Court Opinion

ID: 9757851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:01:39.010328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:44.958373
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Chief Justice Bell :
Article X, Section 1, of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides: “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public schools wherein all the children of this Commonwealth may be educated.” The General Assembly in and by the Public School Code of 1949* has created school districts to act as agents in carrying out this Constitutional mandate. These school districts act through boards of school directors, the members of which in most districts in Pennsylvania are elected by the voters to administer the school district. The code imposes on school districts and on their boards of school directors certain mandatory duties and certain discretionary powers. These include the duty to provide grounds and buildings (§701), and also the duty to assign pupils to the various schools within the district, but makes it unlawful (as does the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, infra) “for any school directors, superintendent, or teacher to make any distinction whatever, on account of, or by reason of, the race or color of any pupil” (§1310).
It is clear, therefore, that under the Public School Code school directors have the power and the duty to determine where schools shall be built and where the pupils shall be assigned, so long as no distinction or *183discrimination is made for or against pupils by reason of race or color. It is equally clear that no change in these powers and duties was made by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act of October 27, 1955, P. L. 744, 43 P.S. §951 et seq., which we shall now consider.
Facts, Acts and Basic Errors
Considering these in inverse order, the basic errors of the Majority in interpreting this Act are threefold: (1) It treats the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission as a statewide super-school hoard; and (2) the Act, except by a Procrustean stretch of the English language, gives no authority to the commission to compel what amounts to a destruction or end of the “neighborhood school” which has been a traditional and very important cog in the wonderful development of our local communities, our State and Nation; and (3) the commission made no findings of fact which were adequate to support its Order or the Majority’s Opinion. For example, there was no evidence and certainly no substantial evidence that the Chester School Board created racial imbalance by intentionally or purposely discriminating against Negroes in its buildings or in its assignment of students to the various schools in the School District of Chester.
The commission (1) merely found the well known and indisputable fact that racial imbalance (sometimes called “de facto segregation”) exists in the Chester school system, and particularly in the six named schools, and (2) issued an Order requiring the Chester School Board to propose and, with the commission’s approval, take steps to immediately and effectively desegregate these six schools in order to eliminate all the racial imbalance which exists de facto therein. In practical effect, this amounts to a mandatory ending (by the commission) of the “neighborhood school”, and *184the mandatory transplanting of countless children who attend public (and necessarily the parochial) schools in Pennsylvania. The Dauphin County Court, sitting as a Commonwealth Court, held that this Order of the commission exceeded the authority granted by the Legislature to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, and the Superior Court affirmed (with two Judges dissenting).
The real basic question is whether in the absence of a finding supported by substantial evidence that the school district has intentionally discriminated against its pupils or prospective pupils because of their race, creed or color, the commission can usurp the province and functions of a board of school directors and require the school board to locate its schools and assign pupils thereto as the commission deems wise for color or racial or religious reasons.
I strongly agree with the decision of the Dauphin County Court and of the Superior Court. There is no legislative or Constitutional authority to support the Majority Opinion or decision which can be reached and justified only by a farfetched stretch of the English language.
The Chester school system is set up on a neighborhood school basis — i.e., students are assigned to the school which in the opinion of the Chester School Board- is most nearly or easily accessible to the student. The racial imbalance in the Chester schools is unquestionably due to the racial imbalance in the various neighborhoods where the children reside, which in turn is undoubtedly the result of many different factors. It is agreed by everyone that the Chester School Board did not create and is not responsible for, nor can it change or eliminate such neighborhood racial imbalance.
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is given by the Legislature certain powers, but, we re*185peat, it is not given authority either under the Constitution or under this or any other Act to be a super-Board of Education or to usurp and, in practical effect, eliminate the province and the fundamental functions and powers of the school board.*
The Majority rely on four sections of the Act— 4(g), 5(a), 5(i) and 12(a) — to support the Commission’s authority to order and compel an end to all de facto racial imbalance, even though such imbalance was not created by the school board but was the result of the residential neighborhood. A careful analysis of these statutory provisions demonstrates that they do not and cannot by any reasonable construction support the Majority’s distorted interpretation.
