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
6283008
label
Busing, June 1, 1976 (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
6283008
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Busing, June 1, 1976 (1)
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
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c800216488354824
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 4, folder "Busing, June 1, 1976 (1)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 1, 1976
NOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT
Here are the memoranda for
your meeting tomorrow on
busing.
If you are pressed for time,
I would suggest that you read
the two-page memo on Busing
Legislation and the five-page
memo on Alternatives to Court
Ordered Busing.
Jain 1m Cannon
GERALU
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 1, 1976
DECISION
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Alternatives Jun to Court Ordered Busing
JIM CANNON
PURPOSE
To offer for your consideration possible alternatives to
court ordered busing which the Federal government could
make available to a community seeking remedies to school
segregation.
ISSUE
Busing has become the most controversial remedy ordered
by the Federal courts to facilitate desegregation.
As an appropriate remedy to desegregate, busing was first
affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1971, 17 years after the
Brown decision. A chronology of the major school desegre-
gation decisions is at Tab A.
The school bus started to become a major element of elemen-
tary and secondary education in the 1920's as consolidated
school districts replaced the little red school house.
Today, more than 21 million school children, 51% of the
total school enrollment of 41 million, are bused to school.
Busing for better education has been widely accepted in
this country, but decisions by Federal courts to order
busing of children against prevailing community opinion
are often resisted and accompanied by violence and dis-
order.
Since most situations in which desegregation is occurring
will involve some voluntary or involuntary busing, the
need is to find a means by which the Executive Branch can
best assist a community to undertake voluntary or coopera-
tive busing plans rather than leaving it to the courts to
impose forced busing.
-2-
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 1974 you signed the Education Amendments
of 1974 which included the "Esch Amendments. " These
amendments (Tab B) are designed to place legislative
limits on the extent to which busing could be ordered
by Federal courts or agencies.
Last Fall you directed the Attorney General and the
Secretary of HEW to explore better ways to bring about
school desegregation than court ordered busing.
In an October 27, 1975 meeting with Senator Tower you
directed Phil Buchen to ask Justice and HEW to review
the busing situation with the objective of seeking alter-
native remedies.
On November 20, 1975, you met with Attorney General Levi
and Secretary Mathews and requested that they consider and
develop:
1.
means of helping local school districts stay
out of court.
2.
alternative remedies and legal theories which
a court might find acceptable once a school
district was in court.
I have been working with HEW and others in your Administra-
tion on item 1 while Phil Buchen has been regularly in
contact with the Attorney General on item 2.
On February 17, 1976, we outlined approaches and concepts
under consideration. You indicated four which you felt
merited further examination.
On April 12, 1976, I reported to you that we were develop-
ing approaches based on these premises:
1.
Communities should find solutions on their own
rather than have them imposed by the Federal
government.
2.
Remedies can best be reached before any court
action begins.
3.
Any approach must be in accord with Federal
law enforcement responsibilities.
-3-
On May 17, 1976, I reported to you that we were in the
process of refining and further examining three possible
approaches to help a community avoid a court order to bus.
ALTERNATIVES TO COURT ORDERED BUSING
The following proposals have evolved as the most respon-
sible courses of action available to be offered to a com-
munity to better enable it to desegregate its schools
prior to the initiation of legal action. While it is
likely that each of the alternatives would result in some
busing the intent is to have such plans be developed by a
community itself rather than imposed on it by the courts.
Alternative I: Mediation Service
Establish a Community Mediation Service, somewhat
parallel to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service, to provide mediation assistance to a com-
munity in its efforts to desegregate. As proposed,
it would be available to a community both before
and after it was under a court order to desegregate.
Such service could head off busing by court order
by providing assistance to a community, at its
request, to develop an acceptable plan to desegre-
gate its schools. If any busing were involved it
would result from a community decision assisted
by the mediation process, not from a court order.
We believe such a mediation service could be set
up by Presidential Executive Order.
Alternative II: Presidential Representative
At the request of a community, the President would
designate a nationally known person to be his
special representative to insure that the full
resources of the Federal government were made
available to communities who were initiating
efforts, prior to legal action, to desegregate
their schools.
This Presidential representative would seek to
facilitate the use of the many existing Federal
resources and also to involve religions, academic,
business and labor groups in the response to a com-
munity's request for assistance.
This could be done by Presidential action.
-4- -
Alternative III: National Community and Education
Commission
Secretary Mathews proposes the establishment of a
National Community and Education Commission to
assist communities in preparing for desegregation
activities and for avoiding community violence and
disruption. (Tab C)
The bipartisan Commission would be independent of
both HEW and Justice and would be composed of nine
members who were nationally representative of busi-
ness, education, labor, community leadership and
local government.
The Commission would have a staff of approximately
50 and an annual budget of $2 million.
