Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1554447",
    "label": "Busing, April-May 1976",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554447"
}

{
    "id": "1554447",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554447",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Busing, April-May 1976",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554447",
    "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/47/5544/1554447/content/library/document/0010/1554447.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/47/5544/1554447/content/library/document/0010/1554447.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/47/5544/1554447/content/library/document/0010/1554447.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554447",
    "naId": 1554447,
    "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/47/5544/1554447/content/library/document/0010/1554447.pdf",
    "mediaId": "881cc7d2410ec3ac",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 4, folder \"Busing, April-May 1976\" 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 Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTrudy,\nNow that the flap is over\nyou can have them back\nfor your files.\nEleanor\n5/21\nBERALD\nTIERARY\nDigitized from Box 4 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nFILeD\n[4/7/76]\nApril 7, 1976\nMR PRESIDENT:\nLetter from Secretary Mathews\non Busing\nThe attached memorandum from Secretary Mathews\nwas staffed to Messrs. Cannon, Buchen, Lynn,\nMarsh and Friedersdorf.\nJack Marsh and Phil Buchen submitted some\ncomments concerning Secretary Mathews'\nsuggestions. They are attached at TAB A.\nFurther, Jim Cannon and Jim Lynn advised\nLIBRARY & GERALD\nthat they spoke to you last week about this matter.\nI understand that Jim Cannon, the Attorney General\nand Secretary Mathews are preparing an alternate\nmemorandum that will be forwarded to you shortly.\nJim Connor\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nApril 1, 1976\nTime:\nFOR ACTION:\nCC (for information):\nim Cannon\nPhil Buchen\nJack Marsh\nJim Lynn\nMax Friedersdorf\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nSaturday, April 3\nTime: 10 A.M.\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Secretary Mathews on Busing\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nWe would appreciate your comments on the attached\nmemorandum before we send it forward to the President.\nMarsh- see comments\nFreedendaf- ok to send in\nBuchen see comments\nFORD LIBRARY is\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nJim Connor\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nStaff Jim -\nDo you want this to get just our regulatr\n\"routine manner\" note?\nTrudy\n-\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n3.30.76\nTO: Jim Connor\nFor Your Information:\nFor Appropriate Handling:\nPres FY Ifile\nRobert RDC D. Linder\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nApril 1, 1976\nTime:\nFOR ACTION:\nCC (for information):\nJim Cannon\nPhil Buchen\nJack Marsh\nJim Lynn\nMax Friedersdorf\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nSaturday, April 3\nTime: 10 A.M.\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Secretary Mathews on Busing\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nWe would appreciate your comments on the attached\nmemorandum before we send it forward to the President.\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nJim Connor\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nTHE\nNOILY\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nDEPARTMENT\nWASHINGTON, 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\nRH\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,\nwe cannot do other 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.\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.\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\na body from the best of the local community, education\nand parental leadership, titled perhaps the National Com-\nmunity and Education Council. It could work as a medi-\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.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 2, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CONNOR\nFROM:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF m.b.\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Secretary Mathews on Busing\nThe Office of Legislative Affairs recommends that subject letter be sent.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nApril 1, 1976\nTime:\nFOR ACTION:\nCC (for information):\nJim Cannon\nPhil Buchen\nJack Marsh\nJim Lynn\nMax Friedersdorf\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nSaturday, April 3\nTime: 10 A.M.