Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16978665
label
Busing (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16978665
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Busing (3)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Busing for school integration
Education
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16978665
coverageEndDate
day
22
logicalDate
1976-06-22
month
6
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-10-01
month
10
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
865b26252fc7c307
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 5, folder "Busing (3)" of the James M. Cannon
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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 5 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
JIM CANNON
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Meeting by the President with
Roy Wilkins and others from
the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights
At your request, I was able to reach Roy Wilkins by
telephone on Saturday, May 29. I advised him that the
President could not meet with his group before the Levi
decision was made but that the President did want to
hold the meeting. I told Mr. Wilkins I thought I could
call this week to advise him on approximately when the
meeting could be scheduled.
It occurs to me that we should hold this meeting before
the President announces his legislative initiative on
busing.
Mil
arm
FORD & LIBRARY 038870
DECISION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 25, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Request by Roy Wilkins for a Meeting
to Discuss School Desegregation
Roy Wilkins has requested that you meet with a delegation
representing the leadership conference on Civil Rights
to discuss the Administration's school desegregation
posture. It is apparent that he wants to discuss the
Boston case.
It is our understanding that the Supreme Court has indicated
to the Justice Department that, if it is going to file a
brief in the Boston case, it must do so by the end of the
week, not later than Friday morning. While your senior
advisers are agreed that you should meet with Wilkins and
his delegation, we are not agreed as to the timing of
such a meeting. There are two options:
1.
Meet with Wilkins on Thursday, May 27.
This would be responsive to Wilkins' request
and would afford you an opportunity to explain
to him personally your view on this matter, the
substance of your conversation with the Attorney
General, and your desire to establish a con-
tinuing dialogue on school desegregation matters.
On the other hand, the Attorney General points
out that meeting with this group would require
you to meet with all other groups involved in
the case and "disfigure the Justice Department's
decision." Moreover, he states that such a
meeting would be "outrageous and shocking." Given
the lateness of the hour, if the Justice Depart-
ment files in the Boston case on Friday morning,
FORD
GERALD
it could and would be interpreted as a slap
in the face to the Civil Rights group.
2.
Meet with Wilkins after the Justice Department's
decision has been made.
This would preserve the integrity of your
decision to allow the Attorney General to deter-
mine whether it would be appropriate for the
Administration to intervene in the Boston case.
It would also allow you to broaden the scope
of your discussions with the group to school
desegregation in general, in just the Boston
case. On the other hand, a refusal to meet with
Wilkins before the Boston decision is made will
probably evoke substantial criticism of the
Administration and you personally from the Civil
Rights community. It is possible that this
group might even refuse to meet subsequent to
a decision to enter the Boston case.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Option 1: Marsh
Option 2: Levi, Cannon, Schmults, O'Neill
If you choose Option 2, you may wish to telephone Wilkins
to inform him of your decision to meet after the Attorney
General has made his decision and to discuss the broad
range of issues involved in school desegregation.
DECISION
Option 1: Meet with Wilkins on Thursday, May 27.
YES
NO
Option 2: Meet with Wilkins after the Justice
Department's decision has been made.
YES
NO
FORD & LIBRARY
TEXT OF TELEGRAM
President Gerald Ford
White House, D.C.
Urgent that a delegation of our national leaders
meet with you to discuss the school desegregation
posture of your Administration and its implications.
It would be tragic for our nation if this issue
became involved in the politics of the Presidential
campaign. Tragic, too, if your statements were
miscontrued and stiffened resistance to law and
order. Mr. President, we are ready to meet with you
immediately.
Roy Wilkins, Chairman
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
2027 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
and 1790 Broadway, New York, N.Y.
2
3
4
5
6
The quilite House ACTION
1
T/D
2
SCHEDULE DD
3
#HA#11(1334) 62 #33287E142)PD 85/21/76 1333
21
PM 5 RFG EIVED
1976 MAY
5
ICS IPMMTZZ CSP
MAY 21 1976
6
7
2823335581 TDMT WASHINGTON DC 66 #5-21 #133P EST
MESSAGE
8 PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
SPEAKERS BUREAU
9
OTHER
10 WHITE HOUSE DC
OFFICE
11 URGENT THAT A DELEGATION OF OUR NATIONAL LEADERS MEET WITH-YOU TO
12
13 DISCUSS THE SCHOOL DESEGREGATION POSTURE OF YOUR ADMINISTRATION AND
14 ITS IMPLICATIONS. IT WOULD BE TRAGIC FOR OUR NATION IF THIS ISSUE
15
16 BECAME INVOLVED IN THE POLITICS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
17 TRAGIC, TOO, IF YOUR STATEMENTS WERE MISCONSTRUED AND STIFFENED
18
19 RESISTANCE TO LAW AND ORDER. MR. PRESIDENT, WE ARE READY TO MEET
FORM 0805 PRINTED'ST THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. $. S.A.
20 WITH YOU IMMEDIATELY
21
GERALD
R.
22
ROY WILKINS CHAIRMAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS
23 2027 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NORTHWEST WASHINGTON DC 20036 AND 1790
FORD
24
25 BROADWAY NEW YORK NY
26 NNNN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Phil Buchen and Jim Cannon
SUBJECT:
Busing Legislation
This memorandum briefly describes the substance of
the busing legislation the Attorney General has sub-
mitted for your consideration.
DESCRIPTION
As you know, under current case law, where a Federal
District Court finds that a school board has acted
to foster, promote or perpetuate racial discrimina-
tion in a school system, the Court may order the
board to take whatever steps might be necessary to
convert the entire school system into a "unitary"
(i.e., racially balanced) system. The Attorney
General's bill (attached at Tab A) proceeds from the
premise that the proper role of the courts in
fashioning a remedy in a school desegregation case
is simply to require the racial composition in the
school system that would have existed but for
unlawful acts by the school board.
Specifically, the bill would require a Federal Dis-
trict Court to determine the extent to which the
racial or ethnic concentration in a school system
is attributable to the unlawful action of a State
of local school board and to limit the relief to
eliminating only that racial or ethnic concentration.
The bill would prohibit a court from ordering the
transportation of students to alter the racial or
ethnic composition of a school unless it finds that
the current racial or ethnic composition of the
school resulted in substantial part from unlawful
acts of the State or local school board and that
transportation of students is necessary to adjust the
racial or ethnic composition of the school to that
which would have existed but for such unlawful acts.
-2-
Additionally, the bill provides for a review by the
court every three years to determine if the remedy
imposed is still appropriate. With respect to forced
busing, the bill requires that, except in extra-
ordinary circumstances, no forced busing shall con-
tinue for more than five years.
Finally, the bill would authorize the Attorney General
to appoint Federal School Desegregation Mediators to
assist the court and the parties in school desegrega-
tion cases. It would also provide that, before a
Federal judge may order busing, he must give notice
to ennumerated Federal, State and local officials, who
shall create a committee composed of leaders of the
community, which committee shall immediately endeavor
to fashion a feasible desegregation plan which can be
put into effect over a five-year period. Such a plan
would be subject to approval by the court.
IMPLICATION
The Attorney General argues in the "draft" message he
has prepared for your consideration (attached at Tab B)
that the bill will minimize the extent to which Federal
courts may order the forced busing of school children.
This interpretation is, of course, subject to review
by the courts.
One thing is clear, however, and that is that this bill
would involve the Federal government in major desegre-
gation litigation by:
authorizing the Attorney General to appoint
Federal School Desegregation Mediators to work
with the courts in designing appropriate
desegregation plans, and
requiring the Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare, in concert with other Federal,
State and local officials, to appoint (and
presumably oversee) the citizens' committees
which will be responsible for developing the
five-year desegregation plans.
These and other points can be discussed at tomorrow's
meeting.
A Bill
To provide for orderly adjudication of school desegregation
suits, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "School
Desegregation Act of 1976. "
TITLE I -- Adjudication of Desegregation Suits
Sec. 101. Purpose: Application
(a) The purpose of this Title is to prescribe stand-
ards and procedures to govern judicial relief in school de-
segregation cases brought under Federal law in order (1) to
prevent the continuation or future occurrence of any acts
of unlawful discrimination in public schools and (2) to
assist in the identification and elimination, by all neces-
sary and appropriate remedies, of the present consequences
within the schools of acts of unlawful discrimination found
to have occurred. This title is based upon the power of
the Congress to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(b) The provisions of this title shall apply to
all judicial proceedings, and the ward or modification of
-2-
all judicial relief, after the date of its enactment, seek-
ing the desegregation of public schools under Federal law.
Sec. 102. Definitions
For purposes of this title --
(a) "Local education agency" means a public board
of education or any other agency or officer exercising ad-
ministrative control over or otherwise directing the oper-
ations of one or more of the public elementary or secondary
schools of a city, town, county or other political subdivi-
sion of a State.
(b) "State education agency" means the State board
of education or any other agency or officer responsible
for State supervision or operation of public elementary or
secondary schools.
(c) "Desegregation" means elimination of the effects
of unlawful discrimination in the operation of schools on
the part of a State or local education agency.
(d) "Unlawful discrimination" means action by a
State or local education agency which, in violation of con-
stitutional rights, discriminates against students, faculty
or staff on the basis of race, color or national origin.
-3-
(e) "State" means any of the States of the Union.
Sec. 103. Liability
A local or State education agency shall be held lia-
ble (a) to relief under Section 104 of this Act if the
Court finds that such local or State education agency has
engaged or is engaging in an act or acts of unlawful dis-
crimination and (b) to relief under Section 105 of this Act
if the Court further finds that the act or acts of unlawful
discrimination which occurred within thirty years prior to
the filing of the suit increased the degree of racial or
ethnic concentration in the student population of any school.
Sec. 104. Relief - Orders prohibiting unlawful acts.
In all cases in which, pursuant to section 103 (a)
of this Act, the Court finds that a local or State educa-
tion agency has engaged or is engaging in an act or acts
of unlawful discrimination, the Court shall enter an order
enjoining the continuation or future commission of any such
act or acts and providing any other relief that, in the
Court's judgment, is necessary to prevent such act or acts
from occurring, or to eliminate the effect of such act or
acts specifically directed at particular individuals.
- 4 -
Sec. 105. Relief - Orders eliminating the present effects of
unlawful acts.
(a) In all cases in which, pursuant to section 103 (b)
of this Act, the Court finds that the act or acts of unlawful
discrimination increased the degree of racial or ethnic con-
centration in the student population of one or more schools,
the Court shall order only such relief, in conformity with
sections 213-216 of the Equal Education Opportunity Act of
1974, as may be necessary to eliminate the present effects
found, in compliance with this section, to have resulted from
the discrimination.
(b) Before entering an order under this section the
Court shall receive evidence, and on the basis of such evi-
dence shall make specific findings, concerning the degree to
which the racial or ethnic concentration in particular schools
affected by unlawful acts of discrimination presently varies
from what it would have been had no such acts occurred. Should
such findings not be feasible or useful because of the great
a
number of schools that were or may have been effected, the
demographic changes that have occurred over a period of years,
or some other circumstance, the Court shall receive evidence,
and on the basis of such evidence shall make specific findings
concerning the degree to which patterns of racial or ethnic
- 5 -
concentration in the school system affected by unlawful acts
of discrimination presently varies from what it would have been
had no such acts occurred.
(c) The findings required by subsection (b) of this
section shall in no way be based on a presumption, drawn from
the finding of liability made pursuant to section 103 (b) of
this Act or otherwise, that the degree of racial or ethnic
concentration in the schools or any particular school is the
result of unlawful acts of discrimination.
(d) The Court shall notify the Attorney General of
any proceeding pursuant to subsection (b) of this section to
which the United States is not a party, and the Attorney General
may, in his discretion, intervene in such proceeding on behalf
of the United States to present evidence and take all other
actions that he may deem necessary to facilitate enforcement
of this Act.
(e) No order entered under this Act or any provision
of federal law shall require the transportation of students to
alter the racial or ethnic composition of schools unless, pursuant
to this section, the Court finds that the racial or ethnic con-
centration in particular schools, or, if such findings are not
feasible or useful, the patterns of racial or ethnic concentration
in the school system resulted in substantial part from unlawful
discrimination by a local or State education agency, and that
transportation of students is necessary to adjust the racial or
ethnic composition of particular schools, or patterns of racial
- 6 -
or ethnic concentration in the school system, substantially to
what they would have been if the unlawful discrimination had not
occurred.
(f) In all orders entered under this section the Court
may without regard to this section's other requirements, direct
local or State school authorities to institute a program of
voluntary transfers of students from any school in which their
race is in the majority to available places in one in which it is
in the minority.
Sec. 106. Voluntary action; local control.
All orders entered under section 105 shall rely, to
the greatest extent practicable and consistent with effective
relief, on the voluntary action of school officials, teachers
and students, and the Court shall not remove from a local
or State education agency its power and responsibility to
control the operations of the schools except to the minimum
extent necessary to prevent unlawful discrimination and to
eliminate its present effects.
Sec. 107. Review of Orders.
Subject to the provisions of section 105 (f) of this
Act, no requirement of the transportation of students contained
in any order entered under section 105 of this Act or subject
to that section's provisions shall remain in effect for a
7
period of more than three years from the date of the order's
entry unless at the expiration of such period the Court finds:
- 7 -
(1) that the defendant has failed to comply
with the requirement substantially and in good
faith; or
(2) that the requirement remains necessary to
eliminate the effects of unlawful discrimination
determined in compliance with the provisions of
section 105 of this Act.
If the Court finds (1) above, it may extend the requirement
until there have been three consecutive years of substantial
compliance in good faith. If the Court finds (2) above,
after the expiration of three consecutive years of substantial
compliance in good faith, it may extend the effect of the
requirement, with or without modification, for a period not
to exceed two years, and thereafter may order an extension
only upon a specific finding of extraordinary circumstances
that require such extension. The Court may, however, continue
in effect a voluntary transportation program to implement
relief under section 105 (f) of this Act. The provisions of
this section shall not apply to any plan approved and ordered
into effect under section 203.
Sec. 108.
With respect to provisions of its order not covered
- 8 -
by section 107, the court shall conduct a review every
three years to determine whether each such provision shall
be continued, modified, or terminated. The court shall
afford parties and intervenors a hearing prior to making
this determination.
TITLE II - Federal School Desegregation Mediator
Instructs
Sec. 201. Appointment of mediator.
The Attorney General is hereby authorized to appoint,
at such times and for such period as he deems appropriate,
a Federal School Desegregation Mediator or Mediators to
assist the court and the parties in a school desegregation
lawsuit.
Sec. 202. Functions of a mediator.
(a) When a mediator is appointed pursuant to
section 201, he shall provide assistance to the court, the
parties and the affected community to the ends of (1) full
and orderly implementation of the constitutional right to
equality of educational opportunity, (2) insuring that desegregation
is accomplished in a manner which is educationally sound and (3)
seeking to secure community support for proper elimination of
unlawful school discrimination.
(b) A mediator may request the assistance of other
Federal agencies.
FORD & LIBRARY GEBALD
- 9 -
Sec. 203.
Dye ords
It is the sense of the Congress that required
transportation of students beyond the nearest school in order
to reduce the lingering effects of past unlawful discrimination
is an unusual remedy which should be used sparingly. Accord-
ingly prior to ordering such required transportation, the
district judge shall give notice to the Attorney General of
the United States, to the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare, to the Governor of the State, the Mayor or other
chief executive official of the governing unit involved, and
the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in cooperation
with these officials shall create a Council of citizens composed
of the leaders of the community. The Council shall immediately
endeavor to fashion a feasible plan which can be put into
effect over a five year period, including such matters as the
relocation of schools, which can give assurance that such
progress will be made toward a removal of the effects of unlaw-
ful discrimination over the five year period, with specific
dates and goals, so that in the meantime required transportation
can be avoided or greatly minimized. Such a plan shall be
submitted to the court for its approval. If, during the contin-
uance or at the expiration of a plan approved under this section,
the court determines that the plan is inadequate, progress made
under such plan shall be taken into account in framing any order
under Section 105 of this Act.
B
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS
I know I am speaking for the vast majority of Ameri-
cans when I say we desire that the causes and effects of
unconstitutional racial discrimination in our school systems
must be removed. The process by which these causes and
effects are remedied has been a long and difficult one. The
goal must be achieved, and I believe substantial progress
has been made.
The ultimate aim must be voluntary, whole-hearted
compliance with non-discriminatory practices, practices we
all accept because they are right. The public school sys-
tem has been one of America's greatest assets. The desire
for quality education is deep in the heart of American par-
ents and children. And the long-standing tradition of
local control of the educational system is very important.
