Museado / NARA Collection grf-0010 — Collection grf-0010
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (angol) español (spanyol) magyar हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

Busing, June 20-25, 1976

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

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 Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
f1edfb3b91319280
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
6283011
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "6283011",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283011",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Busing, June 20-25, 1976",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283011",
    "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/11/2830/6283011/content/library/document/0010/6283011.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/11/2830/6283011/content/library/document/0010/6283011.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/11/2830/6283011/content/library/document/0010/6283011.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "6283011",
    "label": "Busing, June 20-25, 1976",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283011"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "6283011",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283011",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Busing, June 20-25, 1976",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283011",
    "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/11/2830/6283011/content/library/document/0010/6283011.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/11/2830/6283011/content/library/document/0010/6283011.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/11/2830/6283011/content/library/document/0010/6283011.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6283011",
    "naId": 6283011,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "day": 25,
        "logicalDate": "1976-06-25",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-04-01",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/11/2830/6283011/content/library/document/0010/6283011.pdf",
    "mediaId": "f1edfb3b91319280",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 4, folder \"Busing, June 20-25, 1976\" of the\nWhite House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 4 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 25, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nHAT\nFROM:\nEDWARD SCHMULTS\nESS\nSUBJECT:\nPrivate School Discrimination Case\nIn Runyon et ux., dba Bobbe's School V. McCrary et al., (decided\nJune 25, 1976), the Supreme Court held that 42 USC 1981*/ may\nbe constitutionally applied to prohibit private, commercially\noperated, non-sectarian schools from denying admission to pros-\npective students because they are Negroes. Justice Stewart\nwrote the opinion, in which Chief Justice Burger and Justices\nBrennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell and Stevens joined. The\nlatter two also filed concurring opinions. Justices White and\nRehnquist dissented.\nAt the outset the opinion noted that the case did not present\nany question as to (a) the right of a private social organization\nto limit its membership on racial or other grounds, / (b) the\nright of a private school to limit its student body to boys, to\ngirls, or to adherents to a particular religious faith, and (c)\nthe right of private sectarian schools to practice racial ex-\nclusion on religious grounds.\nThe Court said that it was well settled that Section 1981 pro-\nhibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of\nprivate contracts and cited three earlier decisions (the Jones\ncase - barring under another Reconstruction statute private\nracial discrimination in the sale or rental of real or personal\nproperty; the Tillman case - holding that a private swimming\n/ The section provides that \"All persons\nshall\nhave\nthe same right\nto make and enforce contracts\nand\nto the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for\nthe security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white\npersons\n/ Of course, the Court did not express an opinion on this\npoint.\n-2-\nclub had violated Section 1981 by enforcing a guest policy\nthat discriminated against Negroes; and the Johnson case -\nholding that Section 1981 prohibits the discrimination in\nprivate employment on the basis of race).