Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/393/428/1452656/
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 21:14:18
Document Index: 27598526

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1001', '§ 1005', '§ 1001', '§ 1004', '§ 1004', '§ 1004']

Evans v. Buchanan, 393 F. Supp. 428 (D. Del. 1975) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Delaware › District of Delaware › 1975 › Evans v. Buchanan
Evans v. Buchanan, 393 F. Supp. 428 (D. Del. 1975)
US District Court for the District of Delaware - 393 F. Supp. 428 (D. Del. 1975)
The majority of the Court could not, without making further findings, determine whether or not a remedy confined to the Wilmington School District would satisfy existing constitutional requirements. Therefore, the parties were required to submit, by September 15, 1974, alternative desegregation plans (a) within the present boundaries of the Wilmington School District and (b) incorporating other areas of New Castle County. 379 F. Supp. at 1224.
418 U.S. at 744, 94 S. Ct. at 3127.
Where the schools of only one district have been affected, there is no constitutional power in the courts to decree relief balancing the racial composition of that district's schools with those of the surrounding districts. At 749, 94 S. Ct. at 3129 [emphasis added].
Of course, no state law is above the Constitution. School district lines and *432 the present laws with respect to local control, are not sacrosanct and if they conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment federal courts have a duty to proscribe appropriate remedies. At 744, 94 S. Ct. at 3127.[3]
As the Supreme Court noted in Swann, "People gravitate toward school facilities, just as schools are located in response to the needs of people. The location of schools may thus influence the patterns of residential development of a metropolitan area and have important impact on composition of inner-city neighborhoods". 402 U.S. at 20-21, 91 S. Ct. at 1278. The record in this case is replete with evidence that racial balance in housing is integrally related to racial balance in the public schools. Several realtors testified that sales in the housing market are tied to the characteristics of the schools in the neighborhood: "The first thing you teach yourself is know your school district because you sell houses in New Castle County based on school districts". T. 476. See also, T. 486, 514, 2465. Dr. Karl Taeuber, a demographer, testified similarly that the specific school district is part of the identification of neighborhoods that the general public and the real estate industry use to characterize housing. T. 635-45.
The majority opinion in Milliken cited with approval Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1969), and United States v. Texas, 321 F. Supp. 1043 (E.D.Tex. 1970), aff'd, 447 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, sub nom., Edgar v. United States, 404 U.S. 1016, 92 S. Ct. 675, 30 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1972). In both cases, uniracial school districts established during the period of de jure segregation and maintained as such thereafter were consolidated by court decree for purposes of desegregation. See also, Haney v. County Board, 410 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 1969). The teaching of these cases is that one-race neighboring or overlapping districts, maintained as such after the demise of statutory school segregation, require desegregation. In New Castle County before Brown, the black high school and, to a significant extent, the black elementary schools in Wilmington served black children from the entire County. Unlike the situations in Detroit, where the suburban districts had never been implicated in de jure segregation, Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. at 745, 94 S. Ct. 3112, and in Richmond, where suburban districts had participated in de jure segregation, but independently from the city school system, Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia, 462 F.2d at 1064-65, de jure segregation in New Castle County was a cooperative venture involving both city and suburbs. Although the Wilmington School District was predominantly white at that time, a desegregation decree could properly have considered city and suburbs together for purposes of remedy. At that time, in other words, Wilmington and suburban districts were not meaningfully "separate and autonomous". See also, Wright v. Council of the City of Emporia, supra, and United States v. Scotland Neck, supra.
A central issue in this case has been whether, in addition to the foregoing conduct, the Education Advancement Act of 1968 has constituted impermissible inter-district segregation. The Educational Advancement Act was passed by the General Assembly "to provide the framework for an effective and orderly reorganization of the existing school districts of this State . . .." 14 Del. C. § 1001. Pursuant to the Act, all school districts in Delaware, including the Wilmington School District, became "reorganized school districts". 14 Del.C. § 1005. The key reorganization provisions of the Act provided an exemption of approximately one year from the long-standing requirement in Delaware law that consolidation of contiguous school districts must be approved by a referendum in each of the districts affected. 14 Del.C. §§ 1001-05. In other words, for a limited time, the State Board of Education was authorized to consolidate school districts according to the dictates of sound educational administration and certain statutory criteria. The Wilmington School District was explicitly excluded from the reorganization powers of the State Board by § 1004(c) (4): "The proposed school district for the City of Wilmington shall be the City of Wilmington with the territory within its limits." Wilmington was also excluded implicitly from any consolidation plan by § 1004(c) (2), which limited *439 the maximum pupil enrollment in any proposed school district to 12,000.[21]
If a statute embodies a racial classification, it can withstand scrutiny under the fourteenth amendment only if its distinctions can be justified by a "compelling" state interest, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967), and if the State could not have accomplished its goal by less restrictive means. McLaughlin v. Florida, supra; Note, Developments in the Law Equal Protection, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 1065, 1101-02 (1969).