The way to achieve the removal of the causes and
effects of racial discrimination in the schools is not the
same in every locality in which unconstitutional acts of
discrimination have occurred. This is because of a variety
of factors such as the geographic array of schools in various
systems and the special characteristics of individual systems
ALD
- 2 -
which properly reflect diverse communities' ideas about
the appropriate structure of the educational process.
On the long and difficult road our society has tra-
veled in attempting to remove the causes and effects of
racial discrimination there has at times been illegal re-
sistance to the orders of federal courts and at times there
has been some violence. This resistance and this violence
are illegal. They contradict the Constitution. The fed-
eral government certainly will not condone them. The law
will be enforced.
During this period it is inevitable that the deci-
sions of federal district judges, faced with the arduous
and often unpleasant duties of overcoming resistance, will
have elements of artificiality in them. The Supreme Court
has written that the remedy "may be administratively awk-
ward, inconvenient, and even bizarre in some situations"
(Swann V. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402
U.S. 1, 28 (1971) ) In many cases, judges have had to do
things which under our system of government would better
be accomplished by elected officials.
- 3 -
We must realize that what is involved in the effort to put
an end to unlawful racial discrimination in the schools is
a basic constitutional doctrine. That doctrine has been
set forth in a number of decisions of the United States
Supreme Court. And it is not surprising that there are
certain ambiguities in the statements of the Court --- in
the ways in which the doctrine should translate into action,
particularly as to the scope of the remedy.
Courts have used various mechanisms for removing
the causes and effects of racial discrimination in the
schools, and the most controversial of them has been the
forced busing of students. In an essential way, the use of
busing highlights the ambiguities in the constitutional doctrine
as stated by the Supreme Court. In my view, and consistent
with the doctrines of the Supreme Court, the purpose of
court ordered busing should not be to achieve a racial balance
within schools which would not have occurred through the
normal enrollment pattern in the absence of unconstitutional
acts of school discrimination.
I have always been philosphically opposed to court
ordered busing, but I realize that in some cases it is
constitutionally required under the opinions of the Supreme
Court. But, as Congress recognized in passing the Equal
-4-
Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-380, 88
Stat. 514 et seq., 20 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) 1701 et sea.
,
there are other remedies that may be used to achieve the
elimination of the effects of racial discrimination and
these other remedies should be given priority. These other
remedies include voluntary transfer systems, creation or
revision of attendance zones or grade structures without
requiring student transportation, construction of new
schools or the closing of inferior schools, and creation
of magnet schools. Busing is not a good mechanism. Many of
the federal district court judges who have ordered busing
have stated publicly that it is not a desirable mechanism
and that it is a mechanism of last resort.
While busing may be constitutionally required, it
still makes a great deal of difference to communities and
the people in them how much busing will be used, and this
in large part depends upon the legal theory upon which the
relief for unconstitutional acts of racial discrimination
is based. I do not believe we can eliminate all busing,
but I do believe we can considerably reduce its use while
FORD
- 5 -
still achieving the elimination required by the Constitu-
tion of the effects of illegal race discrimination.
Each school case involves two distinct questions.
The first is whether the school authorities have committed
acts of racial discrimination (the liability question) .
The second is what relief the court should afford once
racial discrimination in the operation of the schools has
been established (the remedy question).
Brown V. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) /
held conclusively that official acts to enforce racial
discrimination in the operation of the schools violates
the Constitution. The remedy question has not yielded
easily to analytical solution. The first problem that
arose was how
- 6 -
quickly the remedy must take effect. The second Brown case,
349 U.S. 294 (1955), was the Court's first attempt to
grapple with that problem. The Court held (id. at 300)
that "[i]n fashioning and effectuating the [desegregation]
decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles."
The second Brown case stated that the remedy must proceed
with "all deliberate speed" (id at 301).
That formula proved unsatisfactory when both school
systems and courts used "all deliberate speed" as an excuse
for inaction. A series of decisions in the 1960's called
for more rapid compliance. In 1964 the Court held that
"[t]he time for mere 'deliberate speed' has run out" (Griffin
V. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 234), and in 1968 that
[t]he burden on a school board today is to come forward
with a plan that promises realistically to work, and prom-
ises realistically to work now" (Green V. County School
Board, 391 U.S. 430, 439 (emphasis in original))
What is the goal of the remedy that must "realistically
work now"? Many judges and courts thought at first
- 7 -
that the proper remedy was to direct school officials to
cease their racial discrimination. The illegal practices
could be prohibited and stopped. This is a common form of
equitable relief.
The courts, however, went further. Some requirement
to show there was a good faith abandonment of these practices
and that they would not be renewed was no doubt essential.
Moreover, it is within the jurisdiction of a court of equity
to eradicate the lingering effects of a wrong ------- to the extent
this is feasible.
This recognition of a need to eradicate the con-
tinuing effects of past racial discrimination created problems
-8-
that continue to confront the Nation. What are those
"effects"? How do we ascertain them? What means must we
use to eradicate them? All of these questions go to the
nature and scope of the remedy for unlawful discrimination.
We cannot begin to ask whether particular remedial
tools -- such as busing to achieve racial balance -- are
necessary, when viewed in light of all their advantages
and disadvantages, until we are sure what it is that the
remedy must accomplish.
The public school system in this country developed
as
people
came together toward the common goal of
educating their children in a manner which reflected the
shared values of the community. This led to a tradition
of diversity in the ways of the educational process, and
that diversity in turn embodied our national commitment
to individuality and community self-reliance. We also have
a strong national commitment to social mobility and equal
opportunity. These values find their expression in the
constitutional requirement that public officials may not
discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race,
- 9 -
color, national origin or sex. Neither the Constitution
nor the traditions of the public school system requires
that children go to school in their immediate neighborhood.
But likewise, neither prohibits, absent illegal official
acts of race discrimination, a community from sending its
children to a neighborhood school. Only to the extent that
unconstitutional official acts of race discrimination in the
schools have created an artificial racial balance does the
Constitution require remedial steps to create the racial
balance in particular schools that would have occurred but
for the illegal acts.
Busing is required only if, in fashioning a remedy
for the unconstitutional acts, a court must assign students
to schools far from home. When are such assignments necessary?
That question, SO basic to the task of devising a remedy for
illegal discrimination, has never received a satisfactory
answer from the Supreme Court.
The Court has emphasized that "[t]he objective today
remains to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges
of state-imposed segregation" (Swann, supra, 402 U.S. at 15).
That formula, seemingly so simple, conceals a variety of
- 10 -
ambiguities. These ambiguities become of overriding importance
when lower courts must attempt to translate the Supreme
Court's
generalities into the particulars of a plan
for the operation of the schools.
The Supreme Court decision in Keyes V. School District
No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 214 (1973), created
an important ambiguity. The Court emphasized (413 U.S. at
203) that "racially inspired school board actions have an
impact beyond the particular schools that are the subject of
those actions." It therefore established a rule that, once a
district court has found acts of unlawful discrimination in
some schools of a school system, it should "presume" that
unlawful discrimination was practiced throughout the school
system -- in other words, that the school system is a "dual
school system," for which the remedy is "all-out desegregation."
But what is the real effect of this presumption? It means,
at a minimum, that the court should assume that acts of dis-
crimination have been pervasive and that they have effects
throughout the system. Does it also mean that the court must
presume that some observed distribution of the races was caused
by the discrimination? That some particular part of the
distribution was caused by the discrimination? That all of
the distribution was caused by the discrimination? The Supreme
Court did not say. Some lower courts have taken the last-
mentioned interpretation. They have interpreted what the
Supreme Court said in Keyes as support for orders that every
- 11 -
school should mirror the racial composition of the school
district.
The ambiguities, standing by themselves, make it
difficult to determine what the remedy should be designed
to accomplish. The difficulty is compounded by the dis-
cretion traditionally accorded to trial courts in the
formulation of equitable remedies. Discretion of this
sort can cover a multitude of readings of the Supreme Court's
precedents; the ambiguous nature of the precedents, combined
with the factual complexity of each new case, make it diffi-
cult for the district court to devise a remedy and even more
difficult for appellate courts effectively to supervise
the actions of the district court.
The result of all of this is that many district courts
use a finding of some unlawful discrimination as a "trigger" for
a holding that all schools must be racially balanced. They
define "all-out desegregation" as the elimination of racial
distribution in the schools, however caused, and bend their
efforts to some kind of racial balance in the schools even if
the racial distribution would have occurred without illegal
acts of racial discrimination. Such a task naturally requires
many students to be assigned to schools far from home and,
- 12 -
hence, must be accomplished by busing.
The goal of the remedy in a school case ought to
be to put the school system, and its students, where they would
have been if the violations had never occurred. In other
words, the goal ought to be to eliminate "root and branch"
the violations and all of their lingering effects. Green,
supra, 391 U.S. at 438- This articulation of the goal has
been approved by the Supreme Court. It is the constitutional
goal which the Supreme Court has mandated, but its appli-
cation has been made difficult by the ambiguities discussed
above.
First, the courts have held that the existence of
schools attended predominantly by members of one race does
not in itself amount to racial discrimination; if it were
otherwise, there would be no meaning to the requirement of
"state action" as a precondition to a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Keyes, supra; Spencer V. Kugler,
326 F. Supp. 1235 (D. N.J.), affirmed, 404 U.S. 1027.
- 13 -
Any legislation should make it clear that "desegregation"
means only the elimination of the effects of racial
discrimination by state officials.
Second, any legislation should make it clear that the
remedy must deal only with the effects of the acts of school
officials. Discrimination in other parts of society should
be redressed with other tools. For example, Congress has
enacted laws to rectify residential discrimination. See
82 Stat. 81 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. Racial dis-
crimination in housing should be attacked directly and elim-
inated as speedily as possible from our society. Its effects
ought not to be the object of a "collateral attack" in school
cases. As the Court has observed (Swann, supra, 402 U.S.
at 22-23) :
The elimination of racial discrimination in public
schools is a large task and one that should not be
retarded by efforts to achieve broader purposes
lying beyond the jurisdiction of school authorities.
One vehicle can carry only a limited amount of
baggage. It would not serve the important object-
ive of Brown I to seek to use school desegregation
cases for purposes beyond their scope, although
desegregation of schools ultimately will have im-
pact on other forms of discrimination
Our objective
...
is to see that school author-
ities exclude no pupil of racial minority from any
school, directly or indirectly, on account of race;
it does not and cannot embrace all the problems of
racial prejudice, even when these problems contribute
to disproportionate concentrations in some schools.
- 14 -
I should emphasize the language that one vehicle can only
carry a limited amount of baggage. The schools have to
try to fulfill the goal of quality education for all our
children, and no goal is more important than this to all of
our citizens.
Third, any legislation should make it clear that the
remedy should not go beyond the effects of the violations.
It should attempt to remedy past wrongs, but not to produce
a result merely because the result itself may be attractive.
"The task is to correct, by a balancing of the individual
and collective interests, the condition that offends the
Constitution
As with any equity case, the nature of
the violation determines the scope of the remedy" (id. at 16).
"[T]he remedy is necessarily designed, as all remedies are,
to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the
position they would have occupied in the absence of such
conduct." (Milliken V. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 746 (1974) )
Cf. Franks V. Bowman Transportation Co., No. 74-728, decided
March 24, 1976, slip op. 23. The attributes that make a
system illegally operated can often be eliminated without an
insistence upon a racial composition in each school that in
some degree reflects the racial composition of the school
district as a whole.
- 15 -
The objective of an order altering the racial or
ellinic student composition of schools should be to recreate
that student composition of each particular school that would
have existed but for the illegal acts of discrimination.
It will sometimes prove impossible or not useful to
retreate such conditions in particular schools. This may be
SQ because of the great number of schools that are or may
have been affected, changes in demographic patterns, or some
other circumstance. In such cases, the objective of the
desegregation remedy is to restore as closely as possible a
sontal process that has been deformed by official action.
To that end, the courts should attempt to recreate patterns
of racial or ethnic integration that would have existed in
the absence of illegal acts. Thus, to the degree that a
neighborhood school system was in effect at any level of a
school system, the court should take into account the extent
to which attendance patterns would, in any event, have reflec-
ted residential patterns of racial and ethnic concentration.
This will often require integration measures primarily at
the borders of racial and ethnic areas of concentration. This,
combined with appropriate opportunities for transfer, voluntary
busing, magnet schools, the appropriate siting of new schools,
and other forms of relief provided by the statute, will allow
for the resumption of normal and free social processes. Of
FORD
- 16 -
course, approximations in achieving this goal must be
permissible.
The inclusion in the decree of a provision for
voluntary transfer of individual students from any school in
which their race is in the majority to one in which it is in
the minority can be a useful device to compensate for possible
non-apparent additional lingering effects of the discrimina-
tory conduct. In some circumstances, temporary additional
remedial measures may also be appropriate to break down
officially caused racial identifiability of particular schools.
But the necessity for such devices and approximations should
not divert the courts from the pursuit of the proper ultimate
objective.
Fourth, the remedy ought to be limited in time (Swann,
supra, 402 U.S. at 31-32). Any judicial order of this sort
strongly interferes with normal social processes and local
autonomy. The interference is necessary, but it ought to
terminate as soon as the court can reasonably conclude that
the object of the remedy has been attained. In some cases
(for example, those involving teacher assignments or gerry-
mandering of attendance zones) a fully effective remedy can
be devised and applied expeditiously. It may take longer
to overcome the effects of discriminatory school siting and
capacity decisions, for an effective remedy may involve
school closings and construction. But however long each
- 17 -
component of the remedy may take to achieve, any legisla-
tion should ensure that the courts monitor the process and
dissolve their orders once the effects of racial discrimina-
tion have been ameliorated to the extent possible. It
should also ensure that the use of forced busing 1s, except in
extraordinary circumstances, strictly limited in duration.
Under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment Congress
has an important role in defining the nature of the consti-
tutional prohibition and creating a remedy. Congress has
exercised this power in the Equal Educational Opportunities
Act of 1974, by establishing a hierarchy of tools and devices
to carry out the remedy. But that effort has not proved
to be sufficient, and Congress once more must meet the
challenge and fulfill its constitutional role.
The legislation that I am transmitting to Congress
today will meet that challenge. Last November 20 I met with
the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare and directed them to devise legislation that
would clarify the law in this area and move toward the
reduction and eventual elimination of court ordered busing
wherever possible. Since that time we have been at work on
a bill that will provide that the constitutional goal of
eliminating race discrimination in its causes and effects will
- 18 -
be met with the minimum amount of busing required by the
Constitution. The legislation I transmit today will sweep
away the confusion and ambiguity concerning the goal of
the remedy.
The legislation brings certainty to the remedial
goal. Instead of the ambiguous word "segregation" it uses
"unlawful discrimination," which in turn means racial or
ethnic discrimination in the operation of the schools. This
makes it clear that the only proper objects of the remedy
are to ban such acts and eliminate their effects. "Desegre-
gation" is therefore appropriately defined as the elimination
of the effects of unlawful discrimination by school officials.
In order to give meaning to these definitions, the
legislation requires courts to hold trials and to make
explicit findings of fact concerning the effects of unlawful
discrimination. In making these findings, the courts are
instructed not to rely on any presumption that the unlawful
discrimination caused all (or any particular part) of any
observed racial distribution. The effects of the discrimina-
tion must be proved as facts; they cannot be presumed. It
will no longer be possible for courts to use a finding of
unlawful discrimination as a "trigger" for an order to pro-
duce system-wide racial balance. Courts will produce only
that balance within a school that would have occurred, but
- 19 -
for the unlawful discrimination by school authorities.
The legislation makes it clear, if it was not already
clear from other sections, that in a school case only the
acts of school officials are to be considered. Racial im-
balance caused by voluntary choice, by private discrimination,
or by unlawful discrimination other than discrimination
in the operation of the schools, is not to be addressed in
a school case. School cases should not attempt to cure
social problems the genesis of which is outside the schools.
The legislation provides for a review by the judge
every three years of the remedien he has imposed. With respect
to forced busing, it requires that except in extraordinary
circumstances no forced busing can continue for more than
five years. These provisions would return the operation of a
school system to local authoriting at the earliest possible
time.
Finally, we must give rellewed emphasis to the fact
that public schools are and must be of basic concern to local
communities. Those efforts should be directed toward bringing
local community leaders together BO that proper educational
procedures can be developed and Can gain the maximum community
support. The intervention of the federal courts to enforce
- 20 -
the constitutional mandate should as much as possible
leave responsibility upon the local community. For this
reason the legislation I am proposing places emphasis on the
use of mediators and mechanisms that will bring community
leaders together to solve their problems. The legislation
authorizes the Attorney General to intervene in suits at
the remedy stage in order to enforce the statute's objectives,
and it authorizes him to appoint mediators to assist the
court and the parties in these difficult cases.
Most importantly the legislation provides that
before a federal judge orders busing a community council
should be formed to endeavor to fashion a feasible plan
which could be put. into effect over a five year period to
make progress toward the removal of the effects of unlawful
discrimination. The creation and implementation of such a
plan could result in the elimination or substantial mini-
mization of forced busing.
The efforts to restore our public schools to the
conditions in which they would have been but for unconstitu-
tional acts of racial discrimination by school officials
- 21 -
should not be met with resistance and fear. We should be
united in our attempt to achieve this goal. The legislation
I today propose is an important step. To work toward this
goal with a minimum of devisiveness can be an exercise in
the harmony that we seek to achieve and can lead to the end
we all so deeply desire.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 1, 1976
DECISION
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Alternatives to Court Ordered Busing
PURPOSE
To offer for your consideration possible alternatives to
court ordered busing which the Federal government could
make available to a community seeking remedies to school
segregation.
ISSUE
Busing has become the most controversial remedy ordered
by the Federal courts to facilitate desegregation.
As an appropriate remedy to desegregate, busing was first
affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1971, 17 years after the
Brown decision. A chronology of the major school desegre-
gation decisions is at Tab A.
The school bus started to become a major element of elemen-
tary and secondary education in the 1920's as consolidated
school districts replaced the little red school house.
Today, more than 21 million school children, 51% of the
total school enrollment of 41 million, are bused to school.
Busing for better education has been widely accepted in
this country, but decisions by Federal courts to order
busing of children against prevailing community opinion
are often resisted and accompanied by violence and dis-
order.
Since most situations in which desegregation is occurring
will involve some voluntary or involuntary busing, the
need is to find a means by which the Executive Branch can
best assist a community to undertake voluntary or coopera-
tive busing plans rather than leaving it to the courts to
impose forced busing.
FORD is LIBRARY 078870
-2-
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 1974 you signed the Education Amendments
of 1974 which included the "Esch Amendments. " These
amendments (Tab B) are designed to place legislative
limits on the extent to which busing could be ordered
by Federal courts or agencies.
Last Fall you directed the Attorney General and the
Secretary of HEW to explore better ways to bring about
school desegregation than court ordered busing.
In an October 27, 1975 meeting with Senator Tower you
directed Phil Buchen to ask Justice and HEW to review
the busing situation with the objective of seeking alter-
native remedies.
On November 20, 1975, you met with Attorney General Levi
and Secretary Mathews and requested that they consider and
develop:
1.
means of helping local school districts stay
out of court.
2.
alternative remedies and legal theories which
a court might find acceptable once a school
district was in court.
I have been working with HEW and others in your Administra-
tion on item 1 while Phil Buchen has been regularly in
contact with the Attorney General on item 2.
On February 17, 1976, we outlined approaches and concepts
under consideration. You indicated four which you felt
merited further examination.
On April 12, 1976, I reported to you that we were develop-
ing approaches based on these premises:
1.
Communities should find solutions on their own
rather than have them imposed by the Federal
government.
2.
Remedies can best be reached before any court
action begins.
3.
Any approach must be in accord with Federal
law enforcement responsibilities.
FORD & LIBRARY
-3-
On May 17, 1976, I reported to you that we were in the
process of refining and further examining three possible
approaches to help a community avoid a court order to bus.
ALTERNATIVES TO COURT ORDERED BUSING
The following proposals have evolved as the most respon-
sible courses of action available to be offered to a com-
munity to better enable it to desegregate its schools
prior to the initiation of legal action. While it is
likely that each of the alternatives would result in some
busing the intent is to have such plans be developed by a
community itself rather than imposed on it by the courts.
Alternative I: Mediation Service
Establish a Community Mediation Service, somewhat
parallel to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service, to provide mediation assistance to a com-
munity in its efforts to desegregate. As proposed,
it would be available to a community both before
and after it was under a court order to desegregate.
Such service could head off busing by court order
by providing assistance to a community, at its
request, to develop an acceptable plan to desegre-
gate its schools. If any busing were involved it
would result from a community decision assisted
by the mediation process, not from a court order.
We believe such a mediation service could be set
up by Presidential Executive Order.
Alternative II: Presidential Representative
At the request of a community, the President would
designate a nationally known person to be his
special representative to insure that the full
resources of the Federal government were made
available to communities who were initiating
efforts, prior to legal action, to desegregate
their schools.
This Presidential representative would seek to
facilitate the use of the many existing Federal
resources and also to involve religions, academic,
business and labor groups in the response to a com-
FORD
munity's request for assistance.
GERALD
This could be done by Presidential action.
-4- -
Alternative III: National Community and Education
Commission
Secretary Mathews proposes the establishment of a
National Community and Education Commission to
assist communities in preparing for desegregation
activities and for avoiding community violence and
disruption. (Tab C)
The bipartisan Commission would be independent of
both HEW and Justice and would be composed of nine
members who were nationally representative of busi-
ness, education, labor, community leadership and
local government.
The Commission would have a staff of approximately
50 and an annual budget of $2 million.
Its responsibilities would be to work through local
community leaders, using existing Federal resources,
to encourage and facilitate constructive, comprehen-
sive planning for school desegregation at the local
level. Its approach would be to work quietly with
a broad spectrum of local leaders --
--
to identify problems before they develop.
--
to informally mediate so that communities
themselves can cooperatively devise solu-
tions.
--
to expedite Federal assistance, both tech-
nical and fiscal, from existing programs.
-
to encourage assistance from the private
sector.
It would specifically not serve as a court-appointed
intermediary between parties in a legal suit related
to desegregation.
We believe such a Commission could be created by
Presidential Executive Order.
DISCUSSION
The various advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives
and the related staff comments and recommendations can,
we believe, best be covered in the discussion at Wednesday's
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-5- -
meeting with the Attorney General, the Secretary of HEW,
Secretary of Labor and other members of your staff.
DECISION
Alternative I: Mediation Service
Approve
Disapprove
Alternative II: Presidential Representative
Approve
Disapprove
Alternative III: National Community and Education
Commission
Approve
Disapprove
GENALE R. FORD
TAB A
CHRONOLOGY OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION DECISIONS
A.
Brown V. Board of Education (1954)
The landmark Supreme Court decision in the school
desegregation area in this century was Brown V.
Board of Education (of Topeka), decided in 1954.
In Brown, the Supreme Court held that segregation
in public schools on the basis of race, even though
the physical facilities and other "tangible" fac-
tors may be equal, denies children of the minority
group the equal protection of the laws in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Brown decision,
the Supreme Court did not prescribe any specific
method for accomplishing desegregation.
B.
Brown II (1955)
In a follow-up to its 1954 Brown decision, the
Supreme Court in 1955 directed that desegregation
proceed with "all deliberate speed."
C.
"Freedom of Choice"
In the years immediately following Brown, from 1954
to 1964, the courts wrestled with the issue of
appropriate remedies in cases of de jure segregation,
finally concluding in a number of cases that the
"freedom of choice" method of dismantling dual
school systems was an acceptable approach. Under
freedom of choice, school districts merely gave
students -- black and white -- the choice of the
schools they wished to attend. The result was a
modest degree of desegregation, as some blacks
elected to attend formerly white schools. However,
rarely did whites choose to attend formerly black
schools. The result was that only 1.2 percent of
black students in the 11 southern states attended
schools with whites in 1963-64.
D.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Bradley Case
Shortly after passage of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Supreme Court stated in Bradley V. School
Board of Richmond (1965) that "delays in desegrega-
ting school systems are no longer tolerable." The
-2-
Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided additional
support for the desegregation process through
Titles IV and VI. Under Title IV, technical
assistance may be given to applicant school
boards in the preparation, adoption, and imple-
mentation of plans for desegregation of public
schools. If efforts to secure a school district's
voluntary desegregation failed, administrative
enforcement proceedings under Title VI would be
initiated.
E.
Green Decision (1968)
In April 1968, HEW's Office for Civil Rights
directed that, where freedom of choice plans had
not effectively eliminated dual school systems,
the systems should adopt plans that would accom-
plish this task. During that year, the Supreme
Court strengthened the HEW position in deciding
Green V. New Kent County School Board (Virginia).
In Green, after noting that in many areas desegre-
gation was not yet a reality, the Court said that
the time for mere "deliberate speed" had run out.
The Court held that where a freedom of choice assign-
ment plan failed to effectively desegregate a school
system, the system had to adopt a student assignment
plan which "promised realistically to work now.
This was the death, since rarely, if ever, did
freedom of choice result in effective school desegre-
gation.
F.
Alexander V. Holmes (1969)
In the summer of 1969, the Court decided Alexander
V. Holmes County Board of Education (Mississippi),
holding that school districts had a constitutional
obligation to dismantle dual school systems "at once"
and to operate now and hereafter as unitary systems.
The Court, quoting from Green, reiterated its deter-
mination that school systems must develop desegregation
plans that "promise realistically to work now. Thus,
Alexander clearly reaffirmed the Court's position on
the issue of timing in desegregation cases.
G.
Busing - Swann V. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education (1971)
In the spring of 1971, the Supreme Court handed down
the first "busing" decision in the case of Swann ve
-3-
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (North
Carolina). In Swann, the Court held that:
1.
desegregation plans could not be limited
to the walk-in neighborhood school;
2.
busing was. a permissible tool for desegre-
gation purposes; and,
3.
busing would not be required if it
"endangers the health or safety of children
or significantly impinges on the educa-
tional process. "
The Court also held that, while racial balance is
not required by the Constitution, a District Court
has discretion to use racial ratios as a starting
point in shaping a remedy.
H.
HEW Responsibilities to Enforce (1973)
The immediate desegregation mandate of Alexander
and the insistence in Swann that schools having
disproportionately minority enrollment were pre-
sumptively in violation were not acted upon by HEW,
which permitted these districts to remain "under
review." HEW attempted to secure compliance through
persuasion and negotiation, and the Title VI enforce-
ment mechanism fell into disuse. These conditions
led to the initiation of Adams V. Richardson, in
which HEW was charged with delinquency in desegre-
gating public educational institutions that were
receiving Federal funds.
This suit alleged that HEW had defaulted in the
administration of its responsibilities under Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court
(District of Columbia) stated on February 16, 1973,
that, where efforts to secure voluntary compliance
with Title VI failed, the limited discretion of HEW
officials was exhausted. Where negotiation and con-
ciliation did not secure compliance, HEW officials
were obliged to implement the provisions of the
Title VI regulations: provide for a hearing; determine
compliance or noncompliance; and, following a deter-
mination of noncompliance, terminate Federal finan-
cial assistance.
-4- -
The district court's decision was modified and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit,
1973) Essentially, the district court order
requires that HEW properly recognize its statutory
obligations, ensuring that the policies it adopts
and implements are consistent with those duties
and not a negation of them.
I.
Keyes - "Segregative Intent" (1973)
In June 1973, the Supreme Court rendered its deci-
sion in Keyes V. School District No. 1 (Denver,
Colorado). This was the Court's first decision on
the merits in a school desegregation case arising
in a State which did not have an official policy
of racial dualism in 1954. In Keyes, the Court
held that where it could be demonstrated that a
school board had acted with "segregative intent"
to maintain or perpetuate a "dual school system"
this was tantamount to de jure segregation in viola-
tion of the Constitution. A finding of de jure
segregation as to one part of the system creates
a presumption that segregative intent existed in
the entire system and in such cases, the school
board had "an affirmative duty to desegregate the
entire system 'root and branch'
J.
Milliken - Cross District Busing (1974)
In its most recent ruling respecting school desegre-
gation, Milliken V. Bradley (Detroit, Michigan),
the Supreme Court refused to require busing between
school districts absent a showing that there has been
a constitutional violation within one district that
produced a significant segregative effect in another
district.
B
TAB B
ESCH AMENDMENTS
(1974)
You signed into law on August 1974, Amendments to the
Elementary and Secondary School Act which included
the Esch amendments which were designed to place
legislative limits on the extent to which busing
could be ordered by Federal Courts or agencies.
The key elements of those provisions are:
A.
Remedies to Correct Segregation
When formulating desegregation plans, Federal
Courts and agencies must use following
remedies in order listed:
(1) Assign students to closest school
(considering school capacity and
natural physical barriers).
(2) Assign students to closest school
(considering school capacity only).
(3)
Permit students to transfer from
school where their race, color
or creed is a majority to one
where it is a minority.
(4)
Create or revise attendance zones
or grade structures without requiring
busing beyond that described below.
(5)
Construct new schools or close
inferior ones.
(6) Construct or create "magnet" (high
quality) schools.
(7) Implement any other educationally
sound and administratively feasible
plan.
B.
Additional Restrictions on Federal Courts or
Agencies
(1) No ordered busing of students beyond
school next closest to home.
GERALD
-2-
(2) No ordered busing at risk of students'
health.
(3) No new desegregation plans may be
formulated to correct shifts in atten-
dance patterns once school system
determined non-segregated.
(4) No desegregation plans can ignore or
alter school district lines unless
such lines were drawn to, or tend to,
promote segregation.
(5) No ordered busing shall be effective
until the beginning of an academic
school year.
C.
Rights Granted to Individuals and School Districts
(1) Allows suits by individuals (or
Attorney General on individuals'
behalf) under the Act.
(2) Permits voluntary busing beyond limits
outlined.
(3) Allows reopening of pre-existing Court
orders or desegregation plans to achieve
Title II compliance.
(4) Requires termination of court-ordered
busing if Federal Court finds school
district non-segregated.
It should be noted that the priority of remedies set
forth in the Esch Amendments is merely a slight
elaboration on existing case law. A review of the
cases from Swann on up to Boston and Louisville clearly
shows that the Courts have always turned to busing as
a last resort. Moreover, since several of the prior
remedies set forth in the Esch Amendments (such as
construction of new schools) would not accommodate
immediate desegregation of a school system, it is
doubtful that, as a matter of constitutional law, they
are binding as to the Courts. Finally, as to the appli-
cation of the Esch Amendments to Federal agencies
(notably the Office of Civil Rights in HEW), it appears
that OCR has never required busing on a massive scale and
has, since their enactment, observed the terms of the
Amendments.
INFORMATION THE THE
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
MAY 20 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Pursuant to our conversation, I have prepared for your consideration
a proposal to establish a National Community and Education Commission
to assist communities in preparing for desegregation activities and
in avoiding trauma, violence and disruption. At Tab A I have enclosed
a brief discussion of the nature and functions of such a Commission
and at Tab B a proposed draft Presidential Executive Order estab-
lishing the Commission. I would call to your attention the following
two specific issues in terms of this approach.
Implementation Strategy - Executive Order or Legislation
Although the Commission could be established either through legislation
or an Executive Order, the Executive Order approach appears preferable
for the following reasons:
The chances of Congress considering legislation to implement
this proposal in the near future are very slight.
You have the authority and precedent to create an action-type
council or commission by Executive Order. As long as the
Executive Order does not contradict or supersede any statutes,
you may create councils, commissions, and committees to carry
out any function from studying a problem to developing programs.
You may also give such bodies review and regulatory authority and
the power to mediate.
It is common practice for such commissions to receive appro-
priations from Congress without authorizing legislation. In
most cases, the "parent" Department (in this case HEW) requests
funds for the commission as a line item in its appropriation.
Although the Executive Order approach does not require Congressional
action, it is imperative that consultations with minority members on
the appropriate committees be initiated promptly if such a proposal
is approved by the Administration. Unless handled carefully, the
Democratic Congress could endanger the proposal by arguing that the
FORD
Page 2 Memorandum For The President
Administration is taking away Congress' authority to legislate. Even
with an Executive Order, Congress' support and tacit approval is
needed to enable the Commission to succeed in its complex mission.
Appropriations Strategy - Commission
To accomplish its mission effectively, the Commission would require
a permanent staff of approximately 50 persons, as well as the ability
to hire such consultants as it may need for specific projects. Support
costs for such an enterprise would be around $2 million annually. As
noted above, HEW would request funds for the Commission as a line item
in its appropriation. Although funds could be requested through an
emergency supplemental or obtained through a reprogramming of present
HEW funds, the preferred course of action is a budget amendment which
would fund the Commission as of October 1.
I believe the approach suggested herein provides the most viable and
effective strategy for the Administration to demonstrate it is truly
concerned about the issue of the disruption of communities because
of desegregation activities. I would recommend your approval of this
approach and the issuance of such an Executive Order after appropriate
consultation with the Congress.
