Arthur v. Nyquist

Decision Date30 April 1976
Docket NumberNo. Civ-1972-325.,Civ-1972-325.
Citation415 F. Supp. 904
PartiesGeorge ARTHUR et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ewald P. NYQUIST, Individually and as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of New York

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Richard F. Griffin, Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiffs.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of N. Y. (Ruth Kessler Toch, Sol. Gen., and Jean M. Coon, Asst. Sol. Gen., Albany, N. Y., and (Eugene A. Panfil, Asst. Atty. Gen., Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Ed., and the Bd. of Regents of the State of New York, defendants.

Leslie G. Foschio, Corp. Counsel, City of Buffalo (Anthony Gregory and Frank A. Sedita, Jr., Asst. Corp. Counsels, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for Mayor Stanley M. Makowski, Superintendent of Schools Eugene T. Reville, The Bd. of Ed., and the Common Council of the City of Buffalo, defendants.

CURTIN, Chief Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This court's decision in this case comes after a long and arduous journey through a complex lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs charge the defendants with "creating, maintaining, permitting, condoning and perpetuating racially segregated public schools in the City of Buffalo and in the Buffalo Metropolitan area." (Complaint, at 1). Plaintiffs allege a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.1 and the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.2 They seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 22013 and claim jurisdiction in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that the Constitution and the laws do not forbid all types of discrimination. The fourteenth amendment prohibits only discrimination carried out under color of law; private discrimination, however regrettable or reprehensible, is not actionable under it. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 3 S.Ct. 18, 21, 27 L.Ed. 835, 839 (1883); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161, 1180 (1948). This state action requirement presents no obstacle to the plaintiffs' case, since there is no question but that all the defendants are state agencies within the ambit of the fourteenth amendment's protection. See United States v. Texas Education Agency, 467 F.2d 848, 863 (5th Cir. 1972) (en banc); Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 368 F.Supp. 143, 157-58 (W.D.Mich.), aff'd 508 F.2d 178 (6th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975).

At this point in the lawsuit, the only question before the court is whether or not any or all of the defendants have acted in such a manner as to segregate the Buffalo Public School System hereinafter BPSS. The question of remedy, i. e., what action the court should take if it should find that the BPSS is segregated, is not before the court.

It should be emphasized that this court sits only as an arbiter of a legal dispute, not as a super-school board. It is this court's duty to safeguard the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the laws for all residents of the United States. The late Judge Murrah's words aptly describe the court's function in this lawsuit:

We yet like to believe that wherever the Federal courts sit, human rights under the Federal Constitution are always a proper subject for adjudication.
Stapleton v. Mitchell, 60 F.Supp. 51, 55 (D.Kan.1945), appeal dismissed, 326 U.S. 690 66 S.Ct. 172, 90 L.Ed. 406 (1945).

At the outset, the court gratefully acknowledges the consistently professional co-operation exhibited by all parties to this lawsuit. One of the beneficial consequences of this cooperation was a series of 161 stipulations4 upon which all parties agreed before the trial in this action commenced. This, of course, considerably reduced the burden on this court once the trial actually began.

The complexity and scope of the issues before the court must not be understated, however. The question presented — whether or not the defendants intentionally committed segregative acts affecting the Buffalo public schools — is one that calls forth the strongest of emotions.5 The final written record of this case gives some testimony to its complexity and to the fervor with which it was contested. Pretrial motions and discovery procedures consumed many months; the actual trial lasted ten days, with a transcript running 1,695 pages; parties submitted many pre-trial and post-trial briefs; some 180 exhibits6 were admitted into evidence; and post-trial oral arguments were scheduled to facilitate a clear understanding of the positions and legal arguments of all parties.

It is, of course, the duty of this court to decide the facts from the evidence placed before it. Correlatively, it is the duty of this court to apply the law as it exists, both in the decisions of the Supreme Court and those of the Second Circuit in which this court sits. After carefully sifting through all the testimony, evidence, and argument, the court is now prepared to apply the applicable law to the facts as it finds them.

I. THE PARTIES AND THEIR POSITIONS

This suit was instituted as a class action, with the named individual plaintiffs, black and white parents of public school children in the Buffalo metropolitan area, attempting to represent all others similarly situated. Although a class action is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), the court believes that since little evidence was presented at trial regarding non-BPSS policies and practices, the certified class should be restricted to parents of children attending Buffalo public schools.

Also plaintiffs are the Citizens Council for Human Relations, Inc., a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Buffalo branch, organizations which seek, among other things, equal opportunity in education.

