Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
6283011
label
Busing, June 20-25, 1976
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
6283011
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Busing, June 20-25, 1976
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Issue Decision Papers for the President
subjects
Busing for school integration
Education, Elementary
Education, Secondary
Legislation
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
6283011
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f1edfb3b91319280
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 4, folder "Busing, June 20-25, 1976" of the
White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 4 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
HAT
FROM:
EDWARD SCHMULTS
ESS
SUBJECT:
Private School Discrimination Case
In Runyon et ux., dba Bobbe's School V. McCrary et al., (decided
June 25, 1976), the Supreme Court held that 42 USC 1981*/ may
be constitutionally applied to prohibit private, commercially
operated, non-sectarian schools from denying admission to pros-
pective students because they are Negroes. Justice Stewart
wrote the opinion, in which Chief Justice Burger and Justices
Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell and Stevens joined. The
latter two also filed concurring opinions. Justices White and
Rehnquist dissented.
At the outset the opinion noted that the case did not present
any question as to (a) the right of a private social organization
to limit its membership on racial or other grounds, / (b) the
right of a private school to limit its student body to boys, to
girls, or to adherents to a particular religious faith, and (c)
the right of private sectarian schools to practice racial ex-
clusion on religious grounds.
The Court said that it was well settled that Section 1981 pro-
hibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of
private contracts and cited three earlier decisions (the Jones
case - barring under another Reconstruction statute private
racial discrimination in the sale or rental of real or personal
property; the Tillman case - holding that a private swimming
/ The section provides that "All persons
shall
have
the same right
to make and enforce contracts
and
to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for
the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white
persons
/ Of course, the Court did not express an opinion on this
point.
-2-
club had violated Section 1981 by enforcing a guest policy
that discriminated against Negroes; and the Johnson case -
holding that Section 1981 prohibits the discrimination in
private employment on the basis of race).
In holding that Section 1981 was constitutionally applied by
the lower courts, Justice Stewart said that such application
did not violate any constitutionally protected rights of free
association and privacy, or a parent's right to direct the educa-
tion of his children. He assumed that parents had a First
Amendment right to send their children to educational insti-
tutions that promote the belief that racial segregation is
desirable, and that children have an equal right to attend
such institutions. But it did not follow that a school's
exclusionary practice was protected by the same principle.
Stewart said that no challenge was being made to the right of
parents to send their children to a particular private school
rather than a public school. While parents have a constitutional
right to select private schools that offer specified instruc-
tion, they have no constitutional right to provide their
children with private school education unfettered by reasonable
government regulation such as Section 1981.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Powell stressed that the
schools were "private" only in the sense that they were
managed by private persons and did not use public funds. He
referred to the fact that the schools extended a public offer
to any child meeting minimum qualifications and advertised
in telephone directory yellow pages and by general mail
solicitations. He said there was no reason to assume the
schools had any special reason for exercising an option of
personal choice among those who responded to the public
offers.
Justice Stevens said that he believed the earlier cases had
been incorrectly decided and that, were he writing on a clean
slate, he would reverse the lower courts and find that
Section 1981 did not prohibit private school discrimination.
However, he joined in the Court's opinion in the "interest
in stability and orderly development of the law". To overrule
the earlier decisions would, in Stevens' view, be a sig-
nificant step backward in the Nation's movement to eliminate
racial segregation.
In their dissent, Justices White and Rehnquist said that
Section 1981, on its face, only outlaws any legal rule
-3-
disabling any person from making or enforcing a contract, but
does not prohibit privately motivated refusals to contract.
The dissenters were concerned that the Court's decision
would embark it on the treacherous course of deciding whether
the statute applied to a variety of associational relationships --
such as black and white social clubs.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Monday, June 21, 1976
11 a.m. (30 minutes)
The Cabinet Room
From: Jim Cannor
I.
PURPOSE
To discuss chool desegregation with members of Congress.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A. Background: This is the fifth in a series of
meetings on the issue of school desegregation.