\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Secretary Mathews on Busing\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX For Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nWe would appreciate your comments on the attached\nmemorandum before we send it forward to the President.\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nJim Connor\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nALTH\n111\nDEPARTMENT\nONE\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nDEPARTMENT\nWASHINGTON, D.C.20201\nDEPART\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\nRH\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,\nwe cannot do other 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.\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.\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 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\na body from the best of the local community, education\nand parental leadership, titled perhaps the National Com-\nmunity and Education Council. It could work as a medi-\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.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 5, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CONNOR\nTHROUGH:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nT.\nBobbi\nFROM:\nBOBBIE GREENE KILBERG\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Secretary Mathews\non Busing\nSecretary Mathews' central recommendation, as explained in para-\ngraph No. 6 of his memorandum, is that the Federal Government\nwork with local governments, educators and community groups to\ncreate a mechanism that could provide mediation and technical\nassistance to communities facing integration problems. The idea\nis to keep problems from turning into crises and to keep communities\nout of court. This recommendation parallels one of the options that\nthe Domestic Council has been looking into at the direction of the\nPresident.\nThe Counsel's Office supports this recommendation, but would\nprefer that the activities it entails be carried out without the creation\nof a new agency.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nApril 1, 1976\nTime:\nFOR ACTION:\nCC (for information):\nJim Cannon\nPhil Buchen\nJack Marsh\nJim Lynn\nMax Friedersdorf\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nSaturday, April 3\nTime: 10 A.M.\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Secretary Mathews on Busing\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nWe would appreciate your comments on the attached\nmemorandum before we send it forward to the President.\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nJim Connor\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\ndue:4/3 due 4/3\nDate:\nApril 1, 1976\nTime:\n10:00\nFOR ACTION:\nCC (for information):\nJim Cannon\nPhil Buchen\nJack Marsh\nJim Lynn\nMax Friedersdorf\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nSaturday, April 3\nTime: 10 A.M.\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Secretary Mathews on Busing\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nWe would appreciate your comments on the attached\nmemorandum before we send it forward to the President.\nGERALD R.FORD\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nJim Connor\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nDEPARTMENT\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nDIPAITIMENT\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20201\nMAR 2 9 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\nRH\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,\nwe cannot do other 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.\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.\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\na body from the best of the local community, education\nand parental leadership, titled perhaps the National Com-\nmunity and Education Council. It could work as a medi-\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.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 3, 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO:\nJIM CONNOR\nFROM:\nJACK MARSH\nI have reservations in reference to the attached busing\nletter. The President, I think, seeks to emphasize as\na first priority what might be termed a rule.based on\nquality education. The emphasis of this letter forces more\non busing per se than it does on the achievement of\nquality education. It is my view that the achievement of the\ngoal of equal opportunity without denial of that opportunity\nbecause of race, and the achievement of quality education\nmust be compatible goals.\nTo focus on busing as a means of integration without emphasis\non quality education does damage to both purposes.