Court Opinion

ID: 9464732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:41:10.563304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:47.332294
License: Public Domain

GEE, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
I concur in the opinion and write briefly and only to note how my reading of Brink-man 1 bears on this case. There can be little doubt that the drastic and unfortunate means of “bussing for racial balance” can be required in a case where the existing imbalance sought to be corrected results from present intent — or the remaining effects of past intent — to discriminate by race on the part of those controlling school policy. Mere statistical imbalance by race does not, in my view, justify such a remedy. But where extreme imbalance exists, as here and as in Lee,2 and where, as here and as in Lee, it has persisted essentially unbroken by milder remedies since the abolition of de jure segregation, it is powerful evidence that such an intent either presently exists or persists undisturbed from the older dispensation. If sufficiently extreme, at least where residential patterns are not polarized, as here, it may be overwhelming evidence of such an intent presently operating. I find it overwhelming here, as in Lee. I therefore concur, believing that Brink-man, which incorporates the language cited at footnote 20 above, is not at war with our holding.-

. Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977).

. Lee v. Demopolis City School System, 557 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. 1977).