\nIn holding that Section 1981 was constitutionally applied by\nthe lower courts, Justice Stewart said that such application\ndid not violate any constitutionally protected rights of free\nassociation and privacy, or a parent's right to direct the educa-\ntion of his children. He assumed that parents had a First\nAmendment right to send their children to educational insti-\ntutions that promote the belief that racial segregation is\ndesirable, and that children have an equal right to attend\nsuch institutions. But it did not follow that a school's\nexclusionary practice was protected by the same principle.\nStewart said that no challenge was being made to the right of\nparents to send their children to a particular private school\nrather than a public school. While parents have a constitutional\nright to select private schools that offer specified instruc-\ntion, they have no constitutional right to provide their\nchildren with private school education unfettered by reasonable\ngovernment regulation such as Section 1981.\nIn his concurring opinion, Justice Powell stressed that the\nschools were \"private\" only in the sense that they were\nmanaged by private persons and did not use public funds. He\nreferred to the fact that the schools extended a public offer\nto any child meeting minimum qualifications and advertised\nin telephone directory yellow pages and by general mail\nsolicitations. He said there was no reason to assume the\nschools had any special reason for exercising an option of\npersonal choice among those who responded to the public\noffers.\nJustice Stevens said that he believed the earlier cases had\nbeen incorrectly decided and that, were he writing on a clean\nslate, he would reverse the lower courts and find that\nSection 1981 did not prohibit private school discrimination.\nHowever, he joined in the Court's opinion in the \"interest\nin stability and orderly development of the law\". To overrule\nthe earlier decisions would, in Stevens' view, be a sig-\nnificant step backward in the Nation's movement to eliminate\nracial segregation.\nIn their dissent, Justices White and Rehnquist said that\nSection 1981, on its face, only outlaws any legal rule\n-3-\ndisabling any person from making or enforcing a contract, but\ndoes not prohibit privately motivated refusals to contract.\nThe dissenters were concerned that the Court's decision\nwould embark it on the treacherous course of deciding whether\nthe statute applied to a variety of associational relationships --\nsuch as black and white social clubs.\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS\nMonday, June 21, 1976\n11 a.m. (30 minutes)\nThe Cabinet Room\nFrom: Jim Cannor\nI.\nPURPOSE\nTo discuss chool desegregation with members of Congress.\nII. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN\nA. Background: This is the fifth in a series of\nmeetings on the issue of school desegregation.\nB. Participants: See Tab A.\nC. Press Plan: To be announced.\nIII. TALKING POINTS\n1. We are here to talk about school desegregation and,\nin particular, the impact of court-ordered busing\non our educational process.\n2. Before going to the substance of the matter, however,\nI would like to make several things very clear.\nFirst, I recognize that a President, any President,\nhas a fundamental responsibility to preserve,\nprotect and defend the Constitution. I fully intend\nto do.so. Second, I am also committed to seeing that\nevery American child's right to a good education is\nrealized. I think these two principles must guide\nour discussion.\n3. It is my own view that some courts have gone too\nfar in requiring massive student transfers simply\nto achieve racial balance. I think we need to do\nsomething about this.\n4. I have, therefore, been working with the Attorney\nGeneral and the Secretary of HEW to develop\nlegislation which will better equip everyone, the\nschools, the communities, the courts and the Federal\ngovernment, to deal with unlawful discrimination and\nto preserve the goal of quality education for all.\n2\n5.\nEach of you has thought a good deal about this\nmatter, and I would greatly appreciate your suggestions.\nA\nPARTICIPANTS\nSenate\nSenator Carl T. Curtis (Neb.)\nSenator Robert P. Griffin (Mich.)\nSenator Roman L. Hruska (Neb.)\nSenator William V. Roth (Dela.)\nHouse\nCongressman Marvin L. Esch (Mich.)\nCongressman Edward Hutchinson (Mich.)\nCongressman John Y. McCollister (Nebraska)\nCongressman Robert H. Michel (Illinois)\nCongressman Albert H. Quie (Minn.)\nAttorney General Edward H. Levi\nSecretary F. David Mathews, HEW\nJim Cannon\nJim Cavanaugh\nMax Friedersdorf\nJack Marsh\nPaul O'Neill\nEd Schmults\nDick Parsons\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 22, 1976\nCONGRESSIONAL MEETING ON BUSING\nThursday, June 24, 1976\n11:00 a.m. (30 minutes)\nThe Oval Office\nFrom: Jim Cannon\nI. PURPOSE\nTo advise Congressional committee chairmen of your\ndecision on busing.