Opinion ID: 324656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: policies and practices affecting placement of students

Text: 15 We turn now to the district court's findings and conclusions bearing on distribution of students within the school system. We leave the separate issue of faculty and staff until last. We deal first with matters as to which affirmative actions were most prominent--measures dealing with growth of student population, structuring the flow of students, and permissive student options. We then consider redistricting (and the refusal to redistrict) and the issue of examination and vocational schools where liability was predicated on a presumption of intent. 16
17 One of the present facts of life in the Boston school system is that where there is overcrowding, it generally occurs in white-majority schools while underutilization, where it exists, is found only in black-majority schools. 10 Defendants, in meeting the problem of overcrowded schools, have utilized three principal techniques. These are reassignment to other schools, use of portable classrooms located adjacent to the main school building, and the building of new school buildings or additions. 11 18 The district court found students in 91 percent white Cleveland Junior High School were reassigned to 99 percent white South Boston High which ultimately suffered from overcrowding, although the racial balance of other closer schools, with vacant seats, would have been improved by receiving such students. The court also found that students from overcrowded schools were sometimes transferred to alleviate overcrowding, but only where racial balance was not affected. 12 The explicit reason given by top school officials for not assigning whites to black-majority schools was that this would 'create a problem' on the part of white parents. This, we observe, is an endemic problem, but public clamor has long been deemed beyond the pale as justification for racial segregation. E.g., Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 15--16, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5, 19 (1958). 19 The same policy was apparent in the use of portable classrooms. 13 Of 46 such classrooms in use in 1972--1973, 37 were used at schools with white majority of 70 percent or more, five at schools with a white majority of 50 to 70 percent, and only four at black-majority schools. The School Committee turned a deaf ear to proposals of both the Kiernan Report in 1965 and a state task force report in 1966 that portables be used to reduce segregation, on the ground that portables were 'educationally undesirable'; but during each of those years it used portables to perpetuate the racial mix that existed. 20 In its jousts with the state Board of Education, the School Committee held out hopes of new facilities as an adequate means of advancing racial balance. Its performance was not spectacular. Of twenty new openings between 1967 and 1972, nine buildings opened with a 60 percent or more black majority; seven opened with an 87 percent or more white majority; four opened with an enrollment ranging from 40 percent black to 40 percent white. The district court analyzed in some detail the circumstances surrounding the opening of four schools: Weld, which opened largely black, despite the fact that it was in a white neighborhood and there was the possibility of taking more whites and moving black children to white schools; Hennigan, also largely black on opening through ineffectual efforts to recruit white volunteers, the efforts known to be ineffectual far in advance of opening; Lee, its opening on a balanced basis foreseeably doomed by publicized options to whites to attend overcrowded Fifield and O'Hearn, the option belatedly and secretively revoked shortly before opening, the result being chaos when 200 blacks illegally registered on opening day; and new English High, first intended for the enrollment of students of old English (largely black), then switched by the Committee at a later date for the Girls Latin student body (largely white), then forced by a Massachusetts court decision to revoke its 'unilateral' decision. 14 21 Appellants object to being held responsible for these contributions to imbalance, saying that they do not control the building process, that the population profile of the areas served by the new schools changed radically between the time of planning and the time of opening, and that much of the result was brought about by student pressure. The district court observed, however, that the Superintendent of Schools had a veto power over site selection, that appellants had the benefit of demographic predictions which proved remarkably accurate, and that the student pressure, where it existed, was a crisis of the Committee's own making. 22 We conclude that this pattern of selective action and refusal to act can be seen as consistent only when considered against the foreseeable racial impact of such decisions. Moreover, this pattern has been accompanied by statements of express intention not to counter anti-integration sentiment. We think the district court was clearly correct in this finding of affirmative action. The actions of the Boston authorities are not distinguishable from what the Supreme Court has termed the 'classic pattern of building schools specifically intended for Negro or white students.' Swann, supra, 402 U.S. at 21, 91 S.Ct. at 1278, 28 L.Ed.2d 554. 23