\nThe suggestion of \"nongovernmental national force\" seems to\nhave merit. The examples where such a \"force\" has been used,\nshould be guideposts; however, such \"force\" should incorporate\ninto the busing question the general proposition of quality\neducation, without denial based on race.\nOF HEALTH DUCATION AND\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20201\nU.S.A.\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nIn regard to your directive to me and the Attorney General\nto make recommendations to you on the school desegregation\nissue, I would like to give you a brief interim report.\nI have been meeting regularly in HEW with our own experts\nand with experts outside the Department and hope to have\nan additional analytic paper ready by the end of this month.\nWe have described our work in the Department as having the\n\"highest priority,\" at your request, but have avoided giving\nthe impression that there is some one task force report\ncoming to you since that might put you on the spot for a\nresponse. The public posture has been instead continuous\nstudy and discussion.\nIn general, we have found many reasons to suggest it may\nnot be sound for you to advocate any specific alternative\nto busing. The effectiveness of any given technique varies\nwidely--none works perfectly.\nOn the other hand, there is mounting criticism of busing\nfrom very progressive quarters (note the enclosed editorial\nin Saturday Review) and a call for leadership that is both\nmoral and imaginative.\nYou set a general direction in our last conference in the\nWhite House when you talked about the constructive role\nthe Executive Branch would play if its focus was on helping\ncities stay out of court and on the community building and\nsupporting activities we could assist with before a crisis.\nWe have tried to explore that idea in detail and do feel\nit is the right policy direction. (But by \"community\nbuilding\" we do not mean shifting the burden largely to\nhousing.)\nSERALD\nPage 2 - The President\nIf one follows the general policy direction just described,\nit is possible to talk about \"alternatives to alternatives,\"\nthat is, positive actions a community can take involving\nnot only schools but other community agencies that can\nimprove education and help eliminate racial isolation.\nFaithfully yours,\nEnclosure\nunder the Fourteenth Amendment, bu:\nManaging Editor\nhe believes it is irresponsible to ignore\nPeter Young\nor stand aside from the effects of mea-\nSaturday Review\nArts Editor\nEditorial Director\nsures taken for that purpose. \"The\nRoland Gelatt\nHorace Sullon\nachievement benefits of integrated\nExecutive Editor\nMusic Editor\nRichard L. Tobin\nIrving Kolodin\nschools appeared substantial when 1\nstudied them in the middle 1960s,\" he\nSenior Editor\nScience Editor\nEducation Editor\nHallowell Bowser\nAlbert Rosenleld\nJames Cass\nsays, \"hul subsequent studies of achieve.\nment in actual systems that have deseg.\nContributing Editors\nGoodman Ace\nHollis Alpert\nCleveland Amory\nregated, with a more rigorous\nJohn Clardi\nWilliam Cole\nJudith Crist\nmethodology than we were able to use\nR. Buckminster Fuller\nHenry Hewes\nKatharine Kuh\nThomas H. Middleton\nLeo Rosten\nWalter Terry\nin 1966, have found smaller effects, and\nMargaret R Weiss\nRoger M. Williams\nAnthony Wollf\nin some cases none at all.\"\nA major error in the original decision\nArt Director\nJudith Adel\nwas to underestimate the extent to which\nCopy Editor\nBook Review Editor\nfamily background is a controlling\nEditot-Norman Cousins\nMichael Schrader\nSusan Health\nfactor in education. Parents who are\nR. Erhardt\nAssistant Art Director\nAssistant Editors\npoorly educated themselves and who\nPauline Arn Girard\nHubert B Herring\nhave to contend with prolonged jobless-\nChairman, Board\nJane Anne Majeski\nof Directors-George C. McGhee\nSusan Schiefelbein\nKaren Turok\nhess, overcrowding, and malnutrition\ncannot reasonably be expected to create\nAssociate Publisher\nVice-Chairmen\na home atmosphere supportive of a\nController\nCorporate Relations\nS. Spencer Grin\nNathan Cohn\nWalter H. Johnson, Jr.\nlearning experience for their children.\nLyn White\nWhat is happening is that we are by-\npassing the fundamentals in the search\nfor an answer. It is the condition of the\nBusing Reconsidered\nblack in America that continues to be\nthe central, overriding, and saturating\nB\nusing was honestly conceived as a\npredominantly black schools. For ex-\nissue. Everything involved in lifting a\nway of coping with the fact that\nample, in Washington, D.C., 96 percent\npeople out of their low estate in society\nschools in predominantly black neigh-\nof the students are black; in Newark,\n-housing, health. economic opportunity,\nborhoods were segregated as the result\nN.J., 72 percent; in Detroit, 70 percent;\nnutrition. access to justice under the law\nof local geography. The effect of this\nin Philadelphia, 61 percent: in Chicago,\n-fits into this total challenge.