\nII. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN\nA. Background: You wanted to meet with the chairmen\nof the key committees that will handle your\nbusing legislation prior to sending your formal\nMessage to Congress.\nB. Participants: See list attached at Tab A.\nC. Press Plan: To be announced. Photo opportunity.\nIII. TALKING POINTS\n1. We are here to talk about school desegregation and\nthe impact of court-ordered busing on our\neducational process.\n2. Before going to the substance of the matter, however,\nI would like to make several things very clear.\nFirst, I recognize that a President, any President,\nhas a fundamental responsibility to preserve,\nprotect and defend the Constitution. I fully\nintend to do SO. Second, I am also committed to\nseeing that every American child's right to a\ngood education is realized. I think these two\nprinciples must guide our discussion.\n3. It is my own view that some courts have gone too\nfar in requiring massive student transfers simply\nto achieve racial balance. I think we need to do\nsomething about this.\n2\n4. I have been working with the Attorney General\nand the Secretary of HEW to develop legislation\nwhich will better equip everyone- - the schools,\nthe communities, the courts and the Federal\ngovernment to deal with unlawful discrimination\nand to preserve the goal of quality education for\nall.\n5. Ed Levi, would you please summarize for the group\nthe decisions that we have made on the legislation.\nPARTICIPANTS\nCongressman Peter W. Rodino Jr. (N. J.)\nCongressman Carl D. Perkins (Ky.)\nAttorney General Edward H. Levi\nSecretary F. David Mathews, HEW\nJim Cannon\nMax Friedersdorf\nJack Marsh\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 23, 1976\nSIGNING OF BUSING MESSAGE\nThursday, June 24, 1976\n11:30 a.m. (10 minutes)\nThe Oval Office\nFrom: Jim Canno\nI. PURPOSE\nTo sign your Message to Congress on busing.\nII. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN\nA. Background: After your series of meetings regarding\nschool desegregation and busing, your Message to\nCongress is prepared for signing and transmittal\nto Congress, along with draft legislation.\nB. Participants: See list attached at Tab A.\nC. Press Plan: To be announced. Photo opportunity.\nIII. TALKING POINTS\nTo be supplied by Bob Orben.\nGERALD,\nRALO\nA\nPARTICIPANTS\nJustice Department\nAttorney General Edward H. Levi\nRonald G. Carr, Special Assistant to the Attorney General\nJohn J. Buckley, Jr., Special Assistant to the Attorney General\nHEW\nSecretary F. David Mathews\nWilliam A. Morrill, Assistant Secretary, Planning & Evaluation\nWilliam H. Taft, General Counsel\nJoffre Whisenton, Special Assistant to the Secretary\nStaff\nJim Cannon\nMax Friedersdorf\nBobbie Kilberg\nJack Marsh\nDick Parsons\nArt Quern\nSERALD\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN....\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJUNE 24, 1976\nMR. PRESIDENT:\nCO-SPONSORS ON THE BUSING LEGISLATION\nTHUS FAR INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:\nSENATOR EASTLAND\nSENATOR HRUSKA\nCONGRESSMEN RHODES\nMICHEL\nCONABLE\nEDWARDS\nGERALD FORD CIBRARY\nFREY\nVANDERJAGT\nQUILLEN\nQUIE\nHUTCHINSON\nDEVINE\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nHR7\nEMBARGOED FOR RELEASE\nJune 24, 1976\nUNTIL 11:45 A.M. (EDT)\nOffice of the White House Press Secretary\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nFACT SHEET\nTHE SCHOOL DESEGREGATION STANDARDS\nAND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1976\nThe President today is sending legislation to Congress to\nimprove the Nation's ability to deal with elementary and\nsecondary public school desegregation.\nBACKGROUND\nThe proposed legislation is the result of an eight-month\nreview of school desegregation. In November, 1975, President\nFord directed Attorney General Levi and Secretary Mathews to\nconsider ways to minimize court ordered busing. The President\nalso stressed the need to assist local school districts in\nachieving desegregation before court action commenced.\nRecently, President Ford has held a series of meetings with\noutside sources to discuss the recommendation resulting from\nthe review. These meetings have included school board repre--\nsentatives; academic and educational experts, community\nleaders who have dealt with desegregation on the local level,\ncivil rights leaders, members of Congress, and Cabinet officers.