24 By 'feeder patterns' is meant the system of moving students from the elementary schools ending in grade eight, junior high schools, and middle schools to high schools. The methods of accomplishing this transition include seat assignments, preferences and options. After attending lower grades in a district system, students are channeled through a feeder pattern to a particular high school. High schools, then, do not have geographic boundaries as such, but are supplied with students by feeder patterns. 379 F.Supp. at 441. Although not part of the 'feeder pattern' as such, a determination of what schools are attended prior to high school has a vital impact on the choice of high school for any individual student. Certain high schools are three year schools (grades 10--12), while others are four year schools (grades 9--12). 15 Prior to high school, i.e., before application of a 'feeder pattern', children may attend elementary schools ending in grade eight or a middle school ending in grade eight or a junior high ending in grade nine. By creating black middle schools, the School Committee assured that the most natural way to channel the graduates of those schools would be into four year schools and away from three year high schools. In particular, with the conversion of two black junior high schools (Lewis and Campbell) to middle schools 16 and the channeling of their students into English, Girls High and Burke, it was not surprising that the latter became increasingly black. In addition, beginning in 1967, new feeder patterns were established and further refined in 1968. They amounted, according to the district court, to a 'redistricting' of several high schools. 25 The details are incredibly complex. For a thorough analysis, see 379 F.Supp. at 442--446. But the results, when the dust settled, were clear; (1) graduates of heavily white kindergarten through eighth grade schools (Cheverus, Russell and Parkman) were given seat preferences at white high schools; and while white graduates of schools ending in grade eight (Prince, Thompson, McCormack and Russell) were given seat preferences at high schools where black students were given seat preferences as well--English, Burke and Girls High, they were also given options of attending white high schools; (2) graduates of heavily black schools ending in grades eight (Martin, Dearborn and Campbell) and heavily black and other minority schools (Lincoln-Quincy, Rice-Franklin) were given seat preferences only at English, Girls and Burke; (3) students at identifiably white Michelangelo Junior High, which had fed only English for several years, were given an option of attending identifiably white Charlestown when the segregatory options started to take effect at English; (4) white students almost invariably used the options available to them to escape black schools. While this is only a brief summary of major actions taken, the consequence, particularly upon English High, was, as could have been predicted from even cursory analysis of the pattern, a rapid change in racial composition. 26 Appellants object to the drawing of inferences from these results. They assert that the initial motivation of feeder patterns was to aid integration, that feeder patterns encouraged blacks to attend white-majority schools, and in any event were a long standing procedure, antedating 1967. But the court found that the Committee by 1970, and certainly by 1971, was fully aware of the imbalancing consequences of feeder patterns, that the availability of options to whites and the relative unavailability of options to blacks predictably frustrated any integration, and that, before 1967, there was no evidence of well recognized patterns generally followed. In addition, the court found, and the record supports its findings, that the only consistent basis for feeder pattern designations, changes and deletions was the racial factor, and that no school committee justifications pertaining to the educational or safety needs of the school children withstood scrutiny. For example, the supposed educational justification for opening middle schools was undermined by the fact that after the four heavily black middle schools opened Boston dropped the plan for other students. 27 Here again, we see not inaction but new initiatives, explained only by a racial objective. The district court's language was strong and clearly correct, given the facts: 'The consequence of the feeder pattern changes and discriminatory options, in combination with the opening of four middle schools, was altogether foreseeable, almost immediate, and well-understood, by the defendants: a dual system of secondary education was created, one for each race. Black students generally entered high school upon completion of the eighth grade, and white students upon completion of the ninth.' 379 F.Supp. at 447--448.