Its responsibilities would be to work through local
community leaders, using existing Federal resources,
to encourage and facilitate constructive, comprehen-
sive planning for school desegregation at the local
level. Its approach would be to work quietly with
a broad spectrum of local leaders --
--
to identify problems before they develop.
--
to informally mediate so that communities
themselves can cooperatively devise solu-
tions.
--
to expedite Federal assistance, both tech-
nical and fiscal, from existing programs.
--
to encourage assistance from the private
sector.
It would specifically not serve as a court-appointed
intermediary between parties in a legal suit related
to desegregation.
We believe such a Commission could be created by
Presidential Executive Order.
GERRINS
DISCUSSION
The various advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives
and the related staff comments and recommendations can,
we believe, best be covered in the discussion at Wednesday's
-5-
meeting with the Attorney General, the Secretary of HEW,
Secretary of Labor and other members of your staff.
DECISION
Alternative I: Mediation Service
Approve
Disapprove
Alternative II: Presidential Representative
Approve
Disapprove
Alternative III: National Community and Education
Commission
Approve
Disapprove
A
CHRONOLOGY OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION DECISIONS
A.
Brown V. Board of Education (1954)
The landmark Supreme Court decision in the school
desegregation area in this century was Brown V.
Board of Education (of Topeka), decided in 1954.
In Brown, the Supreme Court held that segregation
in public schools on the basis of race, even though
the physical facilities and other "tangible" fac-
tors may be equal, denies children of the minority
group the equal protection of the laws in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Brown decision,
the Supreme Court did not prescribe any specific
method for accomplishing desegregation.
B.
Brown II (1955)
In a follow-up to its 1954 Brown decision, the
Supreme Court in 1955 directed that desegregation
proceed with "all deliberate speed."
C.
"Freedom of Choice"
In the years immediately following Brown, from 1954
to 1964, the courts wrestled with the issue of
appropriate remedies in cases of de jure segregation,
finally concluding in a number of cases that the
"freedom of choice" method of dismantling dual
school systems was an acceptable approach. Under
freedom of choice, school districts merely gave
students -- black and white -- the choice of the
schools they wished to attend. The result was a
modest degree of desegregation, as some blacks
elected to attend formerly white schools. However,
rarely did whites choose to attend formerly black
schools. The result was that only 1.2 percent of
black students in the 11 southern states attended
schools with whites in 1963-64.
D.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Bradley Case
Shortly after passage of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Supreme Court stated in Bradley V. School
Board of Richmond (1965) that "delays in desegrega-
ting school systems are no longer tolerable." The
-2-
Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided additional
support for the desegregation process through
Titles IV and VI. Under Title IV, technical
assistance may be given to applicant school
boards in the preparation, adoption, and imple-
mentation of plans for desegregation of public
schools. If efforts to secure a school district's
voluntary desegregation failed, administrative
enforcement proceedings under Title VI would be
initiated.
E.
Green Decision (1968)
In April 1968, HEW's Office for Civil Rights
directed that, where freedom of choice plans had
not effectively eliminated dual school systems,
the systems should adopt plans that would accom-
plish this task. During that year, the Supreme
Court strengthened the HEW position in deciding
Green V. New Kent County School Board (Virginia).
In Green, after noting that in many areas desegre-
gation was not yet a reality, the Court said that
the time for mere "deliberate speed" had run out.
The Court held that where a freedom of choice assign-
ment plan failed to effectively desegregate a school
system, the system had to adopt a student assignment
plan which "promised realistically to work now."
This was the death, since rarely, if ever, did
freedom of choice result in effective school desegre-
gation.
F.
Alexander V. Holmes (1969)
In the summer of 1969, the Court decided Alexander
V. Holmes County Board of Education (Mississippi),
holding that school districts had a constitutional
obligation to dismantle dual school systems "at once"
and to operate now and hereafter as unitary systems.
The Court, quoting from Green, reiterated its deter-
mination that school systems must develop desegregation
plans that "promise realistically to work now. " Thus,
Alexander clearly reaffirmed the Court's position on
the issue of timing in desegregation cases.
G.
Busing - Swann V. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education (1971)
In the spring of 1971, the Supreme Court handed down
the first "busing" decision in the case of Swann V.
-3-
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (North
Carolina). In Swann, the Court held that:
1.
desegregation plans could not be limited
to the walk-in neighborhood school;
2.
busing was a permissible tool for desegre-
gation purposes; and,
3.
busing would not be required if it
"endangers the health or safety of children
or significantly impinges on the educa-
tional process.
The Court also held that, while racial balance is
not required by the Constitution, a District Court
has discretion to use racial ratios as a starting
point in shaping a remedy.
H.