The defendants are Ewald Nyquist, the Commissioner of Education in New York State, The Board of Regents of the State of New York and its individual members State defendants, Joseph Manch, Superintendent of Schools of the City of Buffalo at the time this suit was brought, and Eugene Reville, the present Superintendent, the Board of Education of the City of Buffalo and its members, the Common Council of the City of Buffalo and its members, and Stanley M. Makowski, Mayor of the City of Buffalo City defendants.

Originally, the plaintiffs did not name the individual members of the Board of Education or the Board of Regents. By order of this court dated today, the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include the individual members of these two Boards as parties defendant was granted.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, by various actions and inactions, have caused the BPSS to become or remain severely segregated. Among the major allegations are segregation of staff, siting and construction of schools so as to promote segregation, manipulation of school district lines, optional zones and transfers for segregative reasons, failure to implement any meaningful integration plan, failure to hire significant numbers of minority group teachers, failure to promote significant numbers of minority individuals to supervisory positions, and failure to fund the proposed new East Side High School. Numerous other actions and inactions are alleged, including segregation of residential areas, and student assignment which incorporated this segregation. As a result of these actions of the defendants, plaintiffs claim that they have been denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed to all citizens by the fourteenth amendment.

The City defendants, while acknowledging that many of the schools are racially imbalanced, insist that any imbalances are due to demographic shifts in housing patterns that are beyond their control. In addition, they contend that no affirmative action is required of them by the Constitution to alleviate the imbalances so caused. In adhering to their long-standing neighborhood school policy, which they argue is and has been racially neutral, the City defendants deny that they have violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

The State defendants likewise admit that widespread segregation exists in the BPSS, but insist that they have done more than is constitutionally required of them to end it. They also disclaim any responsibility for, or power to end, the segregated residential patterns in the City of Buffalo.

II. THE LAW

In 1954 the Supreme Court of the United States issued its famous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), which declared that laws requiring separate school facilities for blacks and whites — the separate but equal school doctrine — were unconstitutional. The Court ruled in that decision that such a system was "inherently unequal", and that such school segregation was a violation of the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. 347 U.S., at 495 74 S.Ct. at 692, 98 L.Ed. at 881. Although separate school facilities mandated by statute have long been outlawed in New York State,7 this did not effectively prevent the slow emergence of separate educational facilities, as shown in tables 3 to 7, infra.

The law to be applied in this case has evolved through a series of Supreme Court and circuit court cases since Brown dealing with school segregation in many cities of our country, both North and South.8 The essential elements, found in Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973), a case which involved the Denver public schools, can be reduced to a series of questions:

(1) Have plaintiffs shown that any of the Buffalo public schools are segregated?9
(2) If the answer to the first question is yes, have plaintiffs shown that any of this segregation was brought about or maintained by purposeful or intentional
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Arthur v. Nyquist
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 8, 1978
    ...segregated school system" in violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. 904 (W.D.N.Y.1976). The appellants raise a number of discrete issues on this appeal, foremost among them, the (1) Whether the district court......
  • United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 20, 1985
    ...not be numerically absolute so long as the public schools are substantially segregated and racially identifiable. Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. 904, 912 n. 9 (W.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd on reconsideration, 429 F.Supp. 206 (W.D.N.Y.1977) , aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 573 F......
  • Ostrer v. Aronwald
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 21, 1977
    ...U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. It provides a remedy where jurisdiction exists. Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. 904, 909 n. 3 (W.D.N. Y.1976). 28 U.S.C. § 1346 is also pleaded as a jurisdictional base. The relevant portions of § 1346 read as United States a......
  • People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 18, 1994
    ...on remand, Armstrong v. O'Connell, 451 F.Supp. 817 (E.D.Wis.1978), on remand, 463 F.Supp. 1295 (E.D.Wis.1979); Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. 904, 912 n. 9 (W.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd on reconsideration, 429 F.Supp. 206 (W.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 573 F.2d 13......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Shakespeare in the Law
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 67, January 1992
    • Invalid date
    ...iv., 16. U.S. v. Smith, 812 F.2d 161, 167 (4th Cir. 1987); Calley v. Callaway, 382 P.Supp. 650, 666 (M.D.Ga. 1974); Arthur v. Nyquist, 415 F.Supp. 904, 959 (W.D.N.Y. 1976); State v. Griffin, 347 So.2d 692,694 (Fla. Ct. App. IW7). 121 Merchant of Venice, 1, iii, 99. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT