Berry v. School Dist. of Benton Harbor

• Decision Date: 22 August 1977
• Docket Number: No. C.A. 9.,C.A. 9.
• Citation: 442 F. Supp. 1280
• Parties: Barbara Jean BERRY et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF BENTON HARBOR et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

442 F. Supp. 1280

Barbara Jean BERRY et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF BENTON HARBOR et al., Defendants.

No. C.A. 9.

United States District Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.

August 22, 1977.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Louis R. Lucas, Elijah Noel, Jr., Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., Thomas Atkins, Roxbury, Mass., John A. Dziamba, Willimantic, Conn., Stuart J. Dunnings, Jr., Dunnings & Gibson, Lansing, Mich., Nathaniel R. Jones, Gen. Counsel, NAACP Special Contribution Fund, New York City, for plaintiffs.

John D. Tully, Warner, Norcross & Judd, Grand Rapids, Mich., Roccy M. DeFrancesco, Adams & DeFrancesco, St. Joseph, Mich., for Benton Harbor School Bd.

John L. Crow, Francis A. Jones, Hartwig, Crow, Jones & Postelli, St. Joseph, Mich., for Eau Clair School Dist.

George L. McCargar, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for State of Mich.

Craig Atchison, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for State of Mich. Boundary Commission.

E. Michael Stafford, Farhat, Burns & Story, Lansing, Mich., for Coloma School Dist.

Lee Boothby, Boothby & Huff, Berrien Springs, Mich., for Sodus Tp./Fellner Group.

Andrew J. Burch, Coloma, Mich., for intervening defendants Baldwin and Concerned Parents of Hagar Tp. School Dist. No. 4.

Thomas J. Nordberg, Lansing, Mich., for Berrien County Intermediate School Dist.

OPINION

FOX, Chief Judge.

Nearly ten years after filing this action, and over seven years after having established a prima facie case that the schools attended by plaintiffs, and the class of persons they seek to represent, are products of de jure segregation, plaintiffs remain contained in segregated schools under conditions no better, and in many cases considerably worse, than when this litigation was initiated. After a careful and searching examination of the evidence presented at trial, and of the record established at the previous trial before Judge W. Wallace Kent, I conclude that defendant, Benton Harbor Area School District, has failed to rebut the prima facie case of de jure segregation established against it. That is, plaintiffs have shown action or inaction by public officials, with a segregative purpose and intent, which actually resulted in increased or continued segregation in the public schools of Benton Harbor.

When matters of great public and constitutional significance come here for resolution, this court assumes an extra duty of care in explaining the reasons for its decision. As always, the court states the factual basis and the legal standards on which its conclusion rests so that counsel for the parties, and the appellate court, will know the legal grounds for this court's decision. Equally important, however, this court assumes also an affirmative obligation to attempt to educate the public concerning the basic principles underlying our constitutional democracy and the practical application of these principles in our public affairs. Since the present school desegregation case is of such importance to the people of Benton Harbor and the State of Michigan, this court has gone to great lengths to detail the facts and explain the basic constitutional principles which led the court to its conclusion.

I am well aware that many people are unfamiliar with and distressed by the law of the land which requires that school desegregation decisions, involving the education of our precious children, must often be made by a single judge rather than by other governmental officials or the voters. The real reason that courts are active in school desegregation matters, however, is the failure of other governmental entities to confront and produce answers to the many problems in this area pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. This court is quick to admit that the litigation model is not the most efficient way to solve problems of far-reaching social impact, but our courts must always protect the constitutional rights of all our citizens.

I. Procedural Background of the Case.

The original complaint in this action was filed on November 16, 1967. In the complaint, plaintiffs Berry, et al., black children attending the public schools of Benton Harbor, Michigan, and their parents sued the School District of the City of Benton Harbor, the members of that Board, and the Superintendent of the School District. Among other relief, the complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to:

". . . restrain the defendants named herein from continuing to maintain racially-segregated, educationally and psychologically detrimental schools, making additions to such schools, thereby aggravating segregated, harmful conditions, and building new schools which will be segregated and harmful, from dispensing educational goods and services in a racially-discriminatory manner, from continuing to inflict and cause harm to black pupils by use of Board procedures and policies, and from compelling attendance at institutions which are educationally and psychologically detrimental to black pupils." Plaintiffs' Complaint at ¶ 2.

The complaint covered a broad spectrum of practices by the defendants which plaintiffs deemed to be discriminatory or segregative.

After extensive discovery, trial was held in February 1970, before the late Judge W. Wallace Kent. In findings of fact and conclusions of law announced by Judge Kent in July 1971, the court found several practices carried out by defendants to be discriminatory, among them assignment of teaching positions by race and the "tracking system" at defendants' junior high schools. Judge Kent, however, concluded that the racial imbalance in the Benton Harbor public schools was not the result of de jure segregation, as he interpreted the existing case law.

In an opinion delivered November 1, 1974, the Court of Appeals, ruling upon the appeal of defendants and the cross-appeal of plaintiffs, affirmed the District Court's determination that the above-listed practices