B. Participants: See Tab A.
C. Press Plan: To be announced.
III. TALKING POINTS
1. We are here to talk about school desegregation and,
in particular, the impact of court-ordered busing
on our educational process.
2. Before going to the substance of the matter, however,
I would like to make several things very clear.
First, I recognize that a President, any President,
has a fundamental responsibility to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution. I fully intend
to do.so. Second, I am also committed to seeing that
every American child's right to a good education is
realized. I think these two principles must guide
our discussion.
3. It is my own view that some courts have gone too
far in requiring massive student transfers simply
to achieve racial balance. I think we need to do
something about this.
4. I have, therefore, been working with the Attorney
General and the Secretary of HEW to develop
legislation which will better equip everyone, the
schools, the communities, the courts and the Federal
government, to deal with unlawful discrimination and
to preserve the goal of quality education for all.
2
5.
Each of you has thought a good deal about this
matter, and I would greatly appreciate your suggestions.
A
PARTICIPANTS
Senate
Senator Carl T. Curtis (Neb.)
Senator Robert P. Griffin (Mich.)
Senator Roman L. Hruska (Neb.)
Senator William V. Roth (Dela.)
House
Congressman Marvin L. Esch (Mich.)
Congressman Edward Hutchinson (Mich.)
Congressman John Y. McCollister (Nebraska)
Congressman Robert H. Michel (Illinois)
Congressman Albert H. Quie (Minn.)
Attorney General Edward H. Levi
Secretary F. David Mathews, HEW
Jim Cannon
Jim Cavanaugh
Max Friedersdorf
Jack Marsh
Paul O'Neill
Ed Schmults
Dick Parsons
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 22, 1976
CONGRESSIONAL MEETING ON BUSING
Thursday, June 24, 1976
11:00 a.m. (30 minutes)
The Oval Office
From: Jim Cannon
I. PURPOSE
To advise Congressional committee chairmen of your
decision on busing.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A. Background: You wanted to meet with the chairmen
of the key committees that will handle your
busing legislation prior to sending your formal
Message to Congress.
B. Participants: See list attached at Tab A.
C. Press Plan: To be announced. Photo opportunity.
III. TALKING POINTS
1. We are here to talk about school desegregation and
the impact of court-ordered busing on our
educational process.
2. Before going to the substance of the matter, however,
I would like to make several things very clear.
First, I recognize that a President, any President,
has a fundamental responsibility to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution. I fully
intend to do SO. Second, I am also committed to
seeing that every American child's right to a
good education is realized. I think these two
principles must guide our discussion.
3. It is my own view that some courts have gone too
far in requiring massive student transfers simply
to achieve racial balance. I think we need to do
something about this.
2
4. I have been working with the Attorney General
and the Secretary of HEW to develop legislation
which will better equip everyone- - the schools,
the communities, the courts and the Federal
government to deal with unlawful discrimination
and to preserve the goal of quality education for
all.
5. Ed Levi, would you please summarize for the group
the decisions that we have made on the legislation.
PARTICIPANTS
Congressman Peter W. Rodino Jr. (N. J.)
Congressman Carl D. Perkins (Ky.)
Attorney General Edward H. Levi
Secretary F. David Mathews, HEW
Jim Cannon
Max Friedersdorf
Jack Marsh
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 23, 1976
SIGNING OF BUSING MESSAGE
Thursday, June 24, 1976
11:30 a.m. (10 minutes)
The Oval Office
From: Jim Canno
I. PURPOSE
To sign your Message to Congress on busing.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A. Background: After your series of meetings regarding
school desegregation and busing, your Message to
Congress is prepared for signing and transmittal
to Congress, along with draft legislation.
B. Participants: See list attached at Tab A.
C. Press Plan: To be announced. Photo opportunity.
III. TALKING POINTS
To be supplied by Bob Orben.