\nDESCRIPTION OF THE LEGISLATION\nThe School Desegregation Standards and Assistance Act of 1976,\nin order to maintain progress toward the orderly elimination\nof illegal segregation in our public schools, and to preserve ---\nor; where appropriate, restore community control of schools,\nwould:\n1. Require that a court in a desegregation case\ndetermine the extent to which acts of unlawful\ndiscrimination have caused a greater degree of\nracial concentration in a school or school sys-\ntem than would have existed in the absence of\nsuch acts\n2. Require that busing and other remedies in\nschool desegregation cases be limited to\neliminating the degree of student racial\nconcentration caused by proven unlawful\nacts of discrimination,\n3. Require that the utilization of court-\nordered busing as a remedy be limited to\na specific period of time consistent with\nthe legislation's intent that it be an\ninterim and transitional remedy. In general,\nthis period of time will be no longer than\nfive years where there has been compliance\nwith the court order.\nmore\n2\n4. Establish a National Community and Education\nCommittee which will assist, encourage, and\nfacilitate community involvement in the school\ndesegregation process. This Committee will be\ncomposed of citizens from a wide range of\noccupations and backgrounds, with particular\nemphasis on individuals who have had personal\nexperience in school desegregation activities.\nCommittee members will assist on request\ncommunities which are, or will be, engaged\nin the desegregation of their schools by\nsharing ideas and recommendations for\nanticipating and resolving conflicts.\nIn addition to providing advice and technical\nassistance, the Committee will be authorized\nto provide grants to community groups for the\ndevelopment of constructive local participation\nthat will facilitate the desegregation process.\nThe Committee will be composed of not less than\n50 nor more than 100 members. Ten of those,\nappointed by the President for fixed terms,\nwill serve as an Executive Committee and will\nappoint the balance of the Committee.\nPURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION: LIMITS TO BUSING\nThe President indicated that where Federal court actions\nare initiated to deal with public school desegregation, busing\nas a remedy ought to be the last resort and ought to be limited\nin scope to correcting the effects of previous violations.\nHe proposes that Congress join with him in establishing guide-\nlines for the lower Federal Courts in the desegregation of\npublic schools.\nThe President also indicated his belief that each community\nshould choose the alternative of voluntarily desegregating\nits public schools.\nHe proposes the establishment of a committee composed of\ncitizens who have community experience in school desegrega-\ntion activities and who are willing to assist other\ncommunities voluntarily desegregate their schools.\n#####\nEMBARGOED FOR RELEASE\nJune 24, 1976\nUNTIL 11:45 A.M. (EDT)\nWEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1976\nOffice of the White House Press Secretary\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nTO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:\nI address this message to the Congress, and through\nthe Congress to all Americans, on an issue of profound\nimportance to our domestic tranquility and the future of\nAmerican education.\nMost Americans know this issue as busing --- the use\nof busing to carry out court-ordered assignment of students\nto correct illegal segregation in our schools.\nIn its fullest sense the issue is how we protect the\ncivil rights of all Americans without unduly restricting\nthe individual freedom of any American.\nIt concerns the responsibility of government to provide\nquality education, and equality of education, to every\nAmerican.\nIt concerns our obligation to eliminate, as swiftly as\nhumanly possible, the occasions of controversy and division\nfrom the fulfillment of this responsibility.\nAt the outset, let me set forth certain principles\ngoverning my judgments and my actions.\nFirst, for all of my life I have held strong personal\nfeelings against racial discrimination. I do not believe\nin a segregated society. We are a people of diverse\nbackground, origins and interests but we are still one\npeople -- Americans and so must we live.\nSecond, it is the duty of every President to enforce\nthe law of the land. When I became President, I took an\noath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of\nthe United States. There must be no misunderstanding about\nthis: I will uphold the Constitutional rights of every\nindividual in the country. I will carry out the decisions\nof the Supreme Court. I will not tolerate defiance of the\nlaw.