28 Superimposed on this Byzantine system was the option for individual students to enroll in schools to which they would not normally be assigned. The concept originated in 1961, the hope then being that integration would be advanced. In the years following, however, it became clear that the Committee would resist every suggestion that these options be restricted to those which would contribute to racial balance and would encourage the use of these options to foster segregation in Boston schools. Defendants attempt to make here a variation of the argument they have clung to throughout this case. They say that they instituted open enrollment for integrative purposes--and that is where the court's exploration should end. The good motive at the outset sanitizes, they argue, all the consequences of their activity, any subsequently developed motivation or acquired knowledge, and all subsequent actions consciously promoting segregation. The rest was mere inaction. We, like the district court, find little to recommend that argument on the facts presented. 29 We start with a short history of the open enrollment policy. Soon after it was adopted in 1961 it became apparent that whatever the original motivation had been, white students were using the transfers to escape from schools where there were high concentrations of minority students. From 1966 to 1971 there was an intense but unsuccessful effort on the part of the state, acting under the Massachusetts Racial Imbalance Act, the compel a limitation on transfers. The defendants were intransigent. In 1971, in order to achieve the release of state funds withheld because of violation of the law, defendants finally agreed to prohibit transfers which would increase imbalance as defined by the act. The court below paid special attention to this chapter of the School Committee's history, finding it illuminative of the reasons for the actions taken. 30 In 1966, for a ten day period, the School Committee amended the open enrollment policy to prohibit transfers aggravating racial imbalance. This action was taken in light of the withholding of state funds and rejection of the defendants' 1965 racial imbalance plan. When the state Board did not revoke its disapproval of the plans, in the wake of the limitation on transfers, the Committee met and acted. It rescinded the limitation. No change in the underlying segregative policy of open enrollment was made during the remainder of this period. The purpose was clear and can be readily grasped from the words of the chairman of the Committee as late as 1970 when the issues of limiting transfers was again raised: 31 'Of course the thing that would have everyone deeply concerned would be again a school like the Lewenberg which starts to become evenly balanced or has become so and the white youngsters start to apply under open enrollment to move out, and under this they would be pretty much chained to their seats. They wouldn't be allowed to move.' 32 Further support for segregative intent is gleaned from a staff memorandum dated July 9, 1971 which described open enrollment as 'parental choice as to school attendance, historically granted to families in changing neighborhoods.' The words of the Committee members and papers confirm the district court's judgment that open enrollment had become 'a device for separating the races and contributed significantly to the establishment of a dual school system.' 379 F.Supp. at 453. 33 The 'controlled transfer policy', adopted in 1971, supposedly ended open enrollment. The district court, however, found the new policy honeycombed with exceptions--a grandfather clause, a grandfather-plus clause covering those who had merely applied for transfers, a grandfather-plus-plus clause covering younger brothers and sisters of a transferee, transfers within a multi-school district, and an open-ended hardship clause, which amounted to an 'escape clause' or 'big out', available for racial reasons. 34 The district court drew the conclusion that 'open enrollment and controlled transfer policies were managed . . . with the singular intention to discriminate on the basis of race.' 379 F.Supp. at 455. We see no basis for challenging this finding.
35 Districting, the drawing of geographical boundaries for attendance purposes, does not apply to the high schools in Boston. As we have indicated, their student bodies were determined by feeder patterns. Alterations of feeder patterns accomplished the same goals as redistricting or the changing of attendance zones of existing schools. We treat here only actual changes in geographical attendance zones and necessarily confine ourselves to the effect on lower schools. 36 As indicated above, we now enter an area where decisions were mostly not to do something. There are, even here, some affirmative actions either pro-segregation or in perpetuation of segregation. For example there were districting changes affecting certain fifth and sixth grade classes that were 'tracks' to the three examination schools. White students ultimately comprised more than 80 percent of these classes. 379 F.Supp. at 433 n. 16. And redistricting was undertaken where greater integration would not come about, thereby perpetuating existing disparties. In 1959 the boundary lines of the districts for Cleveland and Campbell junior highs were altered for administrative reasons; between 1963--1964 and 1969--1970 Roosevelt junior high in Roxbury and Edison junior high in Brighton were redistricted to house an overflow of students from English high; and in 1969--1970 the Boardman district was changed to accommodate the fourth grade at overcrowded Kennedy. 379 F.Supp. at 437--438. Generally, however, the court was concerned about the focused, knowledgeable resistance to otherwise feasible proposals and opportunities for redistricting. 37 The district court examined the existing districts in Dorchester for intermediate schools, which are irregularly drawn and do not, in general, coincide with geographical boundaries. As they existed, they maximized racial isolation in the schools while slight changes could have been made which would have been more convenient for students and would also have forwarded integration. 