Opinion ID: 22219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Obligation of the District to Further Desegregation

Text: 11 The original desegregation order for Madison County, entered in 1969 pursuant to our decision in Hinds County, 7 required that (1) the county be divided into the three attendance zones described above, (2) transportation of students be performed on a non-segregated and non-discriminatory basis, and (3) [a]ll school construction, school consolidation, and site selection (including the location of temporary classrooms) in this system shall be done in a manner which will prevent the recurrence of the dual school structure once this desegregation plan is implemented. In considering proposals for the construction or renovation of schools in a system still subject to a desegregation order, [w]e cannot tolerate resegregation of a former dual school system, and the School Board of such a system must demonstrate that the new construction will not tend to promote such a relapse. We must also ensure that the burdens of desegregation are distributed equally among all classes of citizens. 8 12 We must nevertheless remain at all times cognizant of the deference that must be accorded to school boards in their decisions such as the placement of schools; the [l]ocation of a school comes within the purview of the federal courts only to the extent that it has an impact on desegregation. 9 This is because we lack the expertise and competence needed to dictate to school boards the location of new schools and the drawing of attendance zones. 10 It is not our place to decide whether the school board's proposed site for the new high school is the best choice or even a wise choice; we must decide only whether the choice of that site violates the Constitution or federal law. To make that determination, federal courts ask only whether the proposed location fails to further desegregation or places an inequitable transportation burden on black students. So long as neither answer is in the affirmative, we must defer to the expertise of school boards in decisions of this nature. 13
14 Until recently, the transportation burden was clearly distributed inequitably between the white and black students in the District. A number of students, most of whom were black, endured onerous bus rides every school day. In fact, some students who reside in the predominately black Flora area traveled as long as 2½ hours each way on a daily basis. After the filing of this appeal, however, the parties entered into the 2000 consent decree which resolves the transportation issue and thus renders moot the second ground for Plaintiffs' objection to the planned site for the new high school. That decree specifies that the District shall insure that transportation to school is provided on a non-discriminatory basis and that no regular bus route will exceed one-and-one half hours each way for any student. As for the students in the predominately black Flora area, the 2000 consent decree specifies that the District shall use its best efforts and shall add additional bus routes as appropriate to ensure that no high school student in the Flora attendance zone will ride more than 45 minutes one way. In the event that this should not prove possible for all Flora students, [t]he District shall provide in its reports to the Court an explanation for the additional time of the bus ride regarding those students whose travel time exceeds 45 minutes. As enforcement of these provisions is expected to resolve all concerns regarding inequitable transportation burdens that may otherwise result from construction of the new high school at the site selected by the District, this issue has been removed from our purview in the instant appeal. Should the provisions of the consent decree be violated or fail to resolve existing or future transportation burdens, or should the transportation burdens borne by students become racially inequitable, redress must be fashioned by the district court or by this Court on subsequent appeal ---- but not prospectively and speculatively in this appeal. 15
16 The sole remaining issue then is whether the district court clearly erred in approving the District's proposed site for the new high school on finding that it furthers desegregation. Plaintiffs insist that constructing the new high school in the predominately white Ridgeland area will not further desegregation in the short term and will lead to resegregation in the future. As of April 10, 2000, the District's student population was 61.4% white, 36.7% black, and 1.9% other, of which overallhigh school student enrollment ---- including largely black Velma Jackson High School in Zone I ---- was 60.1% white, 38.1% black, and 1.7% other. The enrollment of Madison Central ---- from which the students of Ridgeland High will be drawn exclusively ---- was 71.8% white, 26.1% black, and 2.1% other. 17 The District asserts that the initial enrollment at new Ridgeland High will be 71.4% white, 24.3% black, and 4.3% other; and that after transfer of those Madison Central students who would attend Ridgeland High, Madison Central's student population would be 72.2% white, 26.7% black, and 1.1% other. Plaintiffs nevertheless oppose building the new school at the Ridgeland site, arguing that the interests of desegregation would be better served by a more centrally located high school, specifically their suggested Hwy. 463 site. Plaintiffs' proposal calls for the construction of a high school that would initially serve approximately 900 students, of whom 67% would be white and 33% black, leaving Madison Central with roughly 1,300 students, of whom 78% would be white and 22% black. 11 18 The District is not required, however, to select school sites that best or even better serve desegregation; only sites that serve desegregation and do not foster resegregation. The constitution does not require school districts to achieve maximum desegregation; that the plan does not result in the most desegregation possible does not mean that the plan is flawed constitutionally. 12 Admittedly, the District's plan may not maximize desegregation or even be the plan among all those available that is best suited for that purpose. With this in mind, we cannot say that the district court committed clear error in finding that locating the new high school in the Ridgeland area would assist in the District's continuing effort to desegregate its schools, much less negatively affect desegregation. 19 Plaintiffs also argue that constructing the new high school at the Ridgeland location will negatively affect desegregation in the future in light of population trends in the County. Specifically, they allege that the City of Ridgeland and the surrounding area will become more white, while the predominately black Flora area ---- which, they contend, will grow substantially ---- becomes more black. As such, insist the Plaintiffs, the student population of Madison Central would become more black while that of Ridgeland High would become more white. The District contests these population projections, asserting that the Flora area will see little growth, either long or short range, as evidenced by the fact that its student population has decreased by some 10% in the last decade. Rather, contends the District, growth will continue to occur in and around the cities of Madison and Ridgeland, both of which are located to the east of I-55; as such, the new high school can best serve the District's needs if located at the site proposed by the District. 20 We recognize yet again that courts are poorly equipped to weigh such population trend projections; fortunately, though, we are not required to do that today. As the claims of both parties appear to be reasonable and rest on legitimate bases, we cannot say that the district court committed clear error in adopting the District's projections over the Plaintiffs' or in finding that construction of the new high school at the Ridgeland site would serve to foster the District's continuing efforts to desegregate the schools of Madison County without negatively affecting desegregation in the future.