David Calians
Enclosures
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY AND EDUCATION COMMISSION
A MAJOR INITIATIVE IN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION
Summary Description
In an effort to encourage and facilitate constructive, comprehensive
planning for school desegregation at the local level, it is proposed
that the National Community and Education Commission be established by
Executive Order. The Commission would be a Presidentially-appointed,
bipartisan group of distinguished citizens drawn from business and
other professional circles. Its charge would be to assist local
communities in carrying out desegregation planning activities designed
to build lines of communication, avert disorder, and encourage con-
structive interracial classroom environments through the example of
constructive interracial community environments.
Specific Function
The Commission's chief responsibility would be to advise local com-
munity leaders at the earliest stages of desegregation planning.
Assistance would be initiated at the request of the affected community,
and at that point a determination would be made by one or more Com-
mission members as to what course of Commission activity offered the
greatest promise of success within the particular community. In general,
however, the orientation of the Commission would be toward working
quietly with a broad spectrum of local leaders to identify problems
before they develop and to devise solutions which could be carried out
locally. While working within a community, the Commission would function
primarily in a supportive and advisory role.
In the course of its consultations with the community and the school
district, one of the Commission's chief functions would be to inform
local leaders of additional sources of desegregation assistance (Federal,
State, local and private) and encourage that these sources be investi-
gated. Such sources include direct funding through the Emergency School
Aid Act; technical assistance through OE's General Assistance Centers;
OE's ten regional offices, and the Justice Department's Community
Relations Service; formal mediation service through the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service; and other forms of aid through
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, State human relations agencies,
and related private agencies.
Although the Commission's activities will overlap to some extent with
those of the organizations mentioned above, the Commission should be
-2-
able to minimize unnecessary duplication through careful liaison
with these other resources. It will be particularly important to
work out non-duplicative roles with the Community Relations Service
(CRS) since the function of CRS -- helping communities defuse tensions
and conflicts arising from inequities or discrimination based on race,
color, or national origin -- is notably similar to that of the pro-
posed Commission. The CRS focuses less of its attention on pre-crisis
intervention now than it did prior to FY 1974. Budget cuts that year
effectively removed CRS from its earlier pre-crisis role, even though
some individuals have held that the nature of the CRS function and
expertise makes the agency particularly well suited to pre-crisis
assistance. Thus, although CRS may not be currently active in some
of the Commission's more important roles, its staff probably will
have valuable insights and experiences to share with the Commission.
In keeping with its general functions already described, the Commis-
sion's role would not be to serve as a court-appointed intermediary
between parties in a legal suit related to desegregation. Mediation
would be a proper role for the Commission only in instances where it
was conducted informally and with the voluntary participation of the
major elements of the community. Similarly, the Commission would not
be empowered to act for any State or Federal agency in an enforcement
or compliance capacity. Moreover, it would not be expected to draw
up desegregation-related student assignment plans at the request of
a State or Federal agency.
Federal Incentives for Comprehensive Community Planning
The Commission is intended primarily to provide help to school districts
which have not yet adopted or been issued a desegregation plan (although
districts at other points in the desegregation process certainly would
not be precluded from receiving assistance from the Commission). In
order to provide support for districts which are conducting compre-
hensive, community-based planning for desegregation, it is proposed
that a specified amount of funds in the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA)
discretionary account be set aside to support local planning acti-
vities, including those initiated with Commission involvement.
The ESAA discretionary account (Section 708 (a)) is the only part of
the ESAA under which a school district without an eligible desegregation
plan may receive funds. Therefore, it would be possible to stipulate by
regulation that a community which showed proof of effort to conduct
community-wide desegregation planning could receive funding to conduct
such planning and other activities authorized under ESAA. The intention
would be that this planning would involve all major sectors of the
community, including business and housing representatives.
-3-
Structure
The Commission would be made up of nine members who would be appointed
by the President for three-year terms of office. To provide continuity
within the Commission, terms of office for individual members would be
staggered at one-year intervals. The Commission chairman would be
selected by the President, with the first chairman appointed for a
full three-year term. Commission members would be expected to main-
tain their regular occupations but would be compensated at EL IV for
the days they work on Commission activities. To ensure bipartisan
representation, restrictions would be placed on the number of Commis-
sion members permitted from each political party. The Commission would
have the authority to hire staff on an excepted service basis and to
retain consultants as needed for specific projects.
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE ORDER
NATIONAL COMMUNITY AND EDUCATION COMMISSION
Throughout the history of our Nation, the education
of our children, especially at the elementary and secondary
level, has been a community endeavor. The concept of public
education began in the community and continuous support for
public schools has been provided by the community. Although
the States, and to some extent the Federal government, have
been providing increasing financial assistance for education,
it has become clear that the solution of many of the most
pressing problems facing our schools lies within the
community which supports those schools.
This fact has particular relevance to the problem of
school desegregation. Over the past two decades, communities
have been under pressure from the courts, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and in some cases the States,
to institute changes in the assignment of students to schools.
Too often this has been accomplished without the involvement
of the community or with its involvement only after confron-
tions have occurred and community positions have been
established.
2
The problems that have arisen in the process of school
integration have not been due to the inadequacy of law or
the lack of appropriate resources. Rather, they can be
attributed to the fact that the burden of initiating and
enforcing school desegregation has been borne by the courts
and the Federal government without the benefit of those
forces from within the community that are uniquely able to
bring about necessary change in an orderly and peaceful
manner.
It is therefore the purpose of this executive order to
provide a means to activate and energize effective local
leadership in the desegregation process at an early stage in
order to reduce the incidence and severity of the trauma
that would otherwise accompany that process, and to provide
a national resource that will be available to assist
communities in anticipating and resolving difficulties
encountered prior to and during desegregation.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in
me as President of the United States of America, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
3
Section 1. Establishment of the Commission. (a)
There
is hereby established a National Community and Education
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"),
the purpose of which shall be to consult with, provide
technical assistance to, and informally mediate between,
community groups and State and local governmental organizations
(including educational agencies) in order to anticipate
and resolve problems and conflicts relating to the
desegregation of schools.
(b) Composition of the Commission. The Commission
shall be composed of nine members who shall be appointed
by the President from among individuals who are nationally
recognized and respected in business, education, government
and other fields and whose experience, reputation, and
qualities of leadership render them uniquely capable of
carrying out the purposes of the Commission. No person
who is otherwise employed by the United States shall be
appointed to serve on the Commission. No more than five
of the members of the Commission at any one time shall
be members of the same political party.
4
(c) Terms of members. The term of office of each
member of the Commission shall be three years, except that
of the members first appointed to the Commission three shall
be appointed for a term of one year and three shall be
appointed for a term of two years. Any member appointed
to fill an unexpired term on the Commission shall serve
for the remainder of the term for which his predecessor
was appointed.
(d) Chairman; quorum. The Chairman of the Commission
shall be designated by the President. Five members of the
Commission shall comprise a quorum.
(e) Compensation of members. Each member of the
Commission shall be compensated in an amount equal to that paid
at level IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule, pursuant
to section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, prorated on
a daily basis for each day spent on the work of the Commission,
including travel time. In addition, each member shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5,
United States Code, for persons employed intermittently
in the Government Service.
5
(f) Executive Director; staff. The Commission shall
have an Executive Director, designated by the Chairman
with the approval of a majority of the members of the
Commission, who shall assist the Chairman and the Commission
in the performance of their functions as they may direct.
The Executive Director shall be appointed without regard
to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service. The Commission is
also authorized to appoint, without regard to the provisions
of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service, or otherwise obtain the services of,
such professional, technical, and clerical personnel,
including consultants, as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to carry out its functions. Such personnel,
including the Executive Director, shall be compensated
at rates not to exceed that specified at the time such
service is performed for grade GS-18 in section 5332 of
that title.
6
Sec. 2. Functions of the Commission. The functions of
the Commission shall include, but shall not be limited to:
(1) Consulting with leaders in the community and local
groups in determining means by which such leaders and groups
can, through early involvement in the development of, and
preparation for, school desegregation plans, contribute
to the desegregation process in such a way as to avoid
conflicts and the invocation of judicial procedures.
(2) Encouraging the formation of broadly based local
community organizations to develop a program designed to
encourage comprehensive community planning for the desegre-
gation of schools.
(3) Providing advice and technical assistance to
communities in preparing for and carrying out comprehensive
plans to desegregate the schools, involving the broadest
possible range of community interests and organizations;
(4) Consulting with the Community Relations Service
of the Department of Justice (established under title X
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), the Office for Civil
Rights in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
the National Institute of Education, the U.S. Office of Education,
7
General Assistance Centers (funded under title IV of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964), the United States Civil Rights
Commission, and State and local human relations agencies
to determine how those organizations can contribute to the
resolution of problems arising in the desegregation of
schools within a community; and
(5) Providing informal mediation services among
individuals, groups, and agencies within a community in
order to resolve conflicts, reduce tensions, and develop
acceptable means of desegregating schools without resort
to administrative and judicial processes.
Sec. 3. Limitations on activities of the Commission.
It shall not be the function of the Commission--
(1) to prepare desegregation plans;
(2) to provide mediation services under the order
of a court of the United States or of a State; or
(3) to investigate or take any action with respect
to allegations of violations of law.
Sec. 4. Cooperation by other departments and agencies.
(a) All executive departments and agencies of the United
States are authorized to cooperate with the Commission
and furnish to it such information, personnel and other
8
assistance as may be appropriate to assist the Commission
in the performance of its functions and as may be authorized
by law.
(b) In administering programs designed to assist
local educational agencies and communities in planning for
and carrying out the desegregation of schools, the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare and the heads of agencies
within that Department shall administer such programs,
to the extent permitted by law, in a manner that will
further the activities of the Commission.
Sec. 5. Expenses of the Council. Expenses of the
Commission shall be paid from such appropriations to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare as may be available
therefor.
Sec. 6. Confidentiality. The activities of the members
and employees of the Commission in carrying out the purposes of
this executive order may be conducted in confidence and
without publicity, and the Commission shall, to the extent
provided by law, hold confidential any information acquired
in the regular performance of its duties if such information
was provided to the Commission upon the understanding that
it would be so held.
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
IMPARTMENT
any
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
MAR 29 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABI JAMES M. CANNON
Here is a report on the reaction of our best staff in the Department
to the options in your memo on "Alternatives to Busing:"
1.
Many successful superintendents have been success-
ful because of a low profile. The recognition, while
flattering, might well be counterproductive. Civil
rights groups could have a field day with suits aimed
at proving that the efforts of these individuals really
were not good enough.
Furthermore, since many of the superintendents in
such a group would have used busing, the President
could be seen as endorsing busing by one group and
then, for the same gesture, criticized for tokenism
by the other side.
Of course, as the Commissioner of Education notes,
there is some value to reinforcement for people doing
a hard job well.
2.
DHEW is already doing much of what is suggested in
this option. However, since the federal government
is seen as the problem, its role as a point of reference
or place for assistance is, regrettably, limited--
regardless of how fine its services are.
3.
The same comment just made applies here, too. More
research can always be done, but as you will see from
the attached status report, DHEW is already in the
midst of a multitude of good studies. And the National
Institute of Education predicts that these studies will
show busing is "working" in eight out of ten situations.
There might be some more work done, however, in
studies on using community institutions outside the schools
to aid in desegregation.
Memorandum for the
Honorable James M. Cannon
Page Two
4.
The staff advised great caution with this option.
They made the point that to attack busing raises
the question of alternatives and since there are not
many good ones, the Administration would be left
with its back to a wall.
Our working papers are available if they would be helpful.
Secretary
Attachments
MEATTIC
SOUN
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
WASHINGTOI, D.C. 20201
THE
MAR 29 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
The best advice I can bring together from across the country leads
me to recommend a few basic precepts from which to make judgments
on a whole host of complex issues and options on the matter of busing
and desegregation.
The best policy position would be one with three basic elements:
1.
It is important that the President first reaffirm the
national commitment to the basic moral principle that
segregation is incompatible with any good vision of the
future of this country and that no child should be denied
the benefits of an equal education because of race. Any
position that does not begin at this point and clear the
air on it will mire down.
other
2.
Your position on busing can then be restated and expanded
by the assertion that because of this moral imperative,
must
we cannot do other than pursue, with all diligence, the
issue of the best means. There is evidence that busing
is not an effective means in some situations, and we
cannot escape an obligation to find better approaches
to the problem. It is important at this point, however,
not to go on to try to prove that any of the alternatives
we now have is a certain cure either. None is. And
there are a great many cases where transportation by
buses is working well secording to the research reports
we have.
quality educater
3.
The "truth" that nobody is saying is that the solution is
in taking an approach much broader than concentrating
on busing or any of its alternatives. The first part of
that solution is to turn the issue away from just a busing
question. The busing debate is really not a constructive
debate at all, and the issue must be "depoliticized" as'
much as possible. Perhaps this issue has met a stale-
mate in the political processes and must be lifted out of
that atmosphere and placed in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical
- 2 -
forum for serious and far-réaching reassessment.
The suggestion is that you push for real, useful--
not just rhetorical- attention to the problem.
4.
The other part of the solution is to focus on the problem
as it really is, not as it seems to be. The issue is not
what means are used to achieve desegregation but who
controls that decision and how parental and community
concerns are taken into consideration. To reframe the
case and to focus on reuniting the community and parents
with school control has great potential and is the way
the cities have had some success with getting on with
desegregation.
way
5.
The public feels that the federal government (whether by
the courts or the legislative process) has not only
failed to solve the problem but has made it worse. There-
fore, any solution from any part of the federal govern-
ment is likely to fail--even if it were the "right" solu-
tion. The only good option for the Executive Branch
may be to act as a "helper" and a partner to aid com-
munities in helping themselves.
6.
Using the precedent of the government to create a national
force that is not governmental (the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Council on the Arts and Humani-
ties are examples), perhaps we should consider working
with local governments and community groups to create
port
a body from the best of the local community, education
and parental leadership, titled perhaps the National Com-
Cout
munity and Education Council. It could work as a medi-
ating force and provide technical assistance to communi-
ties to deal with problems before they become crises.
In fact, the evidence from successes in Atlanta and Dallas
is that citizen alliances of the type the Council should
foster were the decisive forces. As I noted earlier,
"success" seems to turn most on how well a community
goes about making decisions that come up before the
question of busing or any other means. The Council
could also help cities to get the whole community, not
just the schools, involved in voluntary efforts to prevent
unhealthy racial isolation and foster constructive human
relations.
- 3 -
The courts might find such a body a welcome referral
point (that is, to get ideas but in no sense would it
be proper for such a council to be an agent of the
courts), and cities or community alliances might
find it a source of good ideas and even endorsement.
Another alternative would be to use the occasion of
getting the ESA legislation renewed to allow us to
encourage many of the activities that the Council would
foster without the fanfare of creating a new agency.
In sum, there do not seem to be any solutions that come from dealing
with busing directly or even in searching for alternatives. The best
chances for success seem to be in pioneering some new ground.
Americans traditionally have solved problems not by changing the
problem, but by changing their view of the problem.
ON-GOING DEPARTMENT STUDIES AND ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
DESEGREGATION
The Department has planned or on-going many analyses,
evaluations, or research projects related to questions of
quality education, urban education, and desegregation. The
major ones are listed below:
Office of Education
The desegregation-related studies underway in OE are primarily
directed toward the evaluation of OE's desegregation assistance
programs and their effects on schools. One special study
will look at a small number of districts that are success-
fully and peacefully desegregating in an attempt to discover
the practices that contribute to successful desegregation.
The evaluation of the Emergency School Aid Act
(ESAA) basic and pilot programs is a longitudinal
study of the effectiveness of two of the largest
components of ESAA in meeting the objectives of
the legislation. Special attention is being given
to the relative efficacy of alteinative school
programs in raising student achievement. The
study is being conducted through a contract with
the System Development Corporation. The report
on the first year of the study has been issued with
subsequent reports due in May 1976 and May 1977.
The evaluation of Title IV of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act is assessing the effectiveness of this
program in delivering training and technical
assistance services to desegregating school
districts. The study is being conducted by Rand
Corporation, with the final report scheduled for
release in June 1976.
The OE study of exemplary desegregated schools is
examining evidence showing the degree to which
various school practices and programs contributed
to successful desegregation. The final report is
due in June 1976 from the contractor Educational
Testing Service.
-2-
National Institute of Education
NIE has a number of on-going studies relating to various
aspects of school desegregation. In FY 1976 the total
amount spent on desegregation research was $682, 000. The
aim of those studies is to assist in making desegregated
education settings exciting and humane places for children
and is not to study the effects of desegregation on
children. Some of the most policy relevant of these studies
are:
Six ethnographic studies of the cultural milicu
and environment of desegregated schools. These
studies are being carried on in New York,
Pittsburgh, Pontiac, Durham, San Francisco, and
Memphis. They are due July 1978.