\nThird, I am totally dedicated to cuality education\nSERALD\nin America --- and to the principle that public education\nis predominantly the concern of the community in which\npeople live. Throughout the history of our Nation, the\neducation of our children, especially at the elementary\nand secondary levels, has been a community endeavor. The\nconcept of public education is now written into our history\nas deeply as any tenet of American belief.\nmore\n2\nIn recent years, we have seen many communities in the\ncountry lose control of their public schools to the Federal\ncourts because they failed to voluntarily correct the effects\nof willful and official denial of the rights of some children\nin their schools.\nIt is my belief that in their earnest desire to carry\nout the decisions of the Supreme Court, some judges of lower\nFederal Courts have gone too far. They have:\nresorted too ouickly to the remedy of massive\nbusing of public school children:\n-- extended busing too broadly and\nmaintained control of schools for too long.\nIt is this overextension of court control that has\ntransformed a simple judicial tool, busing, into a cause\nof widespread controversy and slowed our progress toward the\ntotal elimination of segregation.\nAs a President is responsible for acting to enforce\nthe Nation's laws, so is he also responsible for acting\nwhen society begins to question the end results of those\nlaws.\nI therefore ask the Congress, as the elected\nrepresentatives of the American people, to join with me\nin establishing guidelines for the lower Federal Courts\nin the desegregation of public schools throughout the\nland - acting within the framework of the Constitution\nand particularly the Fourteenth Amendment to the\nConstitution.\nIt is both appropriate and Constitutional for the\nCongress to define by law the remedies the lower Federal\nCourts may decree.\nIt is both appropriate and Constitutional for the\nCongress to prescribe standards and procedures for\naccommodating competing interests and rights.\nBoth the advocates of more busing and the advocates\nof less busing feel they hold a strong moral position on\nthis issue.\nTo many Americans who have been in the long struggle\nfor civil rights, busing appears to be the only way to\nprovide the equal educational opportunity so long and SO\ntragically denied them.\nTo many other Americans who have struggled much of\ntheir lives and devoted most of their energies to seeking\nthe best for their children, busing appears to be a denial\nof an individual's freedom to choose the best school for\nhis or her children.\nmore\n3\nWhether busing helps school children get a better\neducation is not a settled question. The record is mixed.\nCertainly, busing has assisted in bringing about the\ndesegregation of our schools. But it is a tragic reality\nthat, in some areas, busing under court order has brought\nfear to both black students and white students ar-res and to\ntheir parents.\nNo child can learn in an atmosphere of fear. Better\nremedies to right Constitutional wrongs must be found.\nIt is my responsibility, and the responsibility of\nthe Congress, to address and to seek to resolve this\nsituation.\nIn the twenty-two years since the Supreme Court\nordered an end to school segregation, this country has\nmade great progress. Yet we still have far to go.\nTo maintain progress toward the orderly elimination\nof illegal segregation in our public schools, and to pre-\nserve --- or, where appropriate, restore - community\ncontrol of schools, I am proposing legislation to:\n1. Require that a court in a desegregation case\ndetermine the extent to which acts of unlawful\ndiscrimination have caused a greater degree of\nracial concentration in a school or school\nsystem than would have existed in the absence\nof such acts:\n2. Require that busing and other remedies in\nschool desegregation cases be limited to\neliminating the degree of student racial\nconcentration caused by proven unlawful\nacts of discrimination:\n3. Require that the utilization of court-\nordered busing as a remedy be limited to\na specific period of time consistent with\nthe legislation's intent that it be an\ninterim and transitional remedy. In\ngeneral, this period of time will be no\nlonger than five years where there has\nbeen compliance with the court order.\n4. Create an independent National Community\nand Education Committee to help any school\ncommunity requesting citizen assistance in\nvoluntarily resolving its school segregation\nproblem.\nAlmost without exception, the citizens' groups\nboth for and against busing with which I have consulted\ntold me that the proposed National Community and Education\nCommittee could be a positive addition to the resources\ncurrently available to communities which face up to the\nissue honestly, voluntarily and in the best spirit of\nAmerican democracy.