Opinion ID: 2078305
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State's Historical Record

Text: This case cannot be viewed in a vacuum. It must be placed in historical context. During the 19th century, African-Americans in New York constituted a small percentage of the total population (Folts, History of the University of the State of New York and the State Education Department 1784-1996, available at ). Schools for colored children were established by laws enacted in 1841 and 1864. The latter statute was challenged by a 12-year-old girl from Brooklyn who commenced an action seeking to be admitted to the all white school in her district. Over the dissent of two Judges, this Court found that separate but equal schools did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the State's Civil Rights Act of 1873 ( People ex rel. King v Gallagher, 93 NY 438 [1883]). The holding of Gallagher was reaffirmed by People ex rel. Cisco v School Bd. of Borough of Queens (161 NY 598 [1900]). Statutes providing for separate but equal schools for African-Americans were enacted even after the adoption of the Education Article. These statutes were eventually repealed in 1938, at a time when many African-Americans had migrated into the large urban areas of the state, a trend that began during the First World War and continued after the Second World War. In 1954, the Supreme Court held in Brown v Board of Educ. of Topeka (347 US 483 [1954]) that racially separate schools were inherently unequal. The Court stated: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms (347 US at 493). Brown led to a conscientious effort by the State Education Department and the Regents to achieve racial balance in our public schools ( see United States v City of Yonkers, 96 F3d 600 [2d Cir 1996]; Matter of Vetere v Allen, 15 NY2d 259 [1965]). Local school districts, the Legislature, and other state officials resisted this effort. The resistance was so successful that the SED and the Regents eventually ceased to undertake desegregation efforts. The resistance is documented in City of Yonkers (96 F3d 600). The trial court found that not only did the State fail to make any effort to remedy school segregation in Yonkers, but that it took steps to perpetuate it ( id. at 606). The Regents took affirmative steps to thwart desegregation efforts, including the firing of Commissioner Nyquist, in response to pressures by New York State officials and constituents who opposed desegregation on grounds that were known to be race-based ( id. ). In 1969, the Legislature enacted Education Law § 3201 (2) prohibiting the assignment of students in particular schools for the purpose of achieving equality in attendance    of persons of one or more particular races without the approval of the local board of education. The law was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal court. [1] The trial court further found that [f]ollowing the invalidation of [Education Law 3201 § (2)], the State took measures that had the cumulative effect of undermining efforts to reduce school segregation (96 F3d at 606). The State also knew that the construction of subsidized housing would exacerbate segregation in housing and schools. The Second Circuit, in 1996, found New York officials liable under 42 USC § 1983, and the State, the SED, and the Regents liable under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.