National Assn. for Advancement of Colored People v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist.

• Citation: 130 Cal.Rptr. 744,17 Cal.3d 311,551 P.2d 48
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Decision Date: 28 June 1976
• Parties: , 551 P.2d 48 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants. L.A. 30484.

Page 744

130 Cal.Rptr. 744

17 Cal.3d 311, 551 P.2d 48

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants.

L.A. 30484.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

June 28, 1976.

Bert W. Levit, Allan R. Moltzen and Long & Levit, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants.

Nathaniel S. Colley and Nancy B. Reardan, Sacramento, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Robert E. Cartwright, San Francisco, Edward I. Pollock, Los Angeles, William H. Lally, Sacramento, Robert G. Beloud, Upland, Ned Good, Los Angeles, Arne Werchick, David B. Baum, San Francisco, Elmer Low, Pasadena, Sanford M. Gage, Beverly Hills, Leonard Sacks, Encino, and Stephen I. Zetterberg, Claremont, as amicicuriae on behalf of plaintiffs and respondents.

TOBRINER, Justice.

In April 1972, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and ten individual minority students instituted this school desegregation class action against the San Bernardino City Unified School District, contending that the school district had failed to meet its constitutional obligations as set forth in this court's decision in Jackson v. Pasadena City School Dist. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 876, 31 Cal.Rptr. 606, 382 P.2d 878, or its statutory obligations under sections 5002 and 5003 of the Education Code. The trial court conducted a two-stage trial, the initial stage occurring in June 1972 and the second in May 1973; at the latter session a number of experts, appointed by the court to review the school district's current desegregation plan, testified as to their findings. In September 1973, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, ordering the school district to desegregate its schools by the fall semester of 1974. The school district appeals from that judgment.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court's determination that segregation exists within the San Bernardino school district and that the district bears a constitutional obligation to take reasonable and feasible steps to alleviate such segregation. As we have explained in Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles, Cal., 130 Cal.Rptr. 724, 551 P.2d 28, decided this day, school districts in this state bear a constitutional obligation to alleviate segregation in their districts, regardless of the cause of such segregation. The trial court properly refused to relieve the defendant school district of this obligation on the basis of its claim that the segregation in the district was 'de facto' rather than 'de jure' in nature.

As we also explain, however, while the trial court properly found that the district bears an obligation to take reasonable and feasible steps to desegregate its schools, the court--relying upon statutory and administrative provisions that have since been repealed--utilized an improper 'racial balance' standard in determining which schools within the district are unconstitutionally segregation; as in Crawford, on remand the trial court must revise its definition of segregation to accord with the guidelines set forth in that case. In addition, because the San Bernardino school board, unlike the Los Angeles school board in Crawford, had adopted and implemented a plan for the desegregation of its schools on remand the court should evaluate the adequacy of such plan in light of the Crawford decision before requiring the district to implement an alternative desegregation plan. If, however, the court finds that the district's current desegregation plan is inadequate under Crawford, it should order the district to implement a reasonable and feasible plan that promises meaningful progress in the alleviation of segregation in the San Bernardino school district.

We begin our analysis with a brief review of the statistical findings of the trial court relating to the demography of the San Bernardino school district. In the fall of 1972, minority students comprised 37.1 percent of the defendant district's total student population of 34,228; the court found that the racial composition of the district's students was 20.8 percent Spanish surname; 15.5 percent black; 0.6 percent Oriental; 0.2 percent American Indian and 62.9 percent Caucasian. The statistical findings indicate that, unlike the situation described in Crawford, over the six-year period from 1966-1972 the number of segregated schools in the San Bernardino school district had substantially declined.

The trial court specifically found that, as of November 1972, there was no racial or ethnic segregation in the district's six senior high schools. At the junior high school level, the findings reveal that whereas in 1966, four of the eight junior highs had either minority or 'white' student populations of 95 percent or greater, by 1972 only one of ten junior highs was so severely segregated and all but one of the remaining schools contained between 20 percent and 55 percent minority students. ¹ At the elementary school level, similar progress had been made; in 1966, 33 of the district's 42 elementary schools had populations of 85 percent or more minority or white, while in 1972 only 9 of the 42 elementary schools contained such severe racial or ethnic isolation. ²

Although the parties disagree as to the extent to which the reduction in the number of segregated schools is properly attributable to the efforts of the defendant school board, ³ the record does indicate that over the 1966--1972 period the San Bernardino school board did undertake a number of steps aimed at alleviating segregation in the district's schools. The principal element of the district's desegregation program over these years was the adoption of a voluntary 'controlled open enrollment' transfer option, which afforded minority students who wished to transfer to other schools an opportunity to do so, so long as such transfer improved the racial or ethnic 'balance' of either the receiving or sending school; ⁴ unlike the Los Angeles transfer option discussed in Crawford, ante, at page 728 of 130 Cal.Rptr., at page 32 of 551 P.2d, the San Bernardino 'controlled open enrollment' plan only permitted transfers which promoted desegregation, precluding all transfers which would lead to resegregation. In addition, unlike the Los Angeles program, the San Bernardino school district provided transportation for students who chose to exercise this option. By virtue of this program several thousand minority students, approximately one-fourth of the minority students assigned to 'minority imbalanced' schools, transferred to desegregated school. ⁵

The record also reveals the during this period the district selected the sites of some new schools and closed at least one older school with an eye toward alleviating school segregation. Finally, during these years the district also introduced into its curriculum compensatory programs aimed at alleviating some of the academic disparity traditionally associated with school segregation and added 'minority studies' classes designed to promote improved intergroup relations and to facilitate the desegregation process.

Although, as noted above, the statistical data does demonstrate that progress had been made in alleviating school segregation between 1966 and 1972, the findings also reveal that the district's efforts had failed to alleviate segregation in a number of junior high and elementary schools located in minority neighborhoods; indeed, in some cases, the degree of racial isolation in such schools increased between 1966 and 1972. ⁶ This result was perhaps a predictable consequence of the district's desegregation strategy, for while the 'controlled open enrollment' program permitted many minority students to transfer out of these heavily segregated schools, such transfers did nothing to alleviate segregation in the nearly all-minority schools which such students left. Throughout the period in question, the school board did not attempt to redraw the geographic boundary zones of the remaining segregated schools, nor did it implement any program under which majority students who lived outside of the minority neighborhoods were assigned to the predominantly minority schools.

Recognizing that is initial desegregation efforts had not eliminated all of the segregation in the district, the San Bernardino school board in June 1971 adopted a resolution directing the superintendent of schools to develop an equitable desegregation plan to end 'racial isolation' in the school district; this plan was to be prepared by November 1971, and implementation of the plan was to begin by September 1972 and to be completed by September 1974. ⁷ Although the district had not previously utilized the 'mandatory busing' ⁸ of students in its desegregation program, the school board instructed the superintendent that the new plan could include the 'cross-busing' of students if necessary. ⁹

The board's tentative decision to approve a desegregation program which might utilize the mandatory busing of students to eliminate segregation and racial or ethnic imbalance engendered considerable opposition and hostility among many members of the community. Although the task force of school board employees responsible for preparing the details of the full desegregation plan met extensively with community groups in an attempt to enlist their suggestions and their support, community opposition to the mandatory busing aspect of all of the proposed plans continued to be substantial. In the fall of 1971, the board postponed the date for the superintendent's presentation of a proposed desegregation plan until March 16, 1972.

On March 2, 1972, the school board adopted a resolution reaffirming its commitment to 'the principles and the ideals of integration,' mandating the continuance of all of its programs designed to achieve integration and the promulgation of new educationally oriented programs to facilitate...