HEW Responsibilities to Enforce (1973)
The immediate desegregation mandate of Alexander
and the insistence in Swann that schools having
disproportionately minority enrollment were pre-
sumptively in violation were not acted upon by HEW,
which permitted these districts to remain "under
review.' HEW attempted to secure compliance through
persuasion and negotiation, and the Title VI enforce-
ment mechanism fell into disuse. These conditions
led to the initiation of Adams V. Richardson, in
which HEW was charged with delinquency in desegre-
gating public educational institutions that were
receiving Federal funds.
This suit alleged that HEW had defaulted in the
administration of its responsibilities under Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court
(District of Columbia) stated on February 16, 1973,
that, where efforts to secure voluntary compliance
with Title VI failed, the limited discretion of HEW
officials was exhausted. Where negotiation and con-
ciliation did not secure compliance, HEW officials
were obliged to implement the provisions of the
Title VI regulations: provide for a hearing; determine
compliance or noncompliance; and, following a deter-
mination of noncompliance, terminate Federal finan-
cial assistance.
-4-
The district court's decision was modified and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit,
1973) . Essentially, the district court order
requires that HEW properly recognize its statutory
obligations, ensuring that the policies it adopts
and implements are consistent with those duties
and not a negation of them.
I.
Keyes - "Segregative Intent" (1973)
In June 1973, the Supreme Court rendered its deci-
sion in Keyes V. School District No. 1 (Denver,
Colorado). This was the Court's first decision on
the merits in a school desegregation case arising
in a State which did not have an official policy
of racial dualism in 1954. In Keyes, the Court
held that where it could be demonstrated that a
school board had acted with "segregative intent"
to maintain or perpetuate a "dual school system"
this was tantamount to de jure segregation in viola-
tion of the Constitution. A finding of de jure
segregation as to one part of the system creates
a presumption that segregative intent existed in
the entire system and in such cases, the school
board had "an affirmative duty to desegregate the
entire system 'root and branch'".
J.
Milliken - Cross District Busing (1974)
In its most recent ruling respecting school desegre-
gation, Milliken V. Bradley (Detroit, Michigan),
the Supreme Court refused to require busing between
school districts absent a showing that there has been
a constitutional violation within one district that
produced a significant segregative effect in another
district.
B
TAB B
ESCH AMENDMENTS (1974)
You signed into law on August 1974, Amendments to the
Elementary and Secondary School Act which included
the Esch amendments which were designed to place
legislative limits on the extent to which busing
could be ordered by Federal Courts or agencies.
The key elements of those provisions are:
A.
Remedies to Correct Segregation
When formulating desegregation plans, Federal
Courts and agencies must use following
remedies in order listed:
(1) Assign students to closest school
(considering school capacity and
natural physical barriers).
(2) Assign students to closest school
(considering school capacity only).
(3) Permit students to transfer from
school where their race, color
or creed is a majority to one
where it is a minority.
(4)
Create or revise attendance zones
or grade structures without requiring
busing beyond that described below.
(5) Construct new schools or close
inferior ones.
(6) Construct or create "magnet" (high
quality) schools.
(7) Implement any other educationally
sound and administratively feasible
plan.
B.
Additional Restrictions on Federal Courts or
Agencies
(1) No ordered busing of students beyond
school next closest to home.
-2-
(2) No ordered busing at risk of students'
health.
(3) No new desegregation plans may be
formulated to correct shifts in atten-
dance patterns once school system
determined non-segregated.
(4) No desegregation plans can ignore or
alter school district lines unless
such lines were drawn to, or tend to,
promote segregation.
(5) No ordered busing shall be effective
until the beginning of an academic
school year.
C.
Rights Granted to Individuals and School Districts
(1) Allows suits by individuals (or
Attorney General on individuals'
behalf) under the Act.
(2) Permits voluntary busing beyond limits
outlined.
(3) Allows reopening of pre-existing Court
orders or desegregation plans to achieve
Title II compliance.
(4) Requires termination of court-ordered
busing if Federal Court finds school
district non-segregated.
It should be noted that the priority of remedies set
forth in the Esch Amendments is merely a slight
elaboration on existing case law. A review of the
cases from Swann on up to Boston and Louisville clearly
shows that the Courts have always turned to busing as
a last resort. Moreover, since several of the prior
remedies set forth in the Esch Amendments (such as
construction of new schools) would not accommodate
immediate desegregation of a school system, it is
doubtful that, as a matter of constitutional law, they
are binding as to the Courts. Finally, as to the appli-
cation of the Esch Amendments to Federal agencies
(notably the Office of Civil Rights in HEW) it appears
that OCR has never required busing on a massive scale and
has, since their enactment, observed the terms of the
Amendments.