GERALD,
RALO
A
PARTICIPANTS
Justice Department
Attorney General Edward H. Levi
Ronald G. Carr, Special Assistant to the Attorney General
John J. Buckley, Jr., Special Assistant to the Attorney General
HEW
Secretary F. David Mathews
William A. Morrill, Assistant Secretary, Planning & Evaluation
William H. Taft, General Counsel
Joffre Whisenton, Special Assistant to the Secretary
Staff
Jim Cannon
Max Friedersdorf
Bobbie Kilberg
Jack Marsh
Dick Parsons
Art Quern
SERALD
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN....
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
JUNE 24, 1976
MR. PRESIDENT:
CO-SPONSORS ON THE BUSING LEGISLATION
THUS FAR INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
SENATOR EASTLAND
SENATOR HRUSKA
CONGRESSMEN RHODES
MICHEL
CONABLE
EDWARDS
GERALD FORD CIBRARY
FREY
VANDERJAGT
QUILLEN
QUIE
HUTCHINSON
DEVINE
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
HR7
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
June 24, 1976
UNTIL 11:45 A.M. (EDT)
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
THE SCHOOL DESEGREGATION STANDARDS
AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1976
The President today is sending legislation to Congress to
improve the Nation's ability to deal with elementary and
secondary public school desegregation.
BACKGROUND
The proposed legislation is the result of an eight-month
review of school desegregation. In November, 1975, President
Ford directed Attorney General Levi and Secretary Mathews to
consider ways to minimize court ordered busing. The President
also stressed the need to assist local school districts in
achieving desegregation before court action commenced.
Recently, President Ford has held a series of meetings with
outside sources to discuss the recommendation resulting from
the review. These meetings have included school board repre--
sentatives; academic and educational experts, community
leaders who have dealt with desegregation on the local level,
civil rights leaders, members of Congress, and Cabinet officers.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGISLATION
The School Desegregation Standards and Assistance Act of 1976,
in order to maintain progress toward the orderly elimination
of illegal segregation in our public schools, and to preserve ---
or; where appropriate, restore community control of schools,
would:
1. Require that a court in a desegregation case
determine the extent to which acts of unlawful
discrimination have caused a greater degree of
racial concentration in a school or school sys-
tem than would have existed in the absence of
such acts
2. Require that busing and other remedies in
school desegregation cases be limited to
eliminating the degree of student racial
concentration caused by proven unlawful
acts of discrimination,
3. Require that the utilization of court-
ordered busing as a remedy be limited to
a specific period of time consistent with
the legislation's intent that it be an
interim and transitional remedy. In general,
this period of time will be no longer than
five years where there has been compliance
with the court order.
more
2
4. Establish a National Community and Education
Committee which will assist, encourage, and
facilitate community involvement in the school
desegregation process. This Committee will be
composed of citizens from a wide range of
occupations and backgrounds, with particular
emphasis on individuals who have had personal
experience in school desegregation activities.
Committee members will assist on request
communities which are, or will be, engaged
in the desegregation of their schools by
sharing ideas and recommendations for
anticipating and resolving conflicts.
In addition to providing advice and technical
assistance, the Committee will be authorized
to provide grants to community groups for the
development of constructive local participation
that will facilitate the desegregation process.
The Committee will be composed of not less than
50 nor more than 100 members. Ten of those,
appointed by the President for fixed terms,
will serve as an Executive Committee and will
appoint the balance of the Committee.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION: LIMITS TO BUSING
The President indicated that where Federal court actions
are initiated to deal with public school desegregation, busing
as a remedy ought to be the last resort and ought to be limited
in scope to correcting the effects of previous violations.
He proposes that Congress join with him in establishing guide-
lines for the lower Federal Courts in the desegregation of
public schools.
The President also indicated his belief that each community
should choose the alternative of voluntarily desegregating
its public schools.
He proposes the establishment of a committee composed of
citizens who have community experience in school desegrega-
tion activities and who are willing to assist other
communities voluntarily desegregate their schools.
#####
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
June 24, 1976
UNTIL 11:45 A.M. (EDT)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
I address this message to the Congress, and through
the Congress to all Americans, on an issue of profound
importance to our domestic tranquility and the future of
American education.
