All executive departments and agencies of the United\nStates are authorized to cooperate with the Commission\nand furnish to it such information, personnel and other\n8\nassistance as may be appropriate to assist the Commission\nin the performance of its functions and as may be authorized\nby law.\n(b) In administering programs designed to assist\nlocal educational agencies and communities in planning for\nand carrying out the desegregation of schools, the Secretary\nof Health, Education, and Welfare and the heads of agencies\nwithin that Department shall administer such programs,\nto the extent permitted by law, in a manner that will\nfurther the activities of the Commission.\nSec. 5. Expenses of the Council. Expenses of the\nCommission shall be paid from such appropriations to the Depart-\nment of Health, Education, and Welfare as may be available\ntherefor.\nSec. 6. Confidentiality. The activities of the members\nand employees of the Commission in carrying out the purposes of\nthis executive order may be conducted in confidence and\nwithout publicity, and the Commission shall, to the extent\nprovided by law, hold confidential any information acquired\nin the regular performance of its duties if such information\nwas provided to the Commission upon the understanding that\nit would be SO held.\nFORD\nGIV439\nHEALTH.\nATMENT OF\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20201\nU.S.A.\nMAR 29 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JAMES M. CANNON\nHere is a report on the reaction of our best staff in the Department\nto the options in your memo on \"Alternatives to Busing:\"\n1.\nMany successful superintendents have been success-\nful because of a low profile. The recognition, while\nflattering, might well be counterproductive. Civil\nrights groups could have a field day with suits aimed\nat proving that the efforts of these individuals really\nwere not good enough.\nFurthermore, since many of the superintendents in\nsuch a group would have used busing, the President\ncould be seen as endorsing busing by one group and\nthen, for the same gesture, criticized for tokenism\nby the other side.\nOf course, as the Commissioner of Education notes,\nthere is some value to reinforcement for people doing\na hard job well.\n2.\nDHEW is already doing much of what is suggested in\nthis option. However, since the federal government\nis seen as the problem, its role as a point of reference\nor place for assistance is, regrettably, limited--\nregardless of how fine its services are.\n3.\nThe same comment just made applies here, too. More\nresearch can always be done, but as you will see from\nthe attached status report, DHEW is already in the\nmidst of a multitude of good studies. And the National\nInstitute of Education predicts that these studies will\nshow busing is \"working\" in eight out of ten situations.\nThere might be some more work done, however, in\nstudies on using community institutions outside the schools\nto aid in desegregation.\nMemorandum for the\nHonorable James M. Cannon\nPage Two\n4.\nThe staff advised great caution with this option.\nThey made the point that to attack busing raises\nthe question of alternatives and since there are not\nmany good ones, the Administration would be left\nwith its back to a wall.\nOur working papers are available if they would be helpful.\nSecretary\nAttachments\nCF HEALTH DECATION AND\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE\nWASHINGTO D.C. 20201\nMAR 29 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nThe best advice I can bring together from across the country leads\nme to recommend a few basic precepts from which to make judgments\non a whole host of complex issues and options on the matter of busing\nand desegregation.\nThe best policy position would be one with three basic elements:\n1.\nIt is important that the President first reaffirm the\nnational commitment to the basic moral principle that\nsegregation is incompatible with any good vision of the\nfuture of this country and that no child should be denied\nthe benefits of an equal education because of race. Any\nposition that does not begin at this point and clear the\nair on it will mire down.\n2.\nYour position on busing can then be restated and expanded\nby the assertion that because of this moral imperative,\nmust\nwe cannot de than pursue, with all diligence, the\nissue of the best means. There is evidence that busing\nis not an effective means in some situations, and we\ncannot escape an obligation to find better approaches\nto the problem. It is important at this point, however,\nnot to go on to try to prove that any of the alternatives\nwe now have is a certain cure either. None is. And\nthere are a great many cases where transportation by\nbuses is working well according to the research reports\nwe have.\nquality advater\n3.\nThe \"truth\" that nobody is saying is that the solution is\nin taking an approach much broader than concentrating\non busing or any of its alternatives. The first part of\nthat solution is to turn the issue away from just a busing\nquestion. The busing debate is really not a constructive\ndebate at all, and the issue must be \"depoliticized\" as\nmuch as possible. Perhaps this issue has met a stale-\nmate in the political processes and must be lifted out of\nthat atmosphere and placed in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical\n- 2 -\nforum for serious and far-reaching reassessment.\nThe suggestion is that you push for real, useful-\nnot just rhetorical- attention to the problem.\n4.\nThe other part of the solution is to focus on the problem\nas it really is, not as it seems to be. The issue is not\nwhat means are used to achieve desegregation but who\ncontrols that decision and how parental and community\nconcerns are taken into consideration. To reframe the\ncase and to focus on reuniting the community and parents\nwith school control has great potential and is the way\nthe cities have had some success with getting on with\ndesegregation.\nway\n5.\nThe public feels that the federal government (whether by\nthe courts or the legislative process) has not only\nfailed to solve the problem but has made it worse. There-\nfore, any solution from any part of the federal govern-\nment is likely to fail -even if it were the \"right\" solu-\ntion. The only good option for the Executive Branch\nmay be to act as a \"helper\" and a partner to aid com-\nmunities in helping themselves.\n6.\nUsing the precedent of the government to create a national\nforce that is not governmental (the National Academy of\nSciences and the National Council on the Arts and Humani-\nties are examples), perhaps we should consider working\nwith local governments and community groups to create\nport.