C
HEALTH
ATIONAND
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
RTMENT
WASHINGTON.D.C.2020I
DEF
MAY 20 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Pursuant to our conversation, I have prepared for your consideration
a proposal to establish a National Community and Education Commission
to assist communities in preparing for desegregation activities and
in avoiding trauma, violence and disruption. At Tab A I have enclosed
a brief discussion of the nature and functions of such a Commission
and at Tab B a proposed draft Presidential Executive Order estab-
lishing the Commission. I would call to your attention the following
two specific issues in terms of this approach.
Implementation Strategy - Executive Order or Legislation
Although the Commission could be established either through legislation
or an Executive Order, the Executive Order approach appears preferable
for the following reasons:
The chances of Congress considering legislation to implement
this proposal in the near future are very slight.
You have the authority and precedent to create an action-type
council or commission by Executive Order. As long as the
Executive Order does not contradict or supersede any statutes,
you may create councils, commissions, and committees to carry
out any function from studying a problem to developing programs.
You may also give such bodies review and regulatory authority and
the power to mediate.
It is common practice for such commissions to receive appro-
priations from Congress without authorizing legislation. In
FOR
most cases, the "parent" Department (in this case HEW) requests
funds for the commission as a line item in its appropriation.
GERALD
Although the Executive Order approach does not require Congressional
action, it is imperative that consultations with minority members on
the appropriate committees be initiated promptly if such a proposal
is approved by the Administration. Unless handled carefully, the
Democratic Congress could endanger the proposal by arguing that the
Page 2 -- Memorandum For The President
Administration is taking away Congress' authority to legislate. Even
with an Executive Order, Congress' support and tacit approval is
needed to enable the Commission to succeed in its complex mission.
Appropriations Strategy - Commission
To accomplish its mission effectively, the Commission would require
a permanent staff of approximately 50 persons, as well as the ability
to hire such consultants as it may need for specific projects. Support
costs for such an enterprise would be around $2 million annually. As
noted above, HEW would request funds for the Commission as a line item
in its appropriation. Although funds could be requested through an
emergency supplemental or obtained through a reprogramming of present
HEW funds, the preferred course of action is a budget amendment which
would fund the Commission as of October 1.
I believe the approach suggested herein provides the most viable and
effective strategy for the Administration to demonstrate it is truly
concerned about the issue of the disruption of communities because
of desegregation activities. I would recommend your approval of this
approach and the issuance of such an Executive Order after appropriate
consultation with the Congress.
Enclosures
HEALTH.
OF THINK PREMIUM AND
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
U.S.A.
MAY 2 0 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Pursuant to our conversation, I have prepared for your consideration
a proposal to establish a National Community and Education Commission
to assist communities in preparing for desegregation activities and
in avoiding trauma, violence and disruption. At Tab A I have enclosed
a brief discussion of the nature and functions of such a Commission
and at Tab B a proposed draft Presidential Executive Order estab-
lishing the Commission. I would call to your attention the following
two specific issues in terms of this approach.
Implementation Strategy - Executive Order or Legislation
Although the Commission could be established either through legislation
or an Executive Order, the Executive Order approach appears preferable
for the following reasons:
The chances of Congress considering legislation to implement
this proposal in the near future are very slight.
You have the authority and precedent to create an action-type
GERALD R
council or commission by Executive Order. As long as the
Executive Order does not contradict or supersede any statutes,
you may create councils, commissions, and committees to carry
out any function from studying a problem to developing programs.
You may also give such bodies review and regulatory authority and
the power to mediate.
It is common practice for such commissions to receive appro-
priations from Congress without authorizing legislation. In
most cases, the "parent" Department (in this case HEW) requests
funds for the commission as a line item in its appropriation.
Although the Executive Order approach does not require Congressional
action, it is imperative that consultations with minority members on
the appropriate committees be initiated promptly if such a proposal
is approved by the Administration. Unless handled carefully, the
Democratic Congress could endanger the proposal by arguing that the
Page 2 -- Memorandum For The President
Administration is taking away Congress' authority to legislate. Even
with an Executive Order, Congress' support and tacit approval is
needed to enable the Commission to succeed in its complex mission.
Appropriations Strategy - Commission
To accomplish its mission effectively, the Commission would require
a permanent staff of approximately 50 persons, as well as the ability
to hire such consultants as it may need for specific projects. Support
costs for such an enterprise would be around $2 million annually. As
noted above, HEW would request funds for the Commission as a line item
in its appropriation. Although funds could be requested through an
emergency supplemental or obtained through a reprogramming of present
HEW funds, the preferred course of action is a budget amendment which
would fund the Commission as of October 1.
I believe the approach suggested herein provides the most viable and
effective strategy for the Administration to demonstrate it is truly
concerned about the issue of the disruption of communities because
of desegregation activities. I would recommend your approval of this
approach and the issuance of such an Executive Order after appropriate
consultation with the Congress.