A statute which treats racial problems differently than related governmental interests constitutes a suspect racial classification. In Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 89 S. Ct. 557, 21 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1969), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional an Akron city charter amendment which prevented the city council from implementing any ordinance dealing with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing without the prior approval of a majority of Akron voters. The Court found that the amendment placed special burdens on racial minorities seeking to end housing discrimination compared to those who sought to regulate real property transactions in the pursuit of other ends. The result was "an explicitly racial classification treating racial housing matters differently from other racial and housing matters." 393 U.S. at 389, 89 S. Ct. at 560. In Lee v. Nyquist, 318 F. Supp. 710 (W.D.N.Y.1970), aff'd, 402 U.S. 935, 91 S. Ct. 1618, 29 L. Ed. 2d 105 (1971), a three-judge court held that a New York statute prohibiting state education officials and appointed school boards from assigning students or redistricting to achieve racial balance in school attendance was an invidious racial classification. The court stated:
With regard to all other matters affecting educational policy, the Commissioner has the authority to order local boards to act in accordance with state educational policies as formulated by the Board of Regents. . . . Section 3201(2), however, singles out for different treatment all plans which have as their purpose the assignment of students in order to alleviate racial balance. The Commissioner and local appointed officials are prohibited from acting in these matters only where racial criteria are involved. The statute thus creates a clearly racial classification, treating educational matters involving racial criteria differently from other educational matters and making it more difficult to deal with racial imbalance in the public schools. 318 F. Supp. at 719.
Defendants next assert that district size is a compelling justification for excluding Wilmington from reorganization under the Educational Advancement Act. Even if Wilmington had not been excluded expressly from the State Board's reorganization powers, it, as well as the Newark School District, was excluded by § 1004(c) (2) of the Act, which provided: "Each proposed school district including more than one component former school district shall have a pupil enrollment of not less than 1900 nor more than 12,000 in grades 1 through 12." The legislature's reason for imposing a maximum size limitation on reorganized districts was succinctly articulated by Representative Heckert, Chairman of the House Education Committee:
Moreover, the unconstitutional exclusion of Wilmington from eligibility for consolidation plainly constitutes an "inter-district violation" under Milliken v. Bradley. Justice Burger, writing for the majority, stated the pre-requisite for a cross-district remedy as follows: "Specifically it must be shown that racially discriminatory acts of the state or local school districts, or of a single school district have been a substantial cause of inter-district segregation." 418 U.S. at 745, 94 S. Ct. at 3127. Here, the racially discriminatory exclusion of Wilmington prevented the State Board from considering whether sound educational principles dictated a consolidation of Wilmington with other school districts. But for this racial classification, the Board may have consolidated Wilmington with other New Castle County districts, with the result that the racial proportions of the districts would have been altered significantly. Even though the State Board may not have been required to alter the Wilmington District, this Court cannot find that the exclusion from the Board's powers was racially insignificant. On the contrary, the reorganization provisions of the Educational Advancement Act played a significant part in maintaining the racial identifiability of Wilmington and the suburban New Castle County school districts. In *446 short, the General Assembly "contributed to the separation of the races by . . . redrawing school district lines," Milliken v. Bradley, at 755, 94 S. Ct. at 3132 (Stewart, J., concurring).[36]
Having determined that the applicable law authorizes consideration of inter-district as well as Wilmington-only remedies for school segregation in New Castle County, this Court will proceed to evaluate the alternative plans to be submitted by the parties. In devising an appropriate remedy, this Court will be guided by the cautionary language of Milliken: ". . . the 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." at 746, 94 S. Ct. at 3128. The victims of the discrimination are the school children of Wilmington. This Court cannot speculate on the scope of the proper remedy.[37] In light of the language in Milliken stressing the mechanical infeasibility of inter-district desegregation in Detroit, however, it is appropriate to note certain differences between the schools in New Castle County and those in Detroit.
Findings to the effect that prior to 1954 there were interdistrict transfers of black and white students from the suburbs into Wilmington which affect present-day school attendance are, to may mind, a non-sequitur. The majority acknowledges, but gives no significance to, the reasons for such arrangementsthat two decades ago, Wilmington had better educational facilities, full twelve-grade programs, etc. They acknowledge that these practices have not existed for years. But, finding that after the termination of these interdistrict transfers Wilmington's schools became identifiably black, the majority apparently infers that the present black population is in part the result of such transfers. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.
In any event, I question the conclusion that the EAA, in re-establishing the lines of the city coterminously with the district, constituted a suspect racial classification. These district lines were not "deliberately drawn on the basis of race." Milliken, at 745, 94 S. Ct. at 3127. The majority concedes that "(w)e cannot conclude, as plaintiffs contend, that the provisions excluding the Wilmington District from school reorganization were purposefully racially discriminatory." They go on to say that ". . . the record does not demonstrate that a significant purpose of the Educational Advancement Act was to foster or perpetuate discrimination through school (district) reorganization. . . . (T)he focus of the legislature's concern in developing the consolidation provisions of the Educational Advancement Act was on small, weak, ineffective districts . . .."