A study of status equalization and changing
expectation in integrated classrooms. This will
be due in 1978 or 1979.
A study of racial integration, public schools,
and the analysis of white flight. Due October 1976.
A study entitled "Political Protest and School
Desegregation: A Case Study of Boston". Due
September 1976.
A study of social impact on school desegregation,
dealing with how much school desegregation is
possible before it becomes counterproductive.
Completed January 1976.
A study of desegregation research and appraisal.
This has resulted in a compendium that updates
and evaluates the finding of recent research on
integration and desegregation. Completed and at
printers.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE) is beginning an analysis of Federal School
Desegregation Policy as it has evolved through judicial,
legislative, and administrative action in the last twenty
-3-
years. The analysis consists of six related studies. The
first of these is a legal study that describes the
implementation of desegregation actions in the nation's
schools. It will systematically describe features of the
various desegregation plans implemented in response to
Federal actions. It will be due a year from now. Three
other studies will investigate the impact of Federal action
and different desegregation plans on the racial and socio-
economic characteristics of schools and communities,
attitudes toward desegregation, and student educational
attainment. These studies will be completed in eighteen
months. A fifth study will investigate minority parti-
cipation in Federally funded education programs. This
study is in the design phase and will be completed in
eighteen months. A study of Federal policy alternatives
will complete the analysis. 1/ It is anticipated that all
six studies will be completed in approximately eighteen
months.
Assistant Secretary of Education
A small scale effort is underway in ASE's Policy Development
office to project probable effects of present court cases,
to develop new measures of district and regional racial
isolation, and to review other policy variables of interest
to the Education Division. This work is being conducted
as part of a larger policy analysis contract with Stanford
Research Institute.
1/ A later effort will review the impact of Federal
desegregation policy on postsecondary education. Study
components will build upon the analysis developed for
elementary and secondary education.
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
USA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
June 1, 1976
NOTE TO DICK PARSONS
You raised some questions concerning desegregation of
Northern school systems. As to the number of Northern
districts which may be required to adopt a desegregation
plan, we currently survey approximately 1100 Northern
districts. One of the criteria used to select a district
for our civil rights survey is that it must have a
minority enrollment which is at least 10%. This would
probably be the maximum number which may be required
to desegregate in the future. of this number, we
estimate that approximat ely 25 will be desegregating for
the first time or making substantial additional changes
this fall.
Of the 100 largest systems in the country, 49 are in
Northern states. Of these, 15 are under a final court
order to desegregate, 13 are in active litigation, 3
voluntarily desegregated, and 1 (Des Moines) is under
investigation by the Office for Civil Rights.
Of the top 10 school systems, only 2 (New York City and
San Diego, California) are not involved in active litiga-
tion or under a court order. New York City is composed
of 32 community districts, none of which is large enough
to rank among the 100.
Of the largest 20 districts, only 2 more (Albuquerque,
New Mexico, and Newark, New Jersey) are not in active
litigation or under court order. Albuquerque in 1972
had a black population of only 2.6% and, thus, is not a
likely candidate for desegregation. Newark, on the other
hand, had a black population of 72.3% and, thus, is
probably too heavily minority for much desegregation in
the future.
- 2 -
I have attached a list of the 100 largest school systems.
with the following code:
N
- No action pending
F - Final order/voluntary plan (Title VI)
AL - Involved in active litigation
S/ - State involvement
V
- Voluntary desegregation
I
- Under investigation (Title VI)
(Deleted districts are in the 17 Southern
and border states.)
I apologize that this is 1972 data, but I do not believe
that the facts have changed all that much.
I have also attached the list of districts which may appeal
an order to desegregate to the Supreme Court.
Martin H. Gerry
FOR
GERALD
TABLE 3 A
NEGROES IN 100 LARGEST (1972) SCHOOL DISTRICTS, RANKED BY SIZE
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT INCREASING LEVELS OF ISOLATION
FALL, 1970 AND FALL, 1972 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL SURVEY
NEGROES ATTENDING:
0-49.9%
50-100%
80-100%
90-100%
95-100%
99-100%
100%
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
TOTAL
NEGRO
NEGRO
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
DISTRICT
PUPILS
NUM.
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NEW YORK,NY
N
70
1140359
393516
34.5
63981
16.3
329535
83.7
258655
65.7
227673
57.9
185766
47.2
126879
32.2
46947
11.9
72
1125449
405177
36.0
67009
16.5
338168
83.5
288753
71.3
246845
60.9
198352
49.0
117392
29.0
26579
6.6
LOS ANGELES,
CAL
70
642895
154926
24.1
9121
5.9
145805
94.1
134889
87.1
129039
83.3
122779
79.3
85923
55.5
13551
8.7
72
620659
156680
25.2
12696
8.1
143984
91.9
133238
85.0
127490
81.4
122732
78.3
99356
63.4
19409
12.4
CHICAGO,ILL
70
577679
316711
54.8
9502
3.0
307209
97.0
290694
91.8
284013
89.7
270587
85.4
236143
74.6
143900
45.4
S/AL
72
553342
315940
57.1
5419
1.7
310521
98.3
293840
93.0
280004
88.6
273657
86.6
252184
79.8
148784
47.1
PHILADELPHIA,PA
S/ALT2
70
279829
169334
60.5
12541
7.4
156793
92.6
135866
80.2
118596
70.0
106782
63.1
78508
46.4
8668
5.1
72
282965
173874
61.4
11677
6.7
162197
93.3
142147
81.8
131982
75.9
116964
67.3
74830
43.0
24813
14.3
DETROIT, MICH
70
284396
181538
63.8
10618
5.8
170920
94.2
143946
79.3
134222
73.9
120209
66.2
65349
36.0
24809
13.7
72
276655
186994
67.6
13441
7.2
173553
92.8
148686
79.5
138167
73.9
127821
68.4
86000
46.0
20751
11.1
70
240447
60957
25.4
13254
21.7
47703
78.3
32352
53.1
25514
41.9
20317
33.3
12550
20.6
7498
12.3
72
241809
63826
26.4
15066
23.6
48760
76.4
33042
51.8
26579
41.6
19357
30.3
13750
21.5
8710
13.6
70
241139
85965
35.6
7202
8.4
78763
91.6
73373
85.4
63373
73.7
55895
65.0
29734
34.6
7604
8.8
72
225410
88871
39.4
7824
8.8
81047
91.2
74155
83.4
68080
76.6
59461
66.9
37414
42.1
4184
4.7
70
192458
129220
67.1
12122
9.4
117098
90.6
104688
81.0
102358
79.2
95838
74.2
87731
67.9
55378
42.9
72
186600
129250
69.3
10025
7.8
119225
92.2
109659
84.8
104571
80.9
98776
76.4
87906
68.0
54047
41.8
70
160897
31994
19.9
13040
40.8
18954
59.2
11190
35.0
6470
20.2
3938
12.3
2375
7.4
724
2.3
72
161969
40397
24.9
16057
39.7
24340
60.3
15914
39.4
9008
22.3
6534
16.2
2179
5.4
1649
4.1
70
164736
55648
33.8
1528
2.7
54120
97.3
52380
94.1
50884
91.4
47246
84.9
37505
67.4
12899
23.2
72
154581
59638
38.6
8966
15.0
50672
85.0
47427
79.5
47007
78.8
46424
77.8
35820
60.1
7577
12.7
CLEVELAND, OHIO
AL
70
153619
88558
57.6
3725
4.2
84833
95.8
80505
90.9
79015
89.2
75162
84.9
60050
67.8
30852
34.8
72
145196
83596
57.6
4001
4.8
79595
95.2
76719
91.8
75526
90.3
73789
88.3
64904
77.6
32773
39.2
70
145330
137502
94.6
1674
1.2
135828
98.8
133421
97.0
130688
95.0
127792
92.9
95261
69.3
46117
33.5
72
140000
133638
95.5
488
0.4
133150
99.6
130028
97.3
127115
95.1
124972
93.5
100609
75.3
47709
35.7
70
148304
76303
51.5
4979
6.5
71324
93.5
68751
90.1
68268
89.5
63749
83.5
56327
73.8
37979
49.8
72
138714
80158
57.8
5862
7.3
74296
92.7
69235
86.4
65385
81.6
61694
77.0
54015
67.4
35795
44.7
70
133368
4214
3.2
4214
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
135780
4509
3.3
4509
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
133674
5097
3.8
5097
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
131987
5604
4.2
5291
94.4
313
5.6
U
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
117324
27230
23.2
14189
52.1
13041
47.9
11201
41.1
10664
39.2
9212
33.8
6069
22.3
4303
15.8
72
128889
29363
22.8
24634
83.9
4729
16.1
2343
8.0
2343
8.0
527
1.8
527
1.8
527
1.8
MILWAUKEE,
WIS
F
70
132349
34355
26.0
4197
12.2
30158
87.8
26193
76.2
20740
60.4
15590
45.4
3939
11.5
0
0.0
72
127986
38060
29.7
5850
15.4
32210
84.6
29849
78.4
27553
72.4
24616
64.7
16349
43.0
3312
8.7
CO
70
125343
6454
5.1
6454
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
C.O
72
126707
8131
6.4
7827
96.3
304
3.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
SAN DIEGO,
CAL
70
128783
16008
12.4
5146
32.1
10862
67.9
9017
56.3
7428
46.4
3522
22.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
N
72
124487
16492
13.2
5353
32.5
11139
67.5
8284
50.2
7201
43.7
5909
35.8
74
0.4
74
0.4
70
122493
36054
29.4
9237
25.6
26817
74.4
20747
57.5
19794
54.9
19794
54.9
19794
54.9
13345
37.0
72
113644
37100
32.6
26121
70.4
10979
29.6
4860
13.1
2903
7.8
1608
4.3
1608
4.3
0
0.0
COLUMBUS, OHIO
70
109329
29440
26.9
7614
25.9
21826
74.1
15604
53.0
13313
45.2
7181
24.4
1724
5.9
655
2.2
AL
72
106588
31312
29.4
9203
29.4
22109
70.6
16131
51.5
11575
37.0
8720
27.8
3589
11.5
0
0.0
70
105347
20417
19.4
4771
23.4
15646
76.6
12832
62.8
10095
49.4
8426
41.3
5280
25.9
2303
11.3
72
107540
20367
18.9
19524
95.9
843
4.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
ST.
LOUIS,
MO
F
70
111233
72965
65.6
1827
2.5
71138
97.5
64166
87.9
60371
82.7
58794
80.6
57435
78.7
36316
49.8
72
105617
72629
68.8
1830
2.5
70799
97.5
67366
92.8
64507
88.8
60238
82.9
53184
73.2
33493
46.1
70
109856
76388
69.5
5925
7.8
70463
52.2
62567
81.9
60034
78.6
56996
74.6
54293
71.1
37053
48.5
72
103839
77504
74.6
3807
4.9
73697
95.1
64960
83.8
58777
75.8
57244
73.9
51317
66.2
24539
31.7
INDIANAPOLIS,
IND
F
70
106239
38044
35.8
7785
20.5
30259
79.5
22925
60.3
21156
55.6
18331
48.2
11971
31.5
3318
8.7
72
98076
38522
39.3
9667
25.1
28855
74.9
22798
59.2
17798
46.2
16178
42.0
11744
30.5
3121
8.1
BOSTON,
MASS
F
70
96696
28822
29.8
5174
18.0
23648
82.0
18757
65.1
15205
52.8
11367
39.4
6420
22.3
3172
11.0
72
96239
31728
33.0
5663
17.8
26065
82.2
20525
64.7
15844
49.9
15403
48.5
6082
19.2
1009
3.2
70
105598
72523
68.7
4777
6.6
67746
93.4
63111
87.0
56531
77.9
53863
74.3
47418
65.4
24332
33.6
72
96006
73985
77.1
4606
6.2
69379
93.8
63600
86.0
59917
81.0
57045
77.1
44835
60.6
33090
44.7
*MINUTE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUM OF NUMBERS AND TOTALS ARE DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING.
TABLE 3 A
NEGROES IN 100 LARGEST (1972) SCHOOL DISTRICTS, RANKED BY SIZE
*
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT INCREASING LEVELS OF ISOLATION
FALL, 1970 AND FALL, 1972 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL SURVEY
NEGROES ATTENDING:
0-49.9%
50-100%
80-100%
90-100%
95-100%
99-100%
100%
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
TOTAL
NEGRO
NEGRO
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
DISTRICT
PUPILS
NUM.
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
70
93454
3382
3.6
2738
81.0
644
19.0
644
19.0
644
19.0
644
19.0
644
19.0
0
0.0
72
95742
3725
3.9
2731
73.3
994
26.7
336
9.0
336
9.0
336
9.0
336
9.0
0
0.0
DENVER, COL
70
97928
14434
14.7
6431
44.6
8003
55.4
6426
44.5
5406
37.5
5332
36.9
947
6.6
0
0.0
72
91616
15729
17.2
7162
45.5
8567
54.5
5999
38.1
5659
36.0
5574
35.4
1110
7.1
0
0.0
70
85117
13766
16.2
6264
45.5
7502
54.5
2881
20.9
2749
20.0
2749
20.0
2270
16.5
667
4.8
72
90182
14313
15.9
14158
98.9
155
1.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
ALBUQUERQUE,
NM
N
70
83781
2048
2.4
742
36.2
1306
63.8
779
38.0
555
27.1
191
9.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
86658
2221
2.6
910
41.0
1311
59.0
888
40.0
403
18.1
152
6.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
85859
5379
6.3
3793
70.5
1586
29.5
793
14.7
793
14.7
48
0.9
48
0.9
48
0.9
72
86963
8412
9.7
4308
51.2
4104
48.8
2117
25.2
1572
18.7
1572
18.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
85270
15398
18.1
6265
40.7
9133
59.3
8005
52.0
5125
33.3
4090
26.6
2553
16.6
2553
16.6
72
86407
16060
18.6
6991
43.5
9069
56.5
6069
37.8
3588
22.3
3588
22.3
2894
18.0
2894
18.0
TENN
70
95313
23473
24.6
5877
25.0
17596
75.0
15727
67.0
14643
62.4
11674
49.7
9276
39.5
4942
21.1
72
85406
23866
27.9
18271
76.6
5595
23.4
611
2.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
88095
23542
26.7
2309
9.8
21233
90.2
18845
80.0
17725
75.3
17289
73.4
15363
65.3
11399
48.4
72
82268
24416
29.7
5076
20.8
19340
79.2
15895
65.1
15044
61.6
12172
49.9
10901
44.6
2295
9.4
SAN FRANCISCO,
CAL
F
70
91150
25988
28.5
3681
14.2
22307
85.8
14417
55.5
8239
31.7
6776
26.1
741
2.9
281
1.1
72
81970
25055
30.6
1312
5.2
23743
94.8
5264
21.0
2110
8.4
1870
7.5
92
0.4
92
0.4
NC
/
70
82507
25404
30.8
23050
90.7
2354
9.3
1053
4.1
445
1.8
76
0.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
79813
25821
32.4
25251
97.8
570
2.2
375
1.5
375
1.5
375
1.5
219
0.8
0
0.0
NEWARK, NJ
N
70
78456
56651
72.2
1620
2.9
55031
97.1
51685
91.2
48959
86.4
46541
82.2
35843
63.3
11217
19.8
72
78492
56736
72.3
1300
2.3
55436
97.7
54074
95.3
49333
87.0
47731
84.1
41074
72.4
10455
18.4
CINCINNATI,
OHIO
AL
70
84199
37853
45.0
6399
16.9
31454
83.1
20661
54.6
14954
39.5
12068
31.9
10266
27.1
5924
15.7
72
77878
36808
47.3
4258
11.6
32550
88.4
21443
58.3
14391
39.1
12950
35.2
9649
26.2
4047
11.0
70
74021
9587
13.0
7547
78.7
2040
21.3
335
3.5
229
2.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
77083
9713
12.6
8617
88.7
1096
11.3
184
1.9
184
1.9
184
1.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
SEATTLE, WASH
70
83924
10736
12.8
4358
40.6
6378
59.4
2690
25.1
330
V
3.1
330
3.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
75239
10837
14.4
4808
44.4
6029
55.6
1475
13.6
751
6.9
315
2.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
CLARK
CO,,
NEV
(LAS
VEGAS)
F
70
73822
9567
13.0
5960
62.3
3607
37.7
2870
30.0
2870
30.0
2870
30.0
2472
25.8
515
5.4
72
75223
10092
13.4
10092
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
JEFFERSON
CO.,
COL
(LAKEWOOD)
?