Enclosures
GERALD is FORD
HEW
[-]
A
B
A
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY AND EDUCATION COMMISSION
A MAJOR INITIATIVE IN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION
Summary Description
In an effort to encourage and facilitate constructive, comprehensive
planning for school desegregation at the local level, it is proposed
that the National Community and Education Commission be established by
Executive Order. The Commission would be a Presidentially-appointed,
bipartisan group of distinguished citizens drawn from business and
other professional circles. Its charge would be to assist local
communities in carrying out desegregation planning activities designed
to build lines of communication, avert disorder, and encourage con-
structive interracial classroom environments through the example of
constructive interracial community environments.
Specific Function
The Commission's chief responsibility would be to advise local com-
munity leaders at the earliest stages of desegregation planning.
Assistance would be initiated at the request of the affected community,
and at that point a determination would be made by one or more Com-
mission members as to what course of Commission activity offered the
greatest promise of success within the particular community. In general,
however, the orientation of the Commission would be toward working
quietly with a broad spectrum of local leaders to identify problems
before they develop and to devise solutions which could be carried out
locally. While working within a community, the Commission would function
primarily in a supportive and advisory role.
In the course of its consultations with the community and the school
district, one of the Commission's chief functions would be to inform
local leaders of additional sources of desegregation assistance (Federal,
State, local and private) and encourage that these sources be investi-
gated. Such sources include direct funding through the Emergency School
Aid Act; technical assistance through OE's General Assistance Centers;
OE's ten regional offices, and the Justice Department's Community
Relations Service; formal mediation service through the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service; and other forms of aid through
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, State human relations agencies,
and related private agencies.
Although the Commission's activities will overlap to some extent with
those of the organizations mentioned above, the Commission should be
GERALD
-2-
able to minimize unnecessary duplication through careful liaison
with these other resources. It will be particularly important to
work out non-duplicative roles with the Community Relations Service
(CRS) since the function of CRS -- helping communities defuse tensions
and conflicts arising from inequities or discrimination based on race,
color, or national origin -- is notably similar to that of the pro-
posed Commission. The CRS focuses less of its attention on pre-crisis
intervention now than it did prior to FY 1974. Budget cuts that year
effectively removed CRS from its earlier pre-crisis role, even though
some individuals have held that the nature of the CRS function and
expertise makes the agency particularly well suited to pre-crisis
assistance. Thus, although CRS may not be currently active in some
of the Commission's more important roles, its staff probably will
have valuable insights and experiences to share with the Commission.
In keeping with its general functions already described, the Commis-
sion's role would not be to serve as a court-appointed intermediary
between parties in a legal suit related to desegregation. Mediation
would be a proper role for the Commission only in instances where it
was conducted informally and with the voluntary participation of the
major elements of the community. Similarly, the Commission would not
be empowered to act for any State or Federal agency in an enforcement
or compliance capacity. Moreover, it would not be expected to draw
up desegregation-related student assignment plans at the request of
a State or Federal agency.
Federal Incentives for Comprehensive Community Planning
The Commission is intended primarily to provide help to school districts
which have not yet adopted or been issued a desegregation plan (although
districts at other points in the desegregation process certainly would
not be precluded from receiving assistance from the Commission). In
order to provide support for districts which are conducting compre-
hensive, community-based planning for desegregation, it is proposed
that a specified amount of funds in the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA)
discretionary account be set aside to support local planning acti-
vities, including those initiated with Commission involvement.
The ESAA discretionary account (Section 708 (a)) is the only part of
the ESAA under which a school district without an eligible desegregation
plan may receive funds. Therefore, it would be possible to stipulate by
regulation that a community which showed proof of effort to conduct
community-wide desegregation planning could receive funding to conduct
such planning and other activities authorized under ESAA. The intention
would be that this planning would involve all major sectors of the
community, including business and housing representatives.
BERALD R.
-3-
Structure
The Commission would be made up of nine members who would be appointed
by the President for three-year terms of office. To provide continuity
within the Commission, terms of office for individual members would be
staggered at one-year intervals. The Commission chairman would be
selected by the President, with the first chairman appointed for a
full three-year term. Commission members would be expected to main-
tain their regular occupations but would be compensated at EL IV for
the days they work on Commission activities. To ensure bipartisan
representation, restrictions would be placed on the number of Commis-
sion members permitted from each political party. The Commission would
have the authority to hire staff on an excepted service basis and to
retain consultants as needed for specific projects.
SERALD
A B T
B
HEW
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE ORDER
NATIONAL COMMUNITY AND EDUCATION COMMISSION
Throughout the history of our Nation, the education
of our children, especially at the elementary and secondary
level, has been a community endeavor. The concept of public
education began in the community and continuous support for
public schools has been provided by the community. Although
the States, and to some extent the Federal government, have
been providing increasing financial assistance for education,
it has become clear that the solution of many of the most
pressing problems facing our schools lies within the
community which supports those schools.