\na body from the best of the local community, education\nand parental leadership, titled perhaps the National Com-\nCout\nmunity and Education Council. It could work as a medi-\ndicision\nating force and provide technical assistance to communi-\nties to deal with problems before they become crises.\nIn fact, the evidence from successes in Atlanta and Dallas\nis that citizen alliances of the type the Council should\nfoster were the decisive forces. As I noted earlier,\n\"success\" seems to turn most on how well a community\ngoes about making decisions that come up before the\nquestion of busing or any other means. The Council\ncould also help cities to get the whole community, not\njust the schools, involved in voluntary efforts to prevent\nunhealthy racial isolation and foster constructive human\nrelations.\n- 3 -\nThe courts might find such a body a welcome referral\npoint (that is, to get ideas but in no sense would it\nbe proper for such a council to be an agent of the\ncourts), and cities or community alliances might\nfind it a source of good ideas and even endorsement.\nAnother alternative would be to use the occasion of\ngetting the ESA legislation renewed to allow us to\nencourage many of the activities that the Council would\nfoster without the fanfare of creating a new agency.\nIn sum, there do not seem to be any solutions that come from dealing\nwith busing directly or even in searching for alternatives. The best\nchances for success seem to be in pioneering some new ground.\nAmericans traditionally have solved problems not by changing the\nproblem, but by changing their view of the problem.\nON-GOING DEPARTMENT STUDIES AND ACTIVITIES RELATED TO\nDESEGREGATION\nThe Department has planned or on-going many analyses,\nevaluations, or research projects related to questions of\nquality education, urban education, and desegregation. The\nmajor ones are listed below:\nOffice of Education\nThe desegregation-related studies underway in OE are primarily\ndirected toward the evaluation of OE's desegregation assistance\nprograms and their effects on schools. One special study\nwill look at a small number of districts that are success-\nfully and peacefully desegregating in an attempt to discover\nthe practices that contribute to successful desegregation.\nThe evaluation of the Emergency School Aid Act\n(ESAA) basic and pilot programs is a longitudinal\nstudy of the effectiveness of two of the largest\ncomponents of ESAA in meeting the objectives of\nthe legislation. Special attention is being given\nto the relative efficacy of alternative school\nprograms in raising student achievement. The\nstudy is being conducted through a contract with\nthe System Development Corporation. The report\non the first year of the study has been issued with\nsubsequent reports due in May 1976 and May 1977.\nThe evaluation of Title IV of the 1964 Civil\nRights Act is assessing the effectiveness of this\nprogram in delivering training and technical\nassistance services to desegregating school\ndistricts. The study is being conducted by Rand\nCorporation, with the final report scheduled for\nrelease in June 1976.\nThe OE study of exemplary desegregated schools is\nexamining evidence showing the degree to which\nvarious school practices and programs contributed\nto successful desegregation. The final report is\ndue in June 1976 from the contractor -- Educational\nTesting Service.\n-2-\nNational Institute of Education\nNIE has a number of on-going studies relating to various\naspects of school desegregation. In FY 1976 the total\namount spent on desegregation research was $682,000. The\naim of these studies is to assist in making desegregated\neducation settings exciting and humane places for children\nand is not to study the effects of desegregation on\nchildren. Some of the most policy relevant of these studies\nare:\nSix ethnographic studies of the cultural milicu\nand environment of desegregated schools. These\nstudies are being carried on in New York,\nPittsburgh, Pontiac, Durham, San Francisco, and\nMemphis. They are due July 1978.\nA study of status equalization and changing\nexpectation in integrated classrooms. This will\nbe due in 1978 or 1979.\nA study of racial integration, public schools,\nand the analysis of white flight. Due October 1976.\nA study entitled \"Political Protest and School\nDesegregation: A Case Study of Boston\". Due\nSeptember 1976.\nA study of social impact on school desegregation,\ndealing with how much school desegregation is\npossible before it becomes counterproductive.\nCompleted January 1976.\nA study of desegregation research and appraisal.\nThis has resulted in a compendium that updates\nand cvaluates the finding of recent research on\nintegration and desegregation. Completed and at\nprinters.\nAssistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation\nThe Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and\nEvaluation (ASPE) is beginning an analysis of Federal School\nDesegregation Policy as it has evolved through judicial,\nlegislative, and administrative action in the last twenty\n-3-\nyears. The analysis consists of six related studies. The\nfirst of these is a legal study that describes the\nimplementation of desegregation actions in the nation's\nschools. It will systematically describe features of the\nvarious desegregation plans implemented in response to\nFederal actions. It will be due a year from now. Three\nother studies will investigate the impact of Federal action\nand different desegregation plans on the racial and socio-\neconomic characteristics of schools and communities,\nattitudes toward desegregation, and student educational\nattainment. These studies will be completed in eighteen\nmonths. A fifth study will investigate minority parti-\ncipation in Federally- funded education programs. This\nstudy is in the design phase and will be completed in\neighteen months. A study of Federal policy alternatives\nwill complete the analysis. It is anticipated that all\nsix studies will be completed in approximately eighteen\nmonths.\nAssistant Secretary of Education\nA small scale effort is underway in ASE's Policy Development\noffice to project probable effects of present court cases,\nto develop new measures of district and regional racial\nisolation, and to review other policy variables of interest\nto the Education Division. This work is being conducted\nas part of a larger policy analysis contract with Stanford\nResearch Institute.\n1/ A later effort will review the impact of Federal\ndesegregation policy on postsecondary education. Study\ncomponents will build upon the analysis developed for\nelementary and secondary education."
}