70
67675
71
0.1
71
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
74185
144
0.2
144
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
77253
11853
15.3
1099
9.3
10754
90.7
7950
67.1
7124
60.1
6096
51.4
3395
28.6
1310
11.1
72
72305
11443
15.8
924
8.1
10519
91.9
7995
69.9
6441
56.3
5571
48.7
3500
30.6
487
4.3
70
77822
10672
13.7
2933
27.5
7739
72.5
7332
68.7
7332
68.7
6153
57.7
3078
28.8
1887
17.7
72
71190
10950
15.4
4768
43.5
6182
56.5
3329
30.4
2712
24.8
2305
21.1
426
3.9
0
0.0
PITTSBURGH, PA
70
73481
29595
40.3
6900
23.3
22695
76.7
17009
57.5
16714
56.5
13596
45.9
9942
33.6
3905
13.2
72
70080
29274
41.8
6659
22.7
22615
77.3
15612
53.3
14835
50.7
13142
44.9
8521
29.1
3086
10.5
PORTLAND,ORE
N
70
76206
7008
9.2
4352
62.1
2656
37.9
1494
21.3
1217
17.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
68632
7307
10.6
4933
67.5
2374
32.5
1146
15.7
635
8.7
367
5.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
LA
70
64198
24785
38.6
5457
22.0
19328
78.0
17810
71.9
17022
68.7
15612
63.0
13414
54.1
7211
29.1
72
67342
26184
38.9
5714
21.8
20470
78.2
18404
70.3
17566
67.1
17285
66.0
15177
58.0
6988
26.7
70
66760
18338
27.5
4597
25.1
13741
74.9
7445
40.6
5392
29.4
2184
11.9
462
2.5
0
0.0
72
67030
19172
28.6
12588
65.7
6584
34.3
2670
13.9
519
2.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
69791
31034
44.5
5658
18.2
25376
81.8
16888
54.4
14618
47.1
12808
41.3
9635
31.0
3141
10.1
72
66263
30255
45.7
11448
37.8
18807
62.2
14026
46.4
11967
39.6
9906
32.7
9079
30.0
4376
14.5
70
63572
13201
20.8
6425
48.7
6776
51.3
4791
36.3
4186
31.7
2577
19.5
2577
19.5
2577
19.5
72
66030
13982
21.2
13005
93.0
977
7.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
o
0.0
OAKLAND,
CAL
70
67830
38567
56.9
2498
6.5
36069
93.5
28988
75.2
22601
58.6
18465
47.9
5102
13.2
991
2.6
72
65189
39121
60.0
2678
6.8
36443
93.2
30530
78.0
25165
64.3
19220
49.1
6877
17.6
465
1.2
KANSAS CITY, MO
70
70503
35375
50.2
3301
9.3
32074
90.7
29504
83.4
26446
74.8
23342
66.0
20344
57.5
AL
5275
14.9
72
65414
35578
54.4
3789
10.6
31789
89.4
31614
88.9
29502
82.9
28281
79.5
20279
57.0
10154
28.5
BUFFALO, NY
70
70305
27069
38.5
7249
26.8
19820
73.2
16172
59.7
15181
56.1
14934
55.2
13168
48.6
1785
6.6
72
64296
26548
41.3
7568
28.5
18980
71.5
17145
64.6
13658
51.4
13658
51.4
10967
41.3
3220
12.1
FORD
*MINUTE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUM OF NUMBERS AND TOTALS ARE DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING.
13
TABLE 3 - A
NEGROES IN 100 LARGEST (1972) SCHOOL DISTRICTS, RANKED BY SIZE
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT INCREASING LEVELS OF ISOLATION
FALL, 1970 AND FALL, 1972 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL SURVEY
NEGROES ATTENDING:
0-49.9%
50-100%
80-100%
90-100%
95-100%
99-100%
100%
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
TOTAL
NEGRO
NEGRO
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
DISTRICT
PUPILS
NUM.
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
LONG
BEACH,
CAL
70
69927
6349
9.1
2219
35.0
4130
65.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
N
72
63838
7100
11.1
3222
45.4
3878
54.6
561
7.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
OMAHA, NEB
70.
63516
11786
18.6
3145
26.7
8641
73.3
7582
64.3
5663
48.0
3069
26.0
825
7.0
0
0.0
72
63125
12220
19.4
4813
39.4
7407
60.6
6368
52.1
4412
36.1
3251
26.6
0
0.0
o
0.0
TUCSON, ARIZ
5.4
835
27.0
2253
73.0
1068
34.6
572
18.5
398
12.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
AL
70
57346
3088
3299
5.2
1171
35.5
2128
64.5
1317
39.9
611
18.5
471
14.3
42
1.3
25
0.8
72
62878
GRANITE, UTAH
(SALT
LAKE
CITY)
70
62767
83
0.1
83
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
N
72
62606
127
0.2
127
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
o
0.0
PASO,
70
62545
1887
3.0
1090
57.8
797
42.2
383
20.3
350
18.5
284
15.1
193
10.2
60
3.2
72
62404
1866
3.0
1307
70.0
559
30.0
322
17.3
261
14.0
227
12.2
12
0.6
0
0.0
BREVARD
CO
ELA
70
61908
6618
10.7
5876
88.8
742
11.2
742
11.2
742
11.2
742
11.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
62283
6961
11.2
6340
91.1
621
8.9
621
8.9
621
8.9
621
8.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
TOLEDO, OHIO
70
61699
16407
26.6
3954
24.1
12453
75.9
9725
59.3
7957
48.5
6187
37.7
4303
26.2
579
3.5
72
61694
16816
27.3
4277
25.4
12539
74.6
9606
57.1
8813
52.4
5682
33.8
1672
9.9
o
0.0
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN
F
70
66938
5935
8.9
3416
57.6
2519
42.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
61565
6510
10.6
4372
67.2
2138
32.8
427
6.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
OKI
AHOMA
70
70042
16109
23.0
3442
21.4
12667
78.6
12095
75.1
12095
75.1
12095
75.1
10911
67.7
3672
22.8
72
60275
15869
26.3
12236
77.1
3633
22.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
61994
33869
54.6
5338
15.8
28531
84.2
24887
73.5
23601
69.7
21831
64.5
18630
55.0
11360
33.5
72
57729
34290
59.4
4012
11.7
30278
88.3
26084
76.1
25103
73.2
21819
63.6
17945
52.3
12189
35.5
WICHITA, KAN
V
70
63811
9362
14.7
6025
64.4
3337
35.6
2950
31.5
2950
31.5
2260
24.1
975
10.4
371
4.0
72
57254
9367
16.4
9119
97.4
248
2.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
POLK
FLA
70
54380
11899
21.9
8622
72.5
3277
27.5
1444
12.1
1353
11.4
619
5.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
57006
12510
21.9
9539
76.3
2971
23.7
1431
11.4
1308
10.5
1308
10.5
0
0.0
O
0.0
70
57222
12788
22.3
12594
98.5
194
1.5
72
0.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
o
0.0
0
0.0
72
56930
12680
22.3
12511
98.7
169
1.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
o
0.0
O
0.0
70
54974
8284
15.1
1323
16.0
6961
84.0
6507
78.5
6507
78.5
5541
66.9
3548
42.8
1216
14.7
72
55861
8359
15.0
3173
38.0
5186
62.0
4965
59.4
4623
55.3
3653
43.7
2911
34.8
2278
27.3
70
57410
27059
47.1
8332
30.8
18727
69.2
16197
59.9
14539
53.7
12764
47.2
9066
33.5
3675
13.6
72
55562
26965
48.5
7381
27.4
19584
72.6
16396
60.8
14980
55.6
11453
42.5
9531
35.3
5438
20.2
70
59717
16776
28.1
3240
19.3
13536
80.7
13159
78.4
13026
77.6
12871
76.7
12871
76.7
8020
47.8
72
55448
13552
24.4
7593
56.0
5959
44.0
4983
36.8
4983
36.8
4717
34.8
4717
34.8
2941
21.7
FRESNO, CAL
AL
70
57508
5133
8.9
1255
24.4
3878
75.6
3441
67.0
2628
51.2
2628
51.2
2073
40.4
16
0.3
72
54990
5137
9.3
1482
28.8
3655
71.2
3036
59.1
2284
44.5
1766
34.4
482
9.4
0
0.0
AKRON, OHIO
N
70
56426
15413
27.3
5624
36.5
9789
63.5
7594
49.3
3661
23.8
2936
19.0
1121
7.3
0
0.0
72
54329
15679
28.9
5457
34.8
10222
65.2
6089
38.8
3450
22.0
3450
22.0
997
6.4
564
3.6
SAN
JUAN,
CAL
(CARMICHAEL)
N
70
55621
217
0.4
217
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
53116
300
0.6
300
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
PAR,
70
53866
26401
49.0
6777
25.7
19624
74.3
17959
68.0
17200
65.1
16419
62.2
13864
52.5
11740
44.5
72
52336
26064
49.8
6960
26.7
19104
73.3
17119
65.7
16461
63.2
14715
56.5
12368
47.5
9778
37.5
70
52888
3404
6.4
2934
86.2
47C
13.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
52250
3331
6.4
2985
89.6
346
10.4
115
3.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
DAYTON, OHIO
F
70
566 09
23013
40.7
2990
13.0
20023
87.0
17900
77.8
16897
73.4
16897
73.4
13847
60.2
2183
9.5
72
52162
23254
44.6
3449
14.8
19805
85.2
17119
73.6
16475
70.8
15032
64.6
12849
55.3
5143
22.1
GARDEN GROVE,
CAL
70
52684
110
0.2
110
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
N
72
51382
206
0.4
192
93.2
14
6.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
V.V.
70
53197
25674
48.3
3013
11.7
22661
88.3
19884
77.4
17556
68.4
13522
52.7
8527
33.2
1094
4.3
72
49133
25078
51.0
3675
14.7
21403
85.3
20564
82.0
18502
73.8
16229
64.7
10334
41.2
4636
18.5
SACRAMENTO, CAL
70
52218
8012
15.3
5273
65.8
2739
34.2
302
3.8
264
3.3
264
3.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
48774
8201
16.8
5236
63.8
2965
36.2
482
5.9
240
2.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
55117
24757
44.9
8139
32.9
16618
67.1
13827
55.9
11469
46.3
9954
40.2
9299
37.6
6457
26.1
72
48701
24120
49.5
9317
38.6
14803
61.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
ST. PAUL, MINN
70
49732
3163
6.4
2043
64.6
1120
35.4
340
10.7
340
10.7
340
10.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
48059
3259
6.8
2178
66.8
1081
33.2
546
16.8
349
10.7
349
10.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
46987
13443
28.6
5548
41.3
7895
58.7
2225
16.6
515
3.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
47947
13459
28.1
6204
46.1
7255
53.9
1937
14.4
957
7.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
14
TABLE 3 A
NEGROES IN 100 LARGEST (1972) SCHOOL DISTRICTS, RANKED BY SIZE
*
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT INCREASING LEVELS OF ISOLATION
FALL, 1970 AND FALL, 1972 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL SURVEY
NEGROES ATTENDING:
0-49.9%
50-100%
80-100%
90-100%
95-100%
99-100%
100%
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINDRITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
MINORITY
TOTAL
NEGRO
NEGRO
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
DISTRICT
PUPILS
NUM.
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
NUMBER
PCT
70
45245
4793
10.6
4187
87.4
606
12.6
606
12.6
606
12.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
47919
4855
10.1
4855
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
C
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
44504
1397
3.1
1397
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
47053
1299
2.8
1299
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
NC
70
49514
13727
27.7
5077
37.0
8650
63.0
7884
57.4
7822
57.0
7822
57.0
7337
53.4
6015
43.8
72
46675
14164
30.3
13483
95.2
681
4.8
390
2.8
330
2.3
330
2.3
330
2.3
330
2.3
MT.
DIABLO,
CAL
(CONCORD)
70
48395
416
0.9
416
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
N
U.C
72
46457
427
0.9
427
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
FLINT,
MICH
70
45659
18475
40.5
3512
19.0
14963
81.0
7051
38.2
5621
30.4
4816
26.1
1367
7.4
385
2.1
AL
72
46115
20493
44.4
3502
17.1
16991
82.9
8984
43.8
5813
28.4
4252
20.7
574
2.8
243
1.2
70
46292
2590
5.6
71
2.7
2519
97.3
2176
84.0
1398
54.0
998
38.5
317
12.2
12
0.5
72
45567
2517
5.5
250
9.9
2267
90.1
1972
78.3
1476
58.6
830
33.0
348
13.8
0
0.0
GARY, IND
30169
64.7
3.5
29109
96.5
27673
91.7
25850
F
70
46595
1060
85.7
24009
79.6
19544
64.8
11781
39.1
72
44830
31200
69.6
1267
4.1
29933
95.9
29149
93.4
28591
91.6
28346
90.9
16971
54.4
7160
22.9
SHAWNEE
MISSION,
KAN
70
45289
140
0.3
140
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
44428
170
0.4
170
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
RICHMOND
70
47988
30785
64.2
3609
11.7
27176
88.3
17485
56.8
13776
44.7
8680
28.2
8680
28.2
2954
9.6
72
43825
30746
70.2
1962
6.4
28784
93.6
11868
38.6
1488
4.8
200
0.7
34
0.1
34
0.1
ROCHESTER, NY
N
70
45500
15082
33.1
6161
40.9
8921
59.1
6661
44.2
3651
24.2
3651
24.2
652
4.3
0
0.0
72
43347
16440
37.9
5104
31.0
11336
69.0
5289
32.2
4321
26.3
3682
22.4
1581
9.6
622
3.8
FT. WAYNE,
IND
7.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
70
43400
6492
15.0
1921
29.6
4571
70.4
3194
49.2
2634
40.6
512
72
43245
6961
16.1
3568
51.3
3393
48.7
2341
33.6
1849
26.6
388
5.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
DES MOINES,
IOWA
8.3
2193
58.5
1558
41.5
24
0.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
C
0.0
70
45375
3751
72
43226
3913
9.1
2201
56.2
1712
43.8
583
14.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
ROCKFORD, ILL
70
43116
5300
12.3
2965
55.9
2335
44.1
412
7.8
412
7.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
N
370
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
41364
5636
13.6
2994
53.1
2642
46.9
601
10.7
6.6
TEX
70
39771
22
0.1
22
100.0
C
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
o
0.0
0
0.0
72
40509
37
0.1
37 100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
o
0.0
RICHMOND, CAL
N
70
41492
11389
27.4
5730
50.3
5659
49.7
3781
33.2
3405
29.9
3405
29.9
1621
14.2
343
3.0
72
39952
12106
30.3
4979
41.1
7127
58.9
3406
28.1
3105
25.6
3105
25.6
1667
13.8
291
2.4
JERSEY CITY, NJ
9317
54.6
8130
47.7
6595
38.7
1091
6.4
0
0.0
N
70
38430
17058
44.4
1877
11.0
15181
89.0
72
38616
17548
45.4
1861
10.6
15687
89.4
11272
64.2
8176
46.6
7613
43.4
3332
19.0
0
0.0
70
38868
10251
26.4
3473
33.9
6778
66.1
6180
60.3
4310
42.0
1062
10.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
6.1
164
1.6
72
38520
10306
26.8
3166
30.7
7140
69.3
6048
58.7
5473
53.1
3410
33.1
624
OR
70
42010
13074
31.1
1564
12.0
11510
88.0
11214
85.8
10572
80.9
10421
79.7
9601
73.4
8093
61.9
10311
78.5
2820
21.5
691
5.3
242
1.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
72
38349
13131
34.2
TOTAL
(100)
DISTRICTS
70
10564504
3396909
32.2
546100
16.1
2850809
83.9
2434965
71.7
225015
65.5
1999173
58.9
1510481
44.5
707377
20.8
72
10275264
3465635
33.7
701943
20.3
2763692
79.8
2343442
67.6
2118590
61.1
1931474
55.7
1456090
42.0
632340
18.3
*MINUTE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUM OF NUMBERS AND TOTALS ARE DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING.
15
HEALTH EDUCATION:
DLFART DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
USA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
JUN
1
1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE RICHARD D. PARSONS
Per your request, we have compiled the attached lists of school deseg-
regation cases in the Federal courts which are: 1) on appeal or likely
to be appealed; and 2) pending at the district court level. For each
case in which an appeal is pending or likely, we have briefly indicated
the current status and general issue involved.
hinty
Martin H. Gerry
Director
Office for Civil Rights
Attachment
& FORD
I. Cases in Which an Appeal is Pending or Likely
(*indicates cases to which the United States is a party)
*Austin, Texas
Secondary school plan implemented 1971-72. School board may
seek appeal of a plan approved by the court in May 1976 for
elementary schools.