Section 5 of the Act, upon which the appellant and the Majority principally rely, provides in pertinent part, that “it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice** . . . for any place of public accommodation [defined in §4 to include ‘public schools’] . . . to ... refuse, withhold from or deny to any person because of his race, color, religious creed . . . either directly or indirectly, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of such place of accommodation.” The key words in the prohibition of unlawful discrimination are “to refuse . . . any accommodations . . . because of his race, color or religious creed.” It is only when accommodation is intentionally refused or denied directly or indirectly, because of color, etc., that discrimination is declared to be unlawful and is prohibited by the Act. This key language the Majority change or distort (1) by reference to the broad general policy of the Act which is set forth in its preamble and (2) by §12(a) which says the Act should be liberally construed — not rewritten.
*186The Majority Opinion, in construing §5, completely ignores the accompanying clear and controlling language of §5, namely, the denial of school accommodations must be because of color or race. The Majority’s construction is not only realistically unwise in the light of our Country’s history, in which neighborhood schools have provided the interest, the friendships, the pride and the development of local neighborhoods and businesses, but even more important, finds, we repeat, no support in the Acts of the Legislature* or in the Constitution.
As the educational achievements of the citizens of this Commonwealth (and indeed, throughout our entire Country) have demonstrated, this public school system has for some two hundred years served the Commonwealth (and our Country) exceptionally well, and should not be drastically changed or abandoned unless the Legislature clearly, specifically and unequivocally said so.
Moreover, resort by the Majority to §12 (a) (i.e., the Act should be liberally construed) cannot possibly extend the coverage of the Act to areas or situations not encompassed or provided for by any section or by any language of the Act. Specifically, it cannot supply authority to the commission to act in circumstances and in situations where the commission or a majority of this Court believe the Legislature should have, but did not, empower it to act.
Expressed in other words, the Majority have rewritten the Act to require policies and actions which *187they believe are socially or politically desirable, completely oblivious of the fact that under our Constitution and its guaranteed Republican Form of Government, it is the ordained and fundamental province, power and duty of the Legislative branch of the Government to determine and enact legislation, and that is not the province or function of the Courts.
Inadequate Standards
Racial imbalance undoubtedly exists (as above noted) in some of the schools operated by the Chester School Board which are in fact either almost all or predominantly Negro, or almost all or predominantly white. For example, in the Chester elementary school system, the school population is approximately 65 per cent “Negro” and 35 per cent “white.” Without Legislative standards — not even definitions were given or guidelines erected — it is impossible to know whether a school that is 85 per cent “Negro,” or 75 per cent, or 65 per cent or 60 per cent “Negro” would be considered as racially imbalanced. Without any standards and without any definition of “Negro” or “white”, how is it possible to determine whether a person who is one-third or one-half or two-thirds, or some part Negro would be considered as either a “Negro” or a “white” person for school purposes? Surely the Legislature would have dealt clearly, certainly and definitely with these and numerous other problems inherently involved and knowingly existing, if it had intended to end per se, de facto racial imbalance in the public schools. Moreover, I believe the Majority has not sufficiently carefully considered the important question of whether the delegation of powers (which they envision) to the commission is unconstitutional. See Holgate Brothers Co. v. Bashore, 331 Pa. 255, 200 Atl. 672.
I believe that the commingling of all kinds and so-called classes of society — the rich and the poor, the *188people of all faiths and creeds, the white, the black, the red, the yellow and brown — makes for a better America! But I further believe that it is a gross distortion and misnomer to call this friendly social and business and political “commingling”, “Education.” I strongly disagree with much of the social and political philosophy expressed by the Majority in support of its interpretation of the Human Relations Act, the passage of which was motivated more by political than educational considerations.
To pile Pelion upon Ossa, the Administrative Agency Law (June 4, 1945, P. L. 1888, 71 P.S. §1710 et seq.) permits a Court to set aside or modify the commission’s Orders only in those cases where the findings of fact necessary to support the Orders or adjudications of the Commission are “not supported by substantial evidence.” There were no factual findings by the Commission which are necessary to support its Orders, i.e., findings of intentional discrimination by the school board because of race or color, and consequently no substantial evidence to support the commission’s conclusions, Orders or adjudication.
I further note that the Majority’s decision goes far beyond any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of Education, and I reserve the right to pass upon the Constitutionality of the Act in connection with the power of the commission over public schools and school boards.
To summarize: The short and irrefutable answer to the Majority’s Opinion is that if the Legislature had intended the drastic change envisioned by the Majority, namely, to end all de facto per se racial imbalance, which it knew (and everyone knows) exists in many-public schools, it would not only have set up and provided definitions, guidelines and standards, but even more important it would have clearly and specifically said so! ! !
For these reasons, I dissent.

 Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, 24 P.S. §1-101 et seq.

 I believe, although it is not clear, that the Majority impliedly admit this.

 Italics throughout, ours.

 We note that the Legislature, In its recent School Bus Act of June 15, 1965, P. L. 133, which amended the Public School Code which this Court sustained in Rhoades v. Abington School District, 424 Pa. 202, 226 A. 2d 53, staunchly supported the neighborhood school because it promoted better school attendance, reduced ;he distance pupils must travel, and provided better health for the pupils and more safety from the hazards of traffic.