Most Americans know this issue as busing --- the use
of busing to carry out court-ordered assignment of students
to correct illegal segregation in our schools.
In its fullest sense the issue is how we protect the
civil rights of all Americans without unduly restricting
the individual freedom of any American.
It concerns the responsibility of government to provide
quality education, and equality of education, to every
American.
It concerns our obligation to eliminate, as swiftly as
humanly possible, the occasions of controversy and division
from the fulfillment of this responsibility.
At the outset, let me set forth certain principles
governing my judgments and my actions.
First, for all of my life I have held strong personal
feelings against racial discrimination. I do not believe
in a segregated society. We are a people of diverse
background, origins and interests but we are still one
people -- Americans and so must we live.
Second, it is the duty of every President to enforce
the law of the land. When I became President, I took an
oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States. There must be no misunderstanding about
this: I will uphold the Constitutional rights of every
individual in the country. I will carry out the decisions
of the Supreme Court. I will not tolerate defiance of the
law.
Third, I am totally dedicated to cuality education
SERALD
in America --- and to the principle that public education
is predominantly the concern of the community in which
people live. Throughout the history of our Nation, the
education of our children, especially at the elementary
and secondary levels, has been a community endeavor. The
concept of public education is now written into our history
as deeply as any tenet of American belief.
more
2
In recent years, we have seen many communities in the
country lose control of their public schools to the Federal
courts because they failed to voluntarily correct the effects
of willful and official denial of the rights of some children
in their schools.
It is my belief that in their earnest desire to carry
out the decisions of the Supreme Court, some judges of lower
Federal Courts have gone too far. They have:
resorted too ouickly to the remedy of massive
busing of public school children:
-- extended busing too broadly and
maintained control of schools for too long.
It is this overextension of court control that has
transformed a simple judicial tool, busing, into a cause
of widespread controversy and slowed our progress toward the
total elimination of segregation.
As a President is responsible for acting to enforce
the Nation's laws, so is he also responsible for acting
when society begins to question the end results of those
laws.
I therefore ask the Congress, as the elected
representatives of the American people, to join with me
in establishing guidelines for the lower Federal Courts
in the desegregation of public schools throughout the
land - acting within the framework of the Constitution
and particularly the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution.
It is both appropriate and Constitutional for the
Congress to define by law the remedies the lower Federal
Courts may decree.
It is both appropriate and Constitutional for the
Congress to prescribe standards and procedures for
accommodating competing interests and rights.
Both the advocates of more busing and the advocates
of less busing feel they hold a strong moral position on
this issue.
To many Americans who have been in the long struggle
for civil rights, busing appears to be the only way to
provide the equal educational opportunity so long and SO
tragically denied them.
To many other Americans who have struggled much of
their lives and devoted most of their energies to seeking
the best for their children, busing appears to be a denial
of an individual's freedom to choose the best school for
his or her children.
more
3
Whether busing helps school children get a better
education is not a settled question. The record is mixed.
Certainly, busing has assisted in bringing about the
desegregation of our schools. But it is a tragic reality
that, in some areas, busing under court order has brought
fear to both black students and white students ar-res and to
their parents.
No child can learn in an atmosphere of fear. Better
remedies to right Constitutional wrongs must be found.
It is my responsibility, and the responsibility of
the Congress, to address and to seek to resolve this
situation.
In the twenty-two years since the Supreme Court
ordered an end to school segregation, this country has
made great progress. Yet we still have far to go.
To maintain progress toward the orderly elimination
of illegal segregation in our public schools, and to pre-
serve --- or, where appropriate, restore - community
control of schools, I am proposing legislation to:
1. Require that a court in a desegregation case
determine the extent to which acts of unlawful
discrimination have caused a greater degree of
racial concentration in a school or school
system than would have existed in the absence
of such acts:
2. Require that busing and other remedies in
school desegregation cases be limited to
eliminating the degree of student racial
concentration caused by proven unlawful
acts of discrimination:
3. Require that the utilization of court-
ordered busing as a remedy be limited to
a specific period of time consistent with
the legislation's intent that it be an
interim and transitional remedy. In
general, this period of time will be no
longer than five years where there has
been compliance with the court order.