Boston, Massachusetts
Four applications for certiorari are pending before the Supreme
Court. Issue involves the court-ordered remedy to de jure
segregation in the district whereby 25,000 of the 80,000
students are being transported.
Buffalo, New York
District Court found de jure segregation on April 30, 1976.
No plan has been ordered yet.
Dallas, Texas
A minimal plan affecting grades 4-8 approved by the court on
April 7, 1976. The NAACP has appealed the plan because they
believe the remedy is insufficient.
Dayton, Ohio
A plan was approved in March 1976. The school board has appealed
presumably because they contend the Master's plan is too broad.
*Indianapolis, Indiana
Case has been in Court of Appeals since Fall 1975. Issue is
whether interdistrict relief is appropriate. Plan stayed pending
appeal involves 1-way busing of 6543 blacks from city to all-white
suburbs.
Lansing, Michigan
District court issued an order for further desegregation. May
be appealed.
Louisville, Kentucky
GERALD R. FORD
Plan approved in August 1975 (busing 22,000 of 120,000) and
modified recently. Case is pending on appeal with oral argument
set for June 14.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
District court found de jure segregation in January 1976. School
board has appealed that finding.
Page 2
*Omaho, Nebraska
District court issued a busing order in April 1976. Black
plaintiff-intervenors appealed because the first grade was
excluded from the order. Indications are that the school board
will cross appeal.
*Pasadena, California
Before the Supreme Court on issue of whether Pasadena can get
injunction dismissed or modified. (Plan implemented in 1970-71).
St. Louis, Missouri
Plan approved by district court does not provide for significant
student desegregation. NAACP has asked the circuit to permit
them to intervene.
*Tulsa, Oklahoma
Plan implemented in 1971-72. Pending before district court on
issue of further desegregation.
Wilmington, Delaware
Three-judge court issued order two weeks ago. Case involves
interdistrict remedy.
II. Cases Pending in Federal District Court in which there Has Not
Been a Finding of De Jure Segregation
Cleveland, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Youngstown, Ohio
Kansa City, Kansas
Tucson, Arizona (OCR will institute
administrative proceedings)
[June 1976
Wednesday
11:30 -- Congressional Meeting begins with photo.
Advance text of message made available to
press as soon as doors close on meeting.
12:30 -- President reads statement to press.
Message sent to the Hill with legislation.
Levi, Mathews conduct joint briefing at WH.
Early afternoon -- Senators and Congressmen read
statements on camera on the Hill (Griffin,
Roth, Quie, McCollister if possible).
Afternoon -- Packet of materials to advocates.
Thursday
A.M. -- Levi, Mathews on one of morning talk shows
(Today Show).
P.M.
-- Levi, Mathews hit the road to meet with editorial
boards of NY Times, WSJ, Post, Christian Science
Monitor, LA Times. If Mathews travels alone, he
should take Justice rep with him.
Sponsors of busing legislation announced on the
Hill.
Friday
Levi should have op ed piece appear in the NY Times
(sooner the better). Could be following week in response
to negative editorial.
Sunday
Levi, Mathews appear together on one of the talk shows.
QERMLE FORD LIBRARY
Sources that could be very helpful:
The Solicitor General
Former Solicitor General Griswold
Elliot Richardson
Paul Fruend
Some of participants in your meetings
Sources that could be very harmful if they are critical
Senator Brooke
Arthur Flemming
Stan Pottinger
Marvin Esch
R.FORD
MERALD
[vine 1976?]
JMC BUSING NOTES
FIRMMESS
LEADER Sutup
KNOWLEDE
com PASSION
BAL AN CE
RESPONSIBLE
L
THOU GHTFUL
live of velsates
Get both
louin Day How
a doo Rarh
FORD LIBRARY & OERALD
Brown
Brown
Dilibech "II
The
Green Alexal
ACT
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
60
T7
58
54
76
54
ata 08
4
Before due
objective
excelity of opportunity
me need -
puper
out octipiente = and to
to olver wripe
dis midian
prouds an opperts The
for all
D
/
chat of steps To
education am
mena her
The due
and Some
be toluer
and to
and autration
r)
that of How for
we're Som - now
100%
100
for & So
50
3)
W
states by - state avalys
of
Known problem
4)
Fach ml Don Pure
FORD LIBRARY & OERALD
5
n
<
Columan
6)
n n Each
auto
winno
3 elemith they fored
s of whter
t of procure
1. Vegerlation to cerfres
musly &
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
2. fun wgat core
3. aimt commuts
m funder plus ways to
vith de sign
NOT to greets schulu
when ants fan then
to bur
coorducted Caupam
for an was objecture to about 1
to w form and a quite not is when
Pripm hu
your pm Mit
events D
The election wide
num WA tart
y The by it when exolit
The cant on
What A is the
Process of Ichool
GERALD R. FORD
In con fereur
fulk
GERALD R. FORD
1/* I quick August
prom
q. I'm bong
centrons
J
P / leaus
How
w andm
in
Oth
Preva
in neeter
P How do Then for to with
put
Adm publect Oct by How
we do want
me doct children
Trankto
7
into
paph
me dont want any
man school During
than agmit
you
fear and a louration
the me
w release
last
its
crime and violence
1 The
wourdly wobile w south so waited your
last sunction
-
to juin this but /
w
1
liem, better you, plen the & bin checken up R. FORD
GERALD
JUNE 1976
SUNDAY
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
July BUSING CALENDAR
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
1
2
3
5
President met
w/Mathews, Levi
et al
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
President met
President met
w/Sec. Coleman
w/county reps
who desegregated
President met
w/academic &
school board grp.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
President met
Draft legislation
President
w/civil rights
ready
meets w/10
group
Draft message
constitutional
ready
experts
President meets
w/educators
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Legislation &
President meets
Message cleared
w/Republican
& ready to be
leaders
sent
feuds
President meets
Message to
w/Republican
Congress Butri
advisory group
By have, Pottuge Every
FORD
27
LIBRA
28
29
30
R.
02820
HEALTH.
OF
EDUCATION:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
U.S.A.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
JUN 1 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE RICHARD D. PARSONS
Per your request, we have compiled the attached lists of school deseg-
regation cases in the Federal courts which are: 1) on appeal or likely
to be appealed; and 2) pending at the district court level. For each
case in which an appeal is pending or likely, we have briefly indicated
the current status and general issue involved.
health
Martin H. Gerry
Director
Office for Civil Rights
Far
Attachment
is
GERALD
I. Cases in Which an Appeal is Pending or Likely
(*indicates cases to which the United States is a party)
*Austin, Texas
Secondary school plan implemented 1971-72. School board may
seek appeal of a plan approved by the court in May 1976 for
elementary schools.
Boston, Massachusetts
Four applications for certiorari are pending before the Supreme
Court. Issue involves the court-ordered remedy to de jure
segregation in the district whereby 25,000 of the 80,000
students are being transported.
Buffalo, New York
District Court found de jure segregation on April 30, 1976.
No plan has been ordered yet.
Dallas, Texas
A minimal plan affecting grades 4-8 approved by the court on
April 7, 1976. The NAACP has appealed the plan because they
believe the remedy is insufficient.
Dayton, Ohio
A plan was approved in March 1976. The school board has appealed
presumably because they contend the Master's plan is too broad.
*Indianapolis, Indiana
Case has been in Court of Appeals since Fall 1975. Issue is
whether interdistrict relief is appropriate. Plan stayed pending
appeal involves 1-way busing of 6543 blacks from city to all-white
suburbs.
Lansing, Michigan
District court issued an order for further desegregation. May
be appealed.
Louisville, Kentucky
Plan approved in August 1975 (busing 22,000 of 120,000) and
modified recently. Case is pending on appeal with oral argument
set for June 14.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
GERALO
District court found de jure segregation in January 1976. School
board has appealed that finding.
Page 2
*Omaho, Nebraska
District court issued a busing order in April 1976. Black
plaintiff-interyenors appealed because the first grade was
excluded from the order. Indications are that the school board
will cross appeal.
*Pasadena, California
Before the Supreme Court on issue of whether Pasadena can get
injunction dismissed or modified. (Plan implemented in 1970-71).
St. Louis, Missouri
Plan approved by district court does not provide for significant
student desegregation. NAACP has asked the circuit to permit
them to intervene.
*Tulsa, Oklahoma
Plan implemented in 1971-72. Pending before district court on
issue of further desegregation.
Wilmington, Delaware
Three-judge court issued order two weeks ago. Case involves
interdistrict remedy.
II. Cases Pending in Federal District Court in which there Has Not
Been a Finding of De Jure Segregation
Cleveland, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Youngstown, Ohio
Kansa City, Kansas
Tucson, Arizona (OCR will institute
administrative proceedings)
FORD
GERALD
[June 19767
Corrected Version
A BILL
To provide for orderly adjudication of school desegregation
suits, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "School
Desegregation Act of 1976."
TITLE I - Adjudication of Desegregation Suits
Sec. 101. Purpose: Application
(a) The purpose of this Title is to prescribe stand-
ards and procedures to govern the award of injunctive and
other equitable relief in school desegregation cases brought
under Federal law in order (1) to prevent the continuation
or future occurrence of any acts of unlawful discrimination
in public schools and (2) to remedy, by only such means as
are necessary and appropriate to that end, the degree of
concentration by race, color or national origin in the stu-
dent population of the schools that is attributable to such
acts of unlawful discrimination.
FORD LIBRARY & 07V838
-2-
(b) The provisions of this Title shall apply to all
proceedings for the award or modification of injunctive and
other equitable relief, after the date of its enactment,
seeking the desegregation of public schools under Federal law,
but shall not apply to proceedings seeking a reduction of
such relief awarded prior to the date of its enactment except
as provided in Section 107 of this Title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
For purposes of this title - -
(a) "Local education agency" means a public board of
education or any other agency or officer exercising adminis-
trative control over or otherwise-directing the operations
of one or more of the public elementary or secondary schools
of a city, town, county or other political subdivision of a
State.
(b) "State education agency" means the State board
of education or any other agency or officer responsible for
State supervision or operation of public elementary or second-
ary schools.
(c) "Desegregation" " means the elimination of unlawful
discrimination on the part of a local or State education
agency, and the elimination of the effects of such discrimin-
ation in the operation of its schools.
FORE
HALO
-3-
(d) "Unlawful discrimination" means action by a local
or State education agency which, in violation of federal law,
discriminates against students on the basis of race, color
or national origin.
(e) "State" means any of the States of the Union and
the District of Columbia.
Sec. 103. Liability.
A local or State education agency shall be held sub-
ject (a) to relief under Section 104 of this Act if the Court
finds that such local or State education agency has engaged
or is engaging in an act or acts of unlawful discrimination
and (b) to relief under Section 105 of this Act if the Court
further finds that the act or acts of unlawful discrimination
have caused a greater present degree of concentration, by
race, color or national origin, in the student population of
any school than would have existed had no such act occurred.
Sec. 104. Relief - Orders prohibiting unlawful acts.
In all cases in which, pursuant to section 103 (a)
of this Act, the Court finds that a local or State education
agency has engaged or is engaging in an act or acts of unlaw-
ful discrimination, the Court shall enter an order enjoining
the continuation or future commission of any such act or acts
-4-
and providing any other relief necessary and appropriate to
prevent such act or acts from occurring.
Sec. 105. Relief - Orders eliminating the present effects
of unlawful acts on concentrations of students.
(a) In all cases in which, pursuant to section 103
(b) of this Act, or any other provision of Federal law, the
Court finds that the act or acts of unlawful discrimination
have caused a greater present degree of concentration, by
race, color, or national origin, in the student population
of one or more schools, the Court shall order only such re-
lief as may be necessary and appropriate to eliminate the
present effects found, in conformity with this section, to
have resulted from the discrimination.
(b) Before entering an order under this Section the
Court shall receive evidence, and on the basis of such evi-
dence shall make specific findings, concerning the degree to
which the concentration, by race, color, or national origin,
in the student population of particular schools affected by
unlawful acts of discrimination presently varies from what
it would have been had no such acts occurred. If such find-
ings are not feasible, because of the great number of schools
that were affected or for some other reason; or if the relief
-5-
awarded will not be effective or feasible as applied only
to the particular schools that were affected, because of
the demographic changes that have occurred over a period of
years, or for some other reason; the Court shall receive
evidence, and on the basis of such evidence shall make spe-
cific findings, concerning the degree to which the overall
pattern of student distribution, by race, color or national
origin within the school system affected by unlawful acts
of discrimination presently varies from what it would have
been had no such acts occurred.
(c) The findings required by subsection (b) of this
section shall be based on conclusions and reasonable infer-
ences from evidence adduced, and shall in no way be based
on a presumption, drawn from the finding of liability made
pursuant to section 103 (b) of this Act or otherwise, that
the
student distribution, by race, color or national
origin in the schools or any particular school is the result
of unlawful acts of discrimination.
(d) No order entered under this Act or any provision
of Federal law shall require the assignment of students to alter
the student distribution, by race, color, or national origin,
in the student-population~of schools unless, pursuant to
-6-
this section, the Court finds that the student composition
by race, color, or national origin, of particular schools,
or the overall pattern of student distribution by race,
color, or national origin in the school system, resulted in
substantial part from unlawful discrimination by a local or
State education agency, and that assignment of students is
necessary to adjust the composition, by race, color, or
national origin, of particular schools, or the overall pattern
of distribution by race, color, or national origin, in the
school system, substantially to what it would have been if
the unlawful discrimination had not occurred.
(e) In all orders entered under this section the Court
may, without regard to the other requirements of this section,
direct a local or State education agency to institute a pro-
gram of voluntary transfers of students to achieve desegre-
gation.
Sec. 106. Voluntary action; local control.
All orders entered under section 105 shall rely, to
the greatest extent practicable and consistent with effec-
tive relief, on the voluntary action of school officials,
teachers, and students, and the Court shall not remove from
a local or State education agency its power and responsibility
-7-
to control the operations of the schools except to the mini-
mum extent necessary to prevent unlawful discrimination and
to eliminate its present effects.
Sec. 107. Review of Orders.
No court-imposed requirement for assignment of students to
alter the student distribuion I by race, color, or national origin,
in schools, other than requirements for voluntary transfers,
shall remain in effect for a period of more than three years
from the date of entry of the order containing such require-
ment or, in the case of all final orders entered prior to
enactment of this Act, for a period of more than three years
from the effective date of this Act unless at the expiration
of such period the Court finds:
(1) that the defendant has failed to comply with
the requirement substantially and in good faith; or
(2) that the requirement remains necessary to
correct the effects of unlawful discrimination deter-
mined under the provisions of section 105 of this Act.
If the Court finds (1) above, it may extend the requirement
until there have been three consecutive years of substantial
compliance in good faith. If the Court finds (2) above,
after the expiration of three consecutive years of substantial
-8-
compliance in good faith, it may extend the effect of the
requirement, with or without modification, for a period not
to exceed two years, and thereafter may order an extension
only upon a specific finding of extraordinary circumstances
that require such extension. The Court may, however, con-
tinue in effect a voluntary transfer program to implement
relief under section 105 (e) of this Act. The provisions of
this section shall not apply to any plan approved and ordered
into effect under section 203.
Sec. 108.
With respect to continuing provisions of its order
not covered by section 107, the court shall conduct a review
every three years to determine whether each such provision
shall be continued, modified, or terminated. The court shall
afford parties and intervenors a hearing prior to making
this determination.
TITLE II - Intervention, Mediation, Community Plan
Sec. 201. Intervention.
The Court shall notify the Attorney General of any
proceeding pursuant to subection 105 (b) of this title to
which the United States is not a party, and the Attorney
General may, in his discretion, and if he determines that
-9-
the matter is of general public importance, intervene in
such proceeding on behalf of the United States to present
evidence and take all other actions that he may deem necessary
to facilitate enforcement of this Act. In such action, the
United States shall be entitled to the same relief as if it
had instituted the action.
Sec. 202. Appointment of mediator.
(a) The Attorney General is hereby authorized to
appoint, at such times and for such period as he deems appro-
priate, a Federal school desegregation mediator or mediators
to assist the court and the parties in a school desegrega-
tion suit.
(b) When a mediator is appointed pursuant to this
section, he shall provide assistance to the court, the par-
ties and the affected community to the ends of (1) full and
orderly implementation of the constitutional right to equality
of educational opportunity, (2) insuring that desegregation
is accomplished in a manner which is educationally sound and
(3) seeking to secure community support for proper elimina-
tion of unlawful school discrimination.