\ncircumstantial segregation, it was bc-\n58 percent; in Cleveland, 57 percent.\nThe first thing that has to be done\nlieved at the time, was to lower standards\nDoes this mean that we must now bor-\nis to de-politicalize the issue. By this\nof education for blacks.\nrow white students from the suburbs and\ntime, busing has become a battleground\nBut busing hasn't worked. After al-\nbus them back to the inner city?\nfor liberals and conservatives. There\nmost a decade, it seems clear that the\nThe document that is generally re-\nappcars to be a feeling among many\nprincipal mistake was to assume that we\ngarded as having provided the impetus\nliberals that to oppose busing is to re-\ncould create a more socially responsible\nfor school busing is the 1966 report\nnounce an essential commitment to a\nsociety by putting the problem on wheels\nTitled \"Equality of Educational Oppor-\nbetter life for blacks. Many conserva-\nand expecting it to arrive at a daily solu-\ntunity.\" It was written by James S. Cole-\ntives feel that the busing program is\ntlon. The evidence is substantial that\nman, professor of sociology, University\nproof positive of the hazards of severe\nbusing is leading away from integra-\nof Chicago, under the sponsorship of\ngovernmental intrusion in matters in-\ntion and not toward it; that it has not\nthe U.S. Office of Education. Coleman's\nvolving racial and social injustice.\nsignificantly improved the quality of\nresearch showed that deprived students\nWhat is needed is a White House\neducation accessible to blacks; that it\ndid better when their schoolmates came\nConference for the purpose of making\nhas lowered the standard of education\nfrom backgrounds strong in educational\nan objective analysis of the busing expe-\navailable to whites; that it has resulted\nmotivation. The general interpretation\nrience and for proposing alternatives.\nin the exodus of white students to pri-\nplaced on the Coleman Report was that\nIt is to be hoped that the persons in-\nvate schools inside the city or to public\nthe practice of segregation had resulted\nvited to such a conference would come\nschools in the comparatively aMuent\nin inferior education for blacks. The\nfrom many professions and occupations,\nsuburbs beyond the economic means of\nconclusion at the time was that putting\nand not from education alone.\nblacks; and, finally, that it has not con-\nblacks into white classes offered the best\nThere is no disgrace in having failed\ntributed to racial harmony but has pro-\nchance of meeting that problem.\nin an important social enterprise. The\nduced deep fissures within American so-\nProfessor Coleman has recently com-\nonly disgrace is in persisting with failure\nciety.\npleted a second report. He now presents\nin order to hold to commitments with-\nBusing hasn't desegregated the\nhis somber conclusion that busing has\nout regard to the need for keeping an\nschools. It has resegregated them. Racial\nhad the effect of replacing old patterns\nopen mind. A country dedicated to\nconcentration, the core of the problem,\nof segregation with new ones. \"Tronical-\nhuman rights should not have to confess\ncontinues. Some 30 percent of white\nly,\" he writes, \" 'desegregation' may be\nintellectual and moral bankruptcy in\nfamilies have moved to the suburbs,\nincreasing segregation.\" He reaffirms\nattempting to provide an adequate edu-\nleaving many large northern cities with\nthe need for ensuring equal protection\ncation for all its citizens.\nN.C.\nTHE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nPOSTAGE AND FEES PAID\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20201\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.E.W.\nOFFICIAL BUSINESS\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 12, 1976\nWEEKLY DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES REPORT\nGERALD FORD FIREARY\nFOR THE PRESIDENT\n1.\nUranium Enrichment\nHearings were completed April 7, and there is some\nevidence that the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy\nintends to rewrite the legislation both to permit\na commercial diffusion plant and to authorize the\ngovernment add-on diffusion plant. The JCAE staff\nbelieves they have enough information to justify\nthe construction of two diffusion plants.\nThe House Budget Committee included $230 million\nfor the add-on in its proposed resolution for FY '77.\nThe Senate Budget Committee did not, and Senator\nMuskie has indicated he would not add money until\nCongress acts on this legislation.\nIt is my understanding that we do not have the\ntechnical capability to build two diffusion plants\nat the same time. If we can start with the commercial\nplant, we may not ever have to build the diffusion\nadd-on--for the centrifuge process may be ready then.\nJim Connor and I believe that, if the JCAE is going\nfor two diffusion plants, we should ask Representative\nJohn Anderson to:\n1. Encourage the JCAE to give a priority\nto the commercial diffusion plant--with\nthe add-on continuing to be a back-up plant;\n2. Persuade the JCAE to get their proposal for\ndesign and construction of the add-on as\nfar below the Budget Committee's $230 million\nas he can.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n2\nGERALD\n2. Busing\nI have had two good discussions with Secretary Mathews\nabout an attempt to find a better approach to this\nproblem. I talked briefly with Ed Levi and will meet\nwith him tomorrow.\nAt this point, we believe we must develop a concept\nbased on these premises:\n(a) Communities should find solutions on their own\nrather than have them imposed by the Federal\ngovernment;\n(b) Remedies can best be reached before any court\naction begins;\n(c) Any approach must be in accord with Federal law\nenforcement responsibilities.\nIf this meets with your approval, I will continue meeting\nwith both Mathews and Levi to develop specific proposals\nfor you.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n3. Navigability of Waterways\nIn the wake of Lake Winnipesaukee, other questions\nabout which waters are navigable have been brought to\nour attention.\nSince the Constitution was written, the definition of\nnavigability has evolved to the point where its\napplication often does not make common sense.\nAs a result, we believe we should ask Secretary Coleman\nto review the definition with the possible objective of\nrecommending to Congress a more precise and practical\ninterpretation. This review should include an examination\nof the Constitutional implications, and the advantages\nand disadvantages of making any changes in the definition\nof navigability.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n3\n4.\nVisit with Governor Rhodes\nJim Rhodes was in town last Wednesday and asked me\nto give you these comments:\n\"Don't worry, you have got it made.\n\"In dealing with Reagan, you are dealing with a\nwounded animal.\n\"Nancy is pushing him. After starring in all those\nmovies, his wife won't let him play a supporting\nrole.\n\"Louie Nunn has been active in Ohio, but the Ohio\nRepublican Chairman (Kent McGough) is pushing through\na winner-take-all primary, which President Ford will\nwin. (97 delegates)\n\"Stay on the free enterprise jobs, the tax cuts, and\nthe spending cuts.\n\"Stop everybody from talking about who is going to\nleave the Administration.\n\"And don't worry. \"\nBERALD R. FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 17, 1976\nWEEKLY DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES REPORT\nFOR THE PRESIDENT\n1.\nUranium Enrichment\nLast June you decided an important principle- that\nfuture U.S. production of enriched uranium will be\ndone by private enterprise--and you asked Congress to\nwrite that principle into law.\nThe bill that the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has\nordered to be reported does adopt that principle.\nThere is a price, however:\na)\nEach ERDA contract with a private company\nmust be approved in 60 days by a concurrent\nresolution of Congress to be a valid contract.\nb)\nThe JCAE bill and committee report imply a\ncommitment to build a $3 billion Portsmouth,\nOhio add-on plant; but the limited authorization\n($255 million) implies the opposite.\nAfter weighing all elements of the JCAE bill, OMB, NSC,\nERDA, Congressional Relations, the White House Counsel,\nJim Connor and I all agree that this is a victory for\nyou, we ought to proclaim it, and go all out to get\nCongress to pass it as quickly as we can.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nBERRED R. LIGHARY FORD\n2\n2.\nFood Stamps\nNo suit has yet been filed to block your administrative\nreforms which begin to be effective June 1, 1976.\nWe understand that the Food Research and Action\nCommittee has been shopping for a judge and is leaning\nnow toward a Kennedy appointee in northern Minnesota.\nAs soon as the suit is filed, we will schedule your\nmeeting with Attorney General Levi, Solicitor General\nBork and Secretary Butz to discuss how we will win the\nlawsuit.\n3. Busing\nWe are working on three possible approaches to help a\ncommunity avoid a court order to bus:\na)\nA \"School Mediation Service,\" somewhat like\nthe Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\nfor labor-management disputes, which could, at\nthe invitation of local officials, send a\nmediator to attempt to work out a solution on\nschool desegregation before a Federal Court\norder to bus. Secretary Usery believes this\ncould work.