379 F.Supp. at 435. Similarly, elementary schools in the area including that immediately south of South Boston, through Roxbury and into Dorchester, have black districts cut away from predominantly white areas, by an essentially north-south dividing line. The predominantly white schools are located some distance to the east of the dividing line, indicating that the line could, as far as convenience to students is concerned, be readily moved to aid integration. Furthermore, there were several multi-school elementary districts which are segregated according to race within the district with rare exceptions. On no occasion have the city defendants redistricted to eliminate racial imbalance. 379 F.Supp. at 438. 17 38 The city's intransigence becomes all too clear when we review the proposals made to it. The Kiernan Report, filed in April, 1965, proposed specific solutions. It was ignored. After the first racial imbalance census taken pursuant to the Racial Imbalance Act, the state Board notified the Committee that it was under a legal duty to remedy imbalance. The first plan submitted suggested no redistricting and was rejected on that basis. Because of the Committee's failure to comply with state law, state funds were held in escrow during the years from 1966 to 1971--a withholding which must have substantially affected the school system's ability to meet the educational needs of those years. 39 The Committee was not left to its own devices. The state Board asked the Joint Center for Urban Studies at Harvard and MIT to submit proposals. Eight alternative redistricting proposals for elementary schools and three for intermediate schools were provided, all being geared to minimize transfers of white students, to avoid long walks for young children, and to avoid the irregular shaping of districts. Safety was a foremost consideration. Kindergarten children were not affected and only junior high students would have had to be bused under the proposals. Various excuses were given for the dogged refusal to adopt the plans. At one meeting of the Committee in 1966, 379 F.Supp. at 439, the chairman continually urged a good faith effort in order to obtain the release of funds, an effort which he felt would have to include redistricting. To launch such an effort, he moved 'that the superintendent be directed to review the Joint Center package and 'extract from it those recommendations which you can live with and which are workable and will have the effect of' minimizing racial imbalance.' This limited, preliminary suggestion was rejected. The Committee proposed instead plans which would permit city blacks to be bused under Metco to suburban schools in exchange for white students from those schools. The plan was rejected by the state Board, submitted again and rejected again. The funds were still withheld. This process continued as the number of racially imbalanced schools increased steadily from 40 in 1966 to 62 in 1969. 40 The climax was, in the view of the district court, the Committee's reaction to the Board's rejection of its fourth stage plan in 1971. The Committee countered the rejection by proposals to create an advisory committee to review all district lines, to request technical advice from the Board, and to participate in a committee to oversee development of a 'Comprehensive Plan' to eliminate racial imbalance. The Committee, so found the court, appointed strong opponents of balance to the advisory committee, refused access to critical data by the Board, and never appointed members to the committee of oversight. In the district court's words, it 'sabotaged' the entire effort. It is beyond dispute that the defendants took every opportunity to maintain segregation where it existed and to foster segregation where it did not. To use the Supreme Court's language, 'the 'neighborhood school' concept has not been maintained free of manipulation', Keyes, supra, 413 U.S. at 212, 93 S.Ct. at 2699, 37 L.Ed.2d 548. 41 We have addressed the facts found and the district court's inferences drawn as to segregative purpose, and have found no error. Moreover, even if the individual instances were not by themselves capable of supporting a finding of discriminatory intent--and we think those addressed were sufficient--they clearly create a definite pattern of intentional segregatory motives and practices. United States v. Board of School Comm'rs of Indianapolis, 474 F.2d 81, 84 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 920, 93 S.Ct. 3066, 37 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1973); Davis v. School District of Pontiac, 443 F.2d 573, 576 (6th Cir. 1971). '(T)he courts are not precluded from drawing the normal inference of intent from consciously consummated acts.' 474 F.2d at 85. Here that intent was consistent with the expressed motivation. It takes very little alteration of the words of the Supreme Court in describing in Denver school board's actions, found impermissible, to describe accurately the Boston practices: 42 'First, it is obvious that a practice of concentrating Negroes in certain schools by structuring attendance zones or designating 'feeder' schools on the basis of race has the reciprocal effect of keeping other nearby schools predominantly white. Similarly, the practice of building . . . school(s) . . . in a certain location 'with conscious knowledge that (they) would be . . . segregated . . .' . . . has a substantial reciprocal effect on the racial composition of other nearby schools. So also, the use of mobile classrooms, the drafting of student transfer policies . . . on racially identifiable bases, have the clear effect of earmarking schools according to their racial composition . . ..' Keyes, 413 U.S. at 201--202, 93 S.Ct. at 2694. 43 The district court's findings as to school assignment, building policy, the use of mobile classrooms, and districting and redistricting are thoroughly supported. These findings in turn amply support the findings of segregative intent. 44