\nmore\n4\nThis citizens' Committee would be made up\nprimarily of men and women who have had community\nexperience in school desegregation activities.\nIt would remain distinct and separate from\nenforcement activities of the Federal Courts, the Justice\nDepartment and the Department of Health, Education and\nWelfare.\nIt is my hope that the Committee could activate\nand energize effective local leadership at an early stage:\nTo reduce the disruption that would\notherwise accompany the desegregation\nprocess: and\n-- To provide additional assistance to\ncommunities in anticipating and resolving\ndifficulties prior to and during desegrega-\ntion.\nWhile I personally believe that every community\nshould effectively desegregate on a voluntary basis, I\nrecognize that some court action is inevitable.\nIn those cases where Federal court actions are\ninitiated, however, I believe that busing as a remedy\nought to be the last resort, and that it ought to be\nlimited in scope to correcting the effects of previous\nConstitutional violations.\nThe goal of the judicial remedy in a school desegre-\ngation case ought to be to put the school system, and its\nstudents, where they would have been if the acts which\nviolate the Constitution had never occurred.\nThe goal should be to eliminate \"root and branch the\nConstitutional violations and all of their present effects.\nThis is the Constitutional test which the Supreme Court has\nmandated nothing more, nothing less.\nTherefore, my bill would establish for Federal courts\nspecific guidelines concerning the use of busing in school\ndesegregation cases. It would recuire the court to determine\nthe extent to which acts of unlawful discrimination by\ngovernmental officials have caused a greater degree of racial\nconcentration in a school or school system than would have\nexisted in the absence of such acts. It would further require\nthe court to limit the relief to that necessary to correct the\nracial imbalance actually caused by those unlawful acts. This\nwould prohibit a court from ordering busing throughout an\nentire school system simply for the purpose of achieving\nracial balance.\nIn addition, my bill recognizes that the busing remedy\nis transitional by its very nature and that when a community\nmakes good faith efforts to comply, busing ought to be\nlimited in duration. Therefore, the bill provides that three\nyears after the busing remedy has been imposed a court shall\nbe required to determine whether to continue the remedy.\nmore\n5\nShould the court determine that a continuation is necessary,\nit could do so only for an additional two years. Thereafter.\nthe court could continue busing only in the most extraordinary\ncircumstances, where there has been a failure or delay of\nother remedial efforts or where the residual effects of\nunlawful discrimination are unusually severe.\nGreat concern has been expressed that submission of\nthis bill at this time would encourage those who are resisting\ncourt-ordered desegregation sometimes to the point of\nviolence.\nLet me here state, simply and directly, that this\nAdministration will not tolerate unlawful segregation.\nWe will act swiftly and effectively against anyone who\nengages in violence.\nI assure the people of this Nation that this Administration\nwill do whatever it must to preserve order and to protect the\nConstitutional rights of our citizens.\nThe purpose of submitting this legislation now is to\nplace the debate on this controversial issue in the halls of\nCongress and in the democratic process not in the streets\nof our cities.\nThe strength of America has always been our ability to\ndeal with our own problems in a responsible and orderly way.\nVe can do so again if every American will join with me\nin affirming our historic commitment to a Nation of laws, a\npeople of equality, a society of opportunity.\nI call on the Congress to write into law a new perspective\nwhich sees court-ordered busing as a tool to be used with the\nhighest selectivity and the utmost precision.\nI call on the leaders of all the Nation's school\ndistricts which may yet face court orders to move volun--\ntarily, promptly, objectively and compassionately to\ndesegregate their schools.\nWe must eliminate discrimination in America.\nWe must summon the best in ourselves to the cause of\nachieving the highest possible quality of education for each\nand every American child.\nGERALD R. FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nJune 24, 1976.\n####"
}