This fact has particular relevance to the problem of
school desegregation. Over the past two decades, communities
have been under pressure from the courts, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and in some cases the States,
to institute changes in the assignment of students to schools.
Too often this has been accomplished without the involvement
of the community or with its involvement only after confron-
tions have occurred and community positions have been
established.
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
2
The problems that have arisen in the process of school
integration have not been due to the inadequacy of law or
the lack of appropriate resources. Rather, they can be
attributed to the fact that the burden of initiating and
enforcing school desegregation has been borne by the courts
and the Federal government without the benefit of those
forces from within the community that are uniquely able to
bring about necessary change in an orderly and peaceful
manner.
It is therefore the purpose of this executive order to
provide a means to activate and energize effective local
leadership in the desegregation process at an early stage in
order to reduce the incidence and severity of the trauma
that would otherwise accompany that process, and to provide
a national resource that will be available to assist
communities in anticipating and resolving difficulties
encountered prior to and during desegregation.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in
me as President of the United States of America, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
3
Section 1. Establishment of the Commission. (a) There
is hereby established a National Community and Education
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"),
the purpose of which shall be to consult with, provide
technical assistance to, and informally mediate between,
community groups and State and local governmental organizations
(including educational agencies) in order to anticipate
and resolve problems and conflicts relating to the
desegregation of schools.
(b) Composition of the Commission. The Commission
shall be composed of nine members who shall be appointed
by the President from among individuals who are nationally
recognized and respected in business, education, government
and other fields and whose experience, reputation, and
qualities of leadership render them uniquely capable of
carrying out the purposes of the Commission. No person
who is otherwise employed by the United States shall be
appointed to serve on the Commission. No more than five
of the members of the Commission at any one time shall
be members of the same political party.
4
(c) Terms of members. The term of office of each
member of the Commission shall be three years, except that
of the members first appointed to the Commission three shall
be appointed for a term of one year and three shall be
appointed for a term of two years. Any member appointed
to fill an unexpired term on the Commission shall serve
for the remainder of the term for which his predecessor
was appointed.
(d) Chairman; quorum. The Chairman of the Commission
shall be designated by the President. Five members of the
Commission shall comprise a quorum.
(e) Compensation of members. Each member of the
Commission shall be compensated in an amount equal to that paid
at level IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule, pursuant
to section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, prorated on
a daily basis for each day spent on the work of the Commission,
including travel time. In addition, each member shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5,
United States Code, for persons employed intermittently
in the Government Service.
5
(f) Executive Director; staff. The Commission shall
have an Executive Director, designated by the Chairman
with the approval of a majority of the members of the
Commission, who shall assist the Chairman and the Commission
in the performance of their functions as they may direct.
The Executive Director shall be appointed without regard
to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service. The Commission is
also authorized to appoint, without regard to the provisions
of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service, or otherwise obtain the services of,
such professional, technical, and clerical personnel,
including consultants, as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to carry out its functions. Such personnel,
including the Executive Director, shall be compensated
at rates not to exceed that specified at the time such
service is performed for grade GS-18 in section 5332 of
that title.
GERALD
6
Sec. 2. Functions of the Commission. The functions of
the Commission shall include, but shall not be limited to:
(1) Consulting with leaders in the community and local
groups in determining means by which such leaders and groups
can, through early involvement in the development of, and
preparation for, school desegregation plans, contribute
to the desegregation process in such a way as to avoid
conflicts and the invocation of judicial procedures.
(2) Encouraging the formation of broadly based local
community organizations to develop a program designed to
encourage comprehensive community planning for the desegre-
gation of schools.
(3) Providing advice and technical assistance to
communities in preparing for and carrying out comprehensive
plans to desegregate the schools, involving the broadest
possible range of community interests and organizations;
(4) Consulting with the Community Relations Service
of the Department of Justice (established under title X
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), the Office for Civil
Rights in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
the National Institute of Education, the U.S. Office of Education,
7
General Assistance Centers (funded under title IV of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964), the United States Civil Rights
Commission, and State and local human relations agencies
to determine how those organizations can contribute to the
resolution of problems arising in the desegregation of
schools within a community; and
(5) Providing informal mediation services among
individuals, groups, and agencies within a community in
order to resolve conflicts, reduce tensions, and develop
acceptable means of desegregating schools without resort
to administrative and judicial processes.
Sec. 3. Limitations on activities of the Commission.
It shall not be the function of the Commission--
(1) to prepare desegregation plans;
(2) to provide mediation services under the order
of a court of the United States or of a State; or
(3) to investigate or take any action with respect
to allegations of violations of law.
Sec. 4. Cooperation by other departments and agencies.
(a) All executive departments and agencies of the United
States are authorized to cooperate with the Commission
and furnish to it such information, personnel and other
8
assistance as may be appropriate to assist the Commission
in the performance of its functions and as may be authorized
by law.