Actually, the EAA did not establish new boundary lines for Wilmington. It maintained existing lines lines which had existed for ¾ of a century and were based upon a reasonable and rational conclusion that a school district of approximately 15,000 was about the right size for effective administration. These lines historically had given Wilmington certain educational perquisites which it could afford and did not wish to surrender.[6] The only duty owed Plaintiffs, as I see it, was to see that the Wilmington district maintained a unitary school system (which it has not done but the remedy for this has been set in motion by our July 12 opinion). Failure of the EAA to correct this violation, in the context of the goals and scope of the Act, does not, in my view, constitute a suspect classification of black Wilmington students.[7] My conclusion is that the *451 EAA is not unconstitutional; but even if it is, it has had no interdistrict effect.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law by the majority, with which I have already expressed disagreement, will in my view necessarily end in some form of interdistrict busing of students, both into and out of Wilmington, a result contrary to that arrived at in Milliken v. Bradley. Thus, anything further I may say will be only a cry in the dark. However, I should very briefly like to say this: were my view of the facts to control, I would find that
(4) In the lower counties there remained identifiably white and black schools, with white teachers for white schools and vice versa, separate schools for Moors, and varying kinds of school districts Special, State Board and High School Attendance;[9]
[3] The majority opinion also states, "Boundary lines may be bridged where there has been a constitutional violation calling for inter-district relief . . . ." at 741, 94 S. Ct. at 3125.
In surveys of those selling their homes in the 9th Ward, school problems were mentioned as reasons for leavingboth by those with children, and even by those with no remaining direct contact with the schools.
The first factor is a pattern of increasingly large black enrollments in 9th-Ward schools since 1960. In that year, when only 17 black residents were tallied in the entire 9th Ward, P.S. DuPont enrolled 10% black students among its total of 1,500. Four years later, the white enrollment had fallen by 200, while non-white increased 200, for a non-white percentage of 25%. In 1967, against a population in the neighborhood of 15%, P.S.still with 1,500 students counted 41% non-white.
The increasing numbers of black students generated white parental fears. But to produce action a second factor was necessary: the existence near-at-hand of systems in which black students were barely present. The Wilmington suburbsparticularly those in the northern sector of the Countyprovided just such an "escape".
402 U.S. at 14, 91 S. Ct. at 1275 [footnote omitted].
[28] Indeed, as a matter of educational policy, it would have been reasonable to expect the State Board to consider the possibility of consolidating Wilmington with neighboring districts. For example, a survey team from New York University School of Education recommended in June, 1967 consolidation of all suburban districts with Wilmington in order to "resolve Wilmington's long-term problems vocational, social, or educational." DX 68, p. 81. On the other hand, the record does not suggest that, but for the statutory exclusion from its reorganization authority, the State Board would necessarily have consolidated Wilmington with any other district.
[40] It has already been noted that the entire County here "is smaller geographically and has approximately the same enrollment as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg district which was involved in Swann I and Swann II." Evans v. Buchanan, 379 F. Supp. at 1230 (Opinion of Gibbons, J.). Additionally, the County contains no geographic barriers a significant problem in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg district.
[3] Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 462 F.2d 1058, 1066 (4 Cir. 1972). See Milliken, 418 U.S. at 756 n. 2, 94 S. Ct. at 3133 (concurrence of Justice Stewart), and Keyes, 413 U.S. at 222-224, 93 S. Ct. 2686 (concurrence of Justice Powell).
[4] 418 U.S. at 745, 94 S. Ct. at 3127.
[7] In this respect, this case is similar to Bulluck v. Washington, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 468 F.2d 1096, 1106-07 (1972), rehear. den. There, the Court found a Congressional choice to educate certain students outside of the District of Columbia to affect a racial group, but not to classify it racially. Thus, the classification that of students not granted "extra-territorial" education was upheld by application of the "rational basis" test, rather than the "compelling state interest" test. Here, Wilmington and Newark, classified according to size, were effectively removed from State Board discretion for the one year consolidation period, so were treated differently from all other State districts. Considering the primary goal of the Act to rationalize district size and administration failure to provide affirmatively for integration of one of the cities classified according to size did not serve to classify that city (Wilmington), or its residents, according to race. Thus, the classification should survive scrutiny if rationally based, which the majority concedes it was. It should be noted that the EAA also eventually left undisturbed the existing boundaries of six other Delaware districts, four in New Castle County (Alfred I. DuPont, Alexis I. DuPont, Claymont, and DeLaWarr), and two in Sussex County (Laurel and Seaford). PX 21, 31; DX 39, 65, 66.
[21] 418 U.S. at 744, 94 S. Ct. at 3127.