4. Create an independent National Community
and Education Committee to help any school
community requesting citizen assistance in
voluntarily resolving its school segregation
problem.
Almost without exception, the citizens' groups
both for and against busing with which I have consulted
told me that the proposed National Community and Education
Committee could be a positive addition to the resources
currently available to communities which face up to the
issue honestly, voluntarily and in the best spirit of
American democracy.
more
4
This citizens' Committee would be made up
primarily of men and women who have had community
experience in school desegregation activities.
It would remain distinct and separate from
enforcement activities of the Federal Courts, the Justice
Department and the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare.
It is my hope that the Committee could activate
and energize effective local leadership at an early stage:
To reduce the disruption that would
otherwise accompany the desegregation
process: and
-- To provide additional assistance to
communities in anticipating and resolving
difficulties prior to and during desegrega-
tion.
While I personally believe that every community
should effectively desegregate on a voluntary basis, I
recognize that some court action is inevitable.
In those cases where Federal court actions are
initiated, however, I believe that busing as a remedy
ought to be the last resort, and that it ought to be
limited in scope to correcting the effects of previous
Constitutional violations.
The goal of the judicial remedy in a school desegre-
gation case ought to be to put the school system, and its
students, where they would have been if the acts which
violate the Constitution had never occurred.
The goal should be to eliminate "root and branch the
Constitutional violations and all of their present effects.
This is the Constitutional test which the Supreme Court has
mandated nothing more, nothing less.
Therefore, my bill would establish for Federal courts
specific guidelines concerning the use of busing in school
desegregation cases. It would recuire the court to determine
the extent to which acts of unlawful discrimination by
governmental officials have caused a greater degree of racial
concentration in a school or school system than would have
existed in the absence of such acts. It would further require
the court to limit the relief to that necessary to correct the
racial imbalance actually caused by those unlawful acts. This
would prohibit a court from ordering busing throughout an
entire school system simply for the purpose of achieving
racial balance.
In addition, my bill recognizes that the busing remedy
is transitional by its very nature and that when a community
makes good faith efforts to comply, busing ought to be
limited in duration. Therefore, the bill provides that three
years after the busing remedy has been imposed a court shall
be required to determine whether to continue the remedy.
more
5
Should the court determine that a continuation is necessary,
it could do so only for an additional two years. Thereafter.
the court could continue busing only in the most extraordinary
circumstances, where there has been a failure or delay of
other remedial efforts or where the residual effects of
unlawful discrimination are unusually severe.
Great concern has been expressed that submission of
this bill at this time would encourage those who are resisting
court-ordered desegregation sometimes to the point of
violence.
Let me here state, simply and directly, that this
Administration will not tolerate unlawful segregation.
We will act swiftly and effectively against anyone who
engages in violence.
I assure the people of this Nation that this Administration
will do whatever it must to preserve order and to protect the
Constitutional rights of our citizens.
The purpose of submitting this legislation now is to
place the debate on this controversial issue in the halls of
Congress and in the democratic process not in the streets
of our cities.
The strength of America has always been our ability to
deal with our own problems in a responsible and orderly way.
Ve can do so again if every American will join with me
in affirming our historic commitment to a Nation of laws, a
people of equality, a society of opportunity.
I call on the Congress to write into law a new perspective
which sees court-ordered busing as a tool to be used with the
highest selectivity and the utmost precision.
I call on the leaders of all the Nation's school
districts which may yet face court orders to move volun--
tarily, promptly, objectively and compassionately to
desegregate their schools.
We must eliminate discrimination in America.
We must summon the best in ourselves to the cause of
achieving the highest possible quality of education for each
and every American child.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 24, 1976.
####