(b) In administering programs designed to assist
local educational agencies and communities in planning for
and carrying out the desegregation of schools, the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare and the heads of agencies
within that Department shall administer such programs,
to the extent permitted by law, in a manner that will
further the activities of the Commission.
Sec. 5. Expenses of the Council. Expenses of the
Commission shall be paid from such appropriations to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare as may be available
therefor.
Sec. 6. Confidentiality. The activities of the members
and employees of the Commission in carrying out the purposes of
this executive order may be conducted in confidence and
without publicity, and the Commission shall, to the extent
provided by law, hold confidential any information acquired
in the regular performance of its duties if such information
was provided to the Commission upon the understanding that
it would be SO held.
FORD
GIV439
HEALTH.
ATMENT OF
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
U.S.A.
MAR 29 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JAMES M. CANNON
Here is a report on the reaction of our best staff in the Department
to the options in your memo on "Alternatives to Busing:"
1.
Many successful superintendents have been success-
ful because of a low profile. The recognition, while
flattering, might well be counterproductive. Civil
rights groups could have a field day with suits aimed
at proving that the efforts of these individuals really
were not good enough.
Furthermore, since many of the superintendents in
such a group would have used busing, the President
could be seen as endorsing busing by one group and
then, for the same gesture, criticized for tokenism
by the other side.
Of course, as the Commissioner of Education notes,
there is some value to reinforcement for people doing
a hard job well.
2.
DHEW is already doing much of what is suggested in
this option. However, since the federal government
is seen as the problem, its role as a point of reference
or place for assistance is, regrettably, limited--
regardless of how fine its services are.
3.
The same comment just made applies here, too. More
research can always be done, but as you will see from
the attached status report, DHEW is already in the
midst of a multitude of good studies. And the National
Institute of Education predicts that these studies will
show busing is "working" in eight out of ten situations.
There might be some more work done, however, in
studies on using community institutions outside the schools
to aid in desegregation.
Memorandum for the
Honorable James M. Cannon
Page Two
4.
The staff advised great caution with this option.
They made the point that to attack busing raises
the question of alternatives and since there are not
many good ones, the Administration would be left
with its back to a wall.
Our working papers are available if they would be helpful.
Secretary
Attachments
CF HEALTH DECATION AND
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
WASHINGTO D.C. 20201
MAR 29 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
The best advice I can bring together from across the country leads
me to recommend a few basic precepts from which to make judgments
on a whole host of complex issues and options on the matter of busing
and desegregation.
The best policy position would be one with three basic elements:
1.
It is important that the President first reaffirm the
national commitment to the basic moral principle that
segregation is incompatible with any good vision of the
future of this country and that no child should be denied
the benefits of an equal education because of race. Any
position that does not begin at this point and clear the
air on it will mire down.
2.
Your position on busing can then be restated and expanded
by the assertion that because of this moral imperative,
must
we cannot de than pursue, with all diligence, the
issue of the best means. There is evidence that busing
is not an effective means in some situations, and we
cannot escape an obligation to find better approaches
to the problem. It is important at this point, however,
not to go on to try to prove that any of the alternatives
we now have is a certain cure either. None is. And
there are a great many cases where transportation by
buses is working well according to the research reports
we have.
quality advater
3.
The "truth" that nobody is saying is that the solution is
in taking an approach much broader than concentrating
on busing or any of its alternatives. The first part of
that solution is to turn the issue away from just a busing
question. The busing debate is really not a constructive
debate at all, and the issue must be "depoliticized" as
much as possible. Perhaps this issue has met a stale-
mate in the political processes and must be lifted out of
that atmosphere and placed in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical
- 2 -
forum for serious and far-reaching reassessment.
The suggestion is that you push for real, useful-
not just rhetorical- attention to the problem.
4.
The other part of the solution is to focus on the problem
as it really is, not as it seems to be. The issue is not
what means are used to achieve desegregation but who
controls that decision and how parental and community
concerns are taken into consideration. To reframe the
case and to focus on reuniting the community and parents
with school control has great potential and is the way
the cities have had some success with getting on with
desegregation.
way
5.
The public feels that the federal government (whether by
the courts or the legislative process) has not only
failed to solve the problem but has made it worse. There-
fore, any solution from any part of the federal govern-
ment is likely to fail -even if it were the "right" solu-
tion. The only good option for the Executive Branch
may be to act as a "helper" and a partner to aid com-
munities in helping themselves.
6.
Using the precedent of the government to create a national
force that is not governmental (the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Council on the Arts and Humani-
ties are examples), perhaps we should consider working
with local governments and community groups to create
port.
a body from the best of the local community, education
and parental leadership, titled perhaps the National Com-
Cout
munity and Education Council. It could work as a medi-
dicision
ating force and provide technical assistance to communi-
ties to deal with problems before they become crises.
In fact, the evidence from successes in Atlanta and Dallas
is that citizen alliances of the type the Council should
foster were the decisive forces. As I noted earlier,
"success" seems to turn most on how well a community
goes about making decisions that come up before the
question of busing or any other means. The Council
could also help cities to get the whole community, not
just the schools, involved in voluntary efforts to prevent
unhealthy racial isolation and foster constructive human
relations.
- 3 -
The courts might find such a body a welcome referral
point (that is, to get ideas but in no sense would it
be proper for such a council to be an agent of the
courts), and cities or community alliances might
find it a source of good ideas and even endorsement.
Another alternative would be to use the occasion of
getting the ESA legislation renewed to allow us to
encourage many of the activities that the Council would
foster without the fanfare of creating a new agency.
In sum, there do not seem to be any solutions that come from dealing
with busing directly or even in searching for alternatives. The best
chances for success seem to be in pioneering some new ground.
Americans traditionally have solved problems not by changing the
problem, but by changing their view of the problem.
ON-GOING DEPARTMENT STUDIES AND ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
DESEGREGATION
The Department has planned or on-going many analyses,
evaluations, or research projects related to questions of
quality education, urban education, and desegregation. The
major ones are listed below:
Office of Education
The desegregation-related studies underway in OE are primarily
directed toward the evaluation of OE's desegregation assistance
programs and their effects on schools. One special study
will look at a small number of districts that are success-
fully and peacefully desegregating in an attempt to discover
the practices that contribute to successful desegregation.
The evaluation of the Emergency School Aid Act
(ESAA) basic and pilot programs is a longitudinal
study of the effectiveness of two of the largest
components of ESAA in meeting the objectives of
the legislation. Special attention is being given
to the relative efficacy of alternative school
programs in raising student achievement. The
study is being conducted through a contract with
the System Development Corporation. The report
on the first year of the study has been issued with
subsequent reports due in May 1976 and May 1977.
The evaluation of Title IV of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act is assessing the effectiveness of this
program in delivering training and technical
assistance services to desegregating school
districts. The study is being conducted by Rand
Corporation, with the final report scheduled for
release in June 1976.
The OE study of exemplary desegregated schools is
examining evidence showing the degree to which
various school practices and programs contributed
to successful desegregation. The final report is
due in June 1976 from the contractor -- Educational
Testing Service.
-2-
National Institute of Education
NIE has a number of on-going studies relating to various
aspects of school desegregation. In FY 1976 the total
amount spent on desegregation research was $682,000. The
aim of these studies is to assist in making desegregated
education settings exciting and humane places for children
and is not to study the effects of desegregation on
children. Some of the most policy relevant of these studies
are:
Six ethnographic studies of the cultural milicu
and environment of desegregated schools. These
studies are being carried on in New York,
Pittsburgh, Pontiac, Durham, San Francisco, and
Memphis. They are due July 1978.
A study of status equalization and changing
expectation in integrated classrooms. This will
be due in 1978 or 1979.
A study of racial integration, public schools,
and the analysis of white flight. Due October 1976.
A study entitled "Political Protest and School
Desegregation: A Case Study of Boston". Due
September 1976.
A study of social impact on school desegregation,
dealing with how much school desegregation is
possible before it becomes counterproductive.
Completed January 1976.
A study of desegregation research and appraisal.
This has resulted in a compendium that updates
and cvaluates the finding of recent research on
integration and desegregation. Completed and at
printers.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE) is beginning an analysis of Federal School
Desegregation Policy as it has evolved through judicial,
legislative, and administrative action in the last twenty
-3-
years. The analysis consists of six related studies. The
first of these is a legal study that describes the
implementation of desegregation actions in the nation's
schools. It will systematically describe features of the
various desegregation plans implemented in response to
Federal actions. It will be due a year from now. Three
other studies will investigate the impact of Federal action
and different desegregation plans on the racial and socio-
economic characteristics of schools and communities,
attitudes toward desegregation, and student educational
attainment. These studies will be completed in eighteen
months. A fifth study will investigate minority parti-
cipation in Federally- funded education programs. This
study is in the design phase and will be completed in
eighteen months. A study of Federal policy alternatives
will complete the analysis. It is anticipated that all
six studies will be completed in approximately eighteen
months.
Assistant Secretary of Education
A small scale effort is underway in ASE's Policy Development
office to project probable effects of present court cases,
to develop new measures of district and regional racial
isolation, and to review other policy variables of interest
to the Education Division. This work is being conducted
as part of a larger policy analysis contract with Stanford
Research Institute.
1/ A later effort will review the impact of Federal
desegregation policy on postsecondary education. Study
components will build upon the analysis developed for
elementary and secondary education.