\nb)\nA Federal \"clearing-house\" of information and\ntechnical assistance, which could be made\navailable to a community at its request to\nhelp work out a solution before busing is ordered.\nc)\nA modest Federal fiscal incentive to assist a\ncommunity leadership group in working out a\nsolution to its school desegregation problems.\nThe federal grant would match funds locally\nraised and could continue for no more than three\nyears. The incentive funds would also be shut\noff if a Federal Court ordered busing.\nup5/31\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 25, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nTHROUGH:\nRICHARD B. CHENEY\nDPB\nFROM:\nDOUGLAS P. BENNETT\nSUBJECT:\nBoard of Trustees of the American\nFolklife Center.\nAttached for your signature are commissions for the following-\nnamed persons to be Members of the Board of Trustees of the\nAmerican Folklife Center:\nFor a term of two years\nMitchell P. Kobelinski, of Illinois, Administrator\nof the Small Business Administration.\nFor a term of four years\nMichael P. Balzano, Jr., of Virginia, Director of\nACTION.\nGERALD FORD JERARY\nMorris Thompson, of Alaska, Commissioner of Indian\nAffairs, Department of Interior.\nFor a term of six years\nGary Everhardt, of Virginia, Director of the National\nPark Service, Department of Interior.\nAll necessary checks have been completed. This action reflects\nyour decision of May 7, 1976.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 7, 1976\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nDOUGLAS P. BENNETT\nFROM:\nJAMES E. CONNOR\nJEE\nSUBJECT:\nMembers, Board of Trustees,\nAmerican Folklife Center\n(PA, WAE) Four Members\nConfirming a phone call to your office of this afternoon, the\nPresident has reviewed your memorandum of May 4th on the\nabove subject and has approved the appointment of the following\nto be Members, Board of T rustees of the American Folklife\nCenter:\nMitchell Kobelinski for a term of two years\nMichael P. Balzano, Jr. for a term of four years\nMorris Thompson for a term of four years\nGary E. Everhardt for a term of six years\nGERALD\ncc: Dick Cheney\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nMAY 29, 1976\nOffice of the White House Press Secretary\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nThe Attorney General has notified me that after\na thorough review, he has decided that the Department\nof Justice should not file a brief in the Boston\nschool desegregation case at the current stage of\nlitigation.\nThe Attorney General also pointed out that for\nover two decades the Department of Justice has\nentered virtually every school desegregation case\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nthat the Supreme Court has agreed to review. If the\nSupreme Court agrees to review the Boston case, the\nDepartment of Justice will follow past practice and\nenter the case at that time.\nI have informed the Attorney General that I respect\nhis decision not to intervene at this time and agree\nwith him that the decision in no way reflects upon\nthe merits of the case.\nI have directed the Attorney General to continue\nan active search for a busing case which would be\nsuitable for judicial review of current case law on\nforced school busing, and to accelerate his efforts to\ndevelop legislative remedies to minimize forced school\nbusing. It is my intention to send a message to the\nCongress recommending such legislation at the earliest\npossible time. In addition, I shall meet next week\nwith the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health,\nEducation and Welfare, and other members of my Adminis-\ntration to review other possible actions that can be\ntaken to provide communities with assistance in\nachieving equal educational opportunity for all.\nMy objective is to create better educational\nopportunities consistent with the Nation's commitment\nto justice and equal opportunity. In my view, massive\nschool busing, while done with the best of intentions,\nhas too often disrupted the lives and impeded the\neducation of the children affected. I believe that\nways can be found to minimize forced busing while also\nremaining true to the Nation's ideals and our educa-\ntional goals. That is my objective.\n###\n- 10 -\n#497-5/21\nQ\nWhy doesn't he say integrated education\nthen?\nMR. NESSEN: I don't know, Helen.\n0\nRon, there was more to this busing thing\nwhich you haven't read, in which he suggested some of the\nalternatives that heis considering.\nMR. NESSEN: That is right, and it is all being\nXeroxed now so we can give it out to you.\n0\nIs there more on this subject that you\nhaven't told us about?\nMR. NESSEN: We are having this Xeroxed.\nThere was a question, \"How do you propose to get\na quality education?\" \"There are a number of alternatives.