(c) A mediator may request the assistance of other
Federal agencies.
- 10 -
Sec. 203. Committee of community leaders.
Whenever the Attorney General of the United States
receives the notice required by section 201 of this title,
he may, in cooperation with the Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare, the Governor of the State, and the Mayor or
other chief executive official of the governing unit involved
create a committee composed of the leaders of the community.
The committee shall immediately endeavor to fashion a
plan to be put into effect over a five year period, including
such matters as the relocation of schools, which can give
assurance that such progress will be made toward a removal
of the effects of unlawful discrimination over the five
year period, with specific dates and goals, that in the
meantime required transportation of students can be avoided
or minimized. Such a plan shall be submitted to the court
for its approval and adoption as an order of the court.
If, during the continuance or at the expiration of a plan
approved and adopted under this section, the court determines
that the plan is inadequate, progress made under such plan
shall be taken into account in framing any order under
Section 105 of this Act.
[June 1976]
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
...
Areas in which Busing is working well
(1) Louisville - see attached article
(2) Swann (1971 Supreme Court) court dismissed case July, 11, 1975
84,000 total enrollment - 37,000 bussed
(3) Little Rock
- totally balanced system - busing in its 4th year
(since 1972)
- entire system subject to busing, 24,000 students
(4) Pulaski County (Arkansas)
- largest in State
- 28,000 students - 18-20% black
(5) Pine Bluff
- 15,000 students - total busing
(6) Waco, Texas
- considerable busing
case went to Court of Appeals (5th Cir.)
25,000 - 30,000 students
(7) Districts in Florida - busing working well
e.g. Hillsborough County
Tampa
Broward County
(8) Government brief in Pasadena lists nearly Tat least
50 districts in which busing is running smoothly.
St. Peteroburg. Florida (80,000 enrollment - 30-35,000 bussed)
Tampa. florida 1 over 100,000 pupils Carprox. 40,000 bussed)
9) Fort worth (100,000 pupil - 1973 final order
bitterly fought - all is well)
10) Nashville (95,000 - total enrollment (1970-71)
49,000 - bussed
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
11) Alabama
Jefferson County
BessemeR
12) Sarasota, Florida - Ct. sd everything find
dismissed case On 9-3-75
Boston School Case - Morgan V. Hennigan 379 F. Supp. 410
(June 1974)
Developments prior to District Court Decision on Liability
State defendants agreed with virtually all the contentions raised
by plaintiffs against city officials in Federal District Court
litigation.
(a) Massachusetts Racial Imbalance Law
- State statute passed in 1965 requiring affirmative
action to eliminate racial imbalance in Public School
Systems whatever the cause (de jure finding not required)
- Statute has been interpreted by Supreme Judicial Court
and has been said Statute exceeds requirements of 14th A.
- School Board and State involved in extensive litigation
in State Court for Boston's failure to comply with the
Statute (most recent case decided March 1974, three
months before District Court opinion).
Supreme Judicial Court found Boston School Committee not in
compliance with the Statute and the orders of the State Board
as of March 1974.
(b) Federal Administrative Proceedings
In April 1974, two months prior to Garrity's decision,
Boston school officials also sanctioned by HEW with HUD
and NSF participating in hearings for persistently
continuing segregative practices and intentionally
creating a dual school system; defendants were found to
be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Garrity's Decision on Liability (379 F. Supp. 410 - June 1974)
Massive 74-page decision on liability granted in 14th A by
Judge Garrity - after 15 day trial, numerous depositions,
stipulations and pre-trial pleadings.
Facts:
Students
- Heavy concentration of blacks in some schools and
whites in others.
- 96,000 students in system when case filed in 71-72.
- 59,300 or 61% white; 30,600 or 32% black, 6,500 or
7% other.
- 84% of whites attend schools that are more than 80% white
- 62% of blacks attend schools more than 70% black.
FORD
- At least 80% of schools segregated in sense that racial
composition out of line with that of the Public School
System as a whole.
2
- Of 18 high schools, 5 are in excess of 90% white; 3 are
85% white, 2 are 90% black with white population of
less than 2%, 4 are more than 50% black.
(same pattern in specialized schools; Boston Latin and
Girls Latin - 93% and 89% white; Boston Technical - 84% white;
Girls Trade - 75% black; Boston Trade - 66% black)
- Of 10 elementary schools ending in Grade 8, 5 are 82%
white, one is 94% black, one - 93% minority; of remaining
elementary schools (140), 62 are less than 5% black,
2 are 85% or more black.
Faculty and Staff
75% of black teachers are in schools more than 50% black
81 schools never had a black teacher.
Teachers not assigned on basis of residence
Less than 3 of the schools are majority blacks but over
2/3 of the black teachers are sent to them.
Defendants do not dispute central fact that schools are
segregated.
School Policies and Practices
(a) Overcrowded white schools; underutilized black schools -
whites bussed by black schools with available seats
to white schools.
(b) Used of portable classrooms to alleviate overcrowding
of white schools when non-segregative methods could
have achieved same results.
(c) Facility utilization and construction practices and
conversion has been to promote and perpetuate
segregation. Specific examples in of 4 schools opinion
at 429.
(d) Districting and feeder patterns engaged in for purpose
of perpetuating racial segregation. Court found this
basically uncomprising attitude to redistricting.
(e) Open enrollment and controlled transfer policies
managed with intent to discriminate on basis of race.
(f) Neighborhood school policy was SO selective as to amount
to no policy at all, e.g. extensive busing, open
enrollment, feeder pattern, districting - policy a
reality only in areas of the city where residential
segregation is firmly entrenched (p. 473).
FORD
3
Findings looking on record as a whole prove that school
authorities have carried out systematic program of
segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students,
schools, teachers, and facilities. Predicate exists for
finding of dual system. (Keyes)
District Court decision affirmed by Court of Appeals
Morgan V. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d. 580 (1st Cir. 1974).
District Court issued plan on May 10, 1975,
Court of Appeals affirmed 530 F.2d. 401 (1976).
Plan
Approximately 20,000 of Boston's 96,000 students are
involved in the busing.
Louisville School Case
489 F. 2d. 925 (1973)
510 F. 2d. 1358 (1974)
Style of Case: Newburg Area Council, Inc. et. al. V. Board of
Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky et. al.
(challenged practices of Jefferson County School
Board with respect to elementary schools)
Companion Case: Haycraft, et. al. V. Board of Education of Louisville,
Kentucky et. al.
(Sought desegregation of Louisville school system with
a plan that included disregarding Louisville and
Jefferson County School District boundaries)
Procedure Posture:
District Court (December 1972)
Original class actions separately filed, consolidated
but tried separately as to status of each district.
In December 1972, District Court dismissed holding
that each school district was a unitary system in
which all vestiges of State-imposed segregation had
been eliminated.
Court of Appeals I
489 F. 2d. 925 (6th Cir., December 1973)
Court of Appeals reversed and held that
(1) Neither Jefferson County School District or
Louisville Independent School District was not
a unitary system in which all vestiges of State-
imposed segregation had been eliminated;
(2) Federal District Court has the power to disregard
school district lines within a single county in
formulating a school desegregation plan.
U. S. Supreme Court
(July 25, 1974)
Cert. granted and Case reversed and remanded for re-
consideration in light of Bradley V. Milliken,
418 U.S. 717 (1974), an intervening decision of the
Supreme Court in which it held that State-created
district lines could not be disregarded in devising
an appropriate desegregation plan for the City of
Detroit.
Court of Appeals II, 510 F.2d. 1358 (December 1974)
Court distinguished Milliken on several grounds:
2
(1) In Milliken, unlike Louisville, no evidence
of de jure segregation in outlying school
districts or of dual school systems.
(2) Milliken remedy would have involved 53 school
districts over 3 counties; present case, only
three districts in single county.
(3) By statute in Kentucky, counnty is basic educational
unit of State and school district boundaries are
merely "artificially drawn school district lines".
Also, Kentucky statute expressly authorizes
reconsolidation of school district within a single
county without the consent of the County School
Board. Court of Appeals reaffirmed earlier decision.
Cert. denied (95 Supreme Court 1658)
When case got back to district court, the Jefferson
County and Louisville City became single district
administered by Jefferson County (Louisville Board
resigned). Plan implemented, (75-76 School Year)
apparently working well.
(see attached section
School Board has appealed desegregation order.
Facts:
(a) Jefferson County School District:
96,000 students; 4% black
(65% of all students prior to desegregation order
bussed to school)
74 elementary schools; 5 Junior High; 18 combined
Junior and Senior High; 6 Special Schools
Pre-Brown:
Racially segregated school system, a requirement of
Kentucky law.
- No high school for black students in County, were
bussed to all black high school in City of Louisville
(across district lines).
- Black elementary school run by County Board located
in one area in county having substantial black
population. Pre-Brown Black School surrounded by
all-white or virtuallyall-white elementary schools
which remained black until desegregation order.
Three (3) elementary schools contain 56% of black elementary
population (argument: existence of small number of one-race
FURD
schools not in and of itself the mark of a segregative system
(Swann) ; counter - language designed to insure that tolerances
are allowed for practical problem of dismantlement where other-
wise effective plan has been adopted (Northcross V. Memphis,
466 F.2d. 890 (1972) and Louisville I).
3
Two (2) of the three black elementary schools were under-
utilized whereas nearby racially identifiable white schools
were operating over capacity; Board used portable classrooms
and double shifts; white students were not assigned to nearby
black schools.
(b) Louisville City School District
- Boundaries of school district are not coterminus
(about 10,000 students, mostly
with political boundaries of the city.
white, live between boundaries
1956-57 - 45,841 students (33,831 white; 12,010 black)
of school district and outer
1972-73 - 45,570 students (22,367 white; 22,933 black)
boundaries of the city)
- Pre-Brown racially segregated system
- Instituted geographic attendance zone plan with
open transfer provision in 1956-57 (went to
assigned schools unless transfer requested by
parents)
- 6 high schools (3 between 94-100% black; one of
which was Pre-Brown Black) - two over 97% white
(one Pre-Brown)
- 13 Junior High (5 between 95-100% Black 3 -Pre-Brown
4, 94-99.5% white - 3 Pre-Brown)
- 46 Elementary (19 between 82-100% Black; 21,
between 89-100% White - all of which Pre-Brown white)
Large number of racially identifiable schools in a school
district that formerly practiced segregation by law gives
rise to a presumption that all vestiges of State-imposed
segregation have not been eliminated (Swann)
Population shifts and changed racial composition of some schools
do not affect the Board's duty to convert fully to a unitary
system. The duty to convert was never fully met.
There are separate school districts in a single county and the
districts are not unitary systems.
Distinguishable from Richmond 462 F.2d. 1058 (4th Cir. 1972)
affirmed sub. nom
412 U.S. 92 (1973) in which
political boundaries were the issue and each of the three (3)
districts had a unitary school system.
Plan:
Two-way busing of 11,300 black and 11,300 white children.
Total of 119,000 students in system (country's 12th largest).
Black percentage at every school no less than 12 and no more
than 40.
FORD LIFRAR,
[June
1976
HEALTH
but
SOLD
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
DEPART
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
USA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
Jul Acy
OFFICE OF THE
GENERAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE BOBBIE KILBERG
SUBJECT: Title I Services in Areas Undergoing
Desegregation--Following the Child
During the meeting with the President and community leaders
last week, the problem of title I services in school
districts undergoing desegregation was discussed. The
issue of legislation to correct any problems in this area
was also discussed, and we ageed to consider including
such a provision in the draft bill the Department has
prepared creating the National Community and Education
Committee.
After considering the matter, however, we have decided not
to include such a provision in the draft bill, because
such legislation is already pending before the Congress
in a form that we believe can be made acceptable and
that will be enacted. The Education Amendments of 1976
(S. 2657) now pending floor action in the Senate, has a
provision which is designed to permit title I services
11
to follow children who would otherwise lose their title I
eligibility because of the implementation of a desegregation
plan. Although the provision in the Senate bill has a number
of technical problems, we believe those can be corrected
before the bill is passed, and that a provision which
will adequately deal with the problems of which we are aware
will be included in the final bill.
We have discussed this problem with a number of members
of Congress whose districts are affected, and believe
there is sufficient concern in the Congress to ensure
FORD
GERALD
Page 2--THE - HONORABLE BOBBIE KILBERG
the inclusion of such a provision. Although the House
passed education amendments (H.R. 12835 and H.R. 12851) do
not contain such a provision, we are aware of no opposition
to the principle in the House of Representatives.
WHT
William H. Taft IV
General Counsel
FORD LIBRAN & GERALD
Private School Case
Gonzalez V. Fairfax-Brewster School et. al, 363 F. Supp. 7200
(E. D. Va. 1973)
McCrary V. Runyan, 515 F.2d. 1082 (4th Cir. 1975)
4th Circuit setting en banc, affirmed by a 4 to 3 vote the district
court's holding that petitioner's policy of denying admission to
blacks to a private school violated 42 U.S.C. 1981 which grants all
persons within U. S. jurisdiction the same right to make and enforce
contracts,
and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings
as is emjoyed by white citizens
Court also held that schools were not "truly private" since admission
policies evidenced "no plan or purpose of exclusiveness" on non-racial
grounds.
1981 is a limitation upon private discrimination and reaches certain
private conduct not involving State action.
See Jones V. Mayers, 392 U.S. 409
Sullivan V. Little Hunting Park, 396 U.S. 229
Tillman V. Wheaton-Haven Recreation, 410 U.S. 431
The Section (1981) is violated by the schools as long as the basis
of exclusion is racial, the black applicant is denied a contractual
right which would have been granted to him if he had been white.
Attached Justice Department Brief
Note: Argument on pps 24-25
GERALE FORD LIERAND
24
We also believe that the court of appeals correctly
rejected petitioners' contention that Section 1981 con-
fers no judicially enforceable right in the absence of
a showing that the schools would have accepted every
white applicant. Section 1981 does not bar schools
such as petitioners from using racially non-discrimina-
tory criteria in screening applicants for admission,
any more than it would have prevented the em-
ployer in Johnson from discharging employees found
to be performing their duties unsatisfactorily. Under
this Court's decisions, Section 1981 does, however, pro-
hibit private contractual discrimination on the basis of
race. As the court of appeals stated, Section 1981
"is violated by the school as long as the basis of [the
applicant's] exclusion is racial, for it is then clear that
the black applicant is denied a contractual right which
would have been granted to him if he had been white"
(App. 13) 27 Discrimination on the basis of race occurs
of Section 1981 since, again, the exclusionary principle at issue
here is racial, rather than neutral, in nature and, as the court of
appeals noted, the schools' "actual and potential constituency *
is more public than private" (App. 17). Compare Cornelius V.
Benevolent Protective Order of Elks, 382 F. Supp. 1182 (D. Conn.)
(three-judge court). It is, of course, settled that the public accom-
modations provisions of the 1964 Act preserved, rather than super-
seded, remedies under the 1866 Act. Sullivan V. Little Hunting
Park, Inc., supra, 396 U.S. at 237-238.
27 It is, of course, no basis for objection that Section 1981 thus
coerces private parties to enter into contracts they would not other-
wise enter into, in a manner inconsistent with otherwise generally
applicable contract principles. That is necessarily the effect of the
contract provision of Section 1981, wherever it applies. See Rail-
way Mail Assn. V. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 93-94.
1000
25
if "persons of like qualifications" are not afforded
equal "opportunities irrespective of their [race]."
Phillips V. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542, 544.
Finally, petitioners' racially discriminatory admis-
sion policies are not any less within the reach of
Section 1981 because those policies did not prevent
respondents from attending a publicly funded school
or another private school. The essential fact found by
the district court, and concurred in by the court of
appeals, is that respondents were denied the oppor-
tunity to enter into contracts because of their race. In
order to establish a violation of Section 1981, respond-
ents were not required further to prove that that
denial absolutely prevented them from attending
school, any more than the employee in Johnson would
have had to prove that he could not secure alternative
employment, or the plaintiffs in Tillman that they
could not gain admission to any other swimming pool,
or the plaintiffs in Jones that they could not secure
alternative housing, as part of their affirmative cases
under Section 1981 or Section 1982. Cf. Missouri ex
rel. Gaines V. Canada, supra, 305 U.S. at 348-350.
II
AS APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER SCHOOLS, SECTION 1981 IS
A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF CONGRESS' POWER TO
ENFORCE THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
This Court held in Jones V. Alfred H. Mayer Co.,
supra, that Congress has the power under the
Thirteenth Amendment to do precisely what Section
GERALO FORD