\"\nHe talks about the Esch amendment -- if the courts would\nfollow that they could get quality education without\nbusing.\n\"Secondly, there are programs that Mathews is\nsubmitting to me as a result of my ordered study that I\nthink will be helpful in alleviating the problems, so we\nare trying to find something that is a better remedy\nthan these decisions by the various courts, and I can\nassure you that this is under study and that these\nrecommendations were done well before any Presidential\ncampaign was undertaken.'\nn\nDo you have any details on what the alter-\nGERALD FORD\nnatives are?\nMR. NESSEN: No, as he said yesterday, he is not\ngoing to put out what they are at this time until he has\ndecided which ones to recommend.\n0\nYesterday he said there were three alter-\nnatives he was considering.\nMR. NFSSEN: Right.\n0\nToday he mentions one and very broadly\nthe second is a review of everything. Are there really\nthree alternatives? Is there a study going on?\nMR. NESSEN: Did you doubt the President would\nsay something if it weren't the case?\n0\nI would just like to know what he means.\nMORE\n#497\n- 11 -\n#497-5/21\nMR. NESSEN: On the 19th of February Jim Cannon\nsubmitted this five-page proposal with nine proposed\nalternatives, or other methods of achieving quality\nintegrated education without forced busing, and\nattached to it recommendations from various members of\nthe staff. The President sent that out saying that it\nlooked like this study was on the right track and\nsaying that he particularly was interested in following\nup on recommendations or proposals A, B, D and E.\nThen, on the 17th of May, 1976, which was last\nweek, I guess, four days ago, Jim Cannon of the Domestic\nCouncil sent in a two-page memo bringing the President\nup-to-date on the three matters which are currently under\nstudy by the Domestic Council -- uranium enrichment,\nfood stamps and busing.\nIn the busing category, Cannon savs, \"We are\nworking on three possible approaches to help a community\navoid a court order to bus: A, B and C,\" and there they\nare.\n0\nKeep. reading. A is what, B is what, and\nC is what?\nMR. NESSEN: I didn't relish the suggestion that\nthere were not three alternatives somewhere that the\nPresident had seen.\n0\nDidn't he say one of the alternatives was\nto strengthen the Esch amendment? Was that not said or\nalluded to in the interview?\nGERALD\nMR. NESSFN: He said it in the interview. It\nwas not one of the three proposals listed here. It\nwas mentioned in the interview.\n0\nRon, was one technical assistance to local\ncommunities?\nMR. NESSEN: As he said yesterday, \"I am not\ngoing to indicate what the three proposals under study\nare.\"\n0\nMay I have that line again, to help the\ncommunities what?\nMR. NESSEN: \"Me are working on three possible\napproaches to help a community avoid a court order to\nbus,\" then a colon, then three possible approaches.\n0\nDid you say the Esch amendment is not\none of those three?\nMR. NESSEN: It is not one of those three. It\nis one he mentioned in his meeting with the Tennessee\nreporters today as one additional way to --\nMORE\n#497\n- 12 -\n#497-5/21\n0\nSo, it is up to four now?\nMR. NESSEN: I suppose, yes.\n0\nRon, did you make any effort to ask that\nthe Attorney General appear here, or were you asked not\nto?\nMR. NESSEN: I think we went through that\nsubject.\nO\nI didn't hear your answer, Ron.\nMR. NESSEN: I think we went through that\nsubject, Les.\n0\nI know, but you didn't answer the\nquestion. Did you ask the Department of Justice if\nAttorney General Levi could meet with reporters or not?\nMR. NESSEN: As I said before, the indication\nfrom the Justice Department is that he will 00 back\nto the Justice Department after --\n0\nThey told you that before you asked, is\nthat it?\nMR. NESSEN: You have these three, plus the one\nhe mentioned in the interview, which is to strengthen the\nEsch amendment.\nSERALD\n0\nAnd then going to the court is a fifth --\nMR. NESSEN: Yes, a separate one. That goes\nback to the meeting of last November, which had really\ntwo subjects: One, alternatives' to busing, specific\nproposals for it; and two, the directive to Levi to find\na case to bring the matter to the court.\n0\nI would like to ask you a question I asked\na day or two ago on this.\nMR. NESSEN: Can the record show I am doing all\nthis talking and raising this issue in response to lots of\nquestions and haven't volunteered anything on my own?\n0\nDon't you think it is an important subject?\nMR. NESSEN: I think it is a very important\nsubject, Helen, but the thing, as you can probably tell,\nI am not crazy about is some idea that the White House\nhas raised this issue this week.\n0\nDon't you think your decisiveness is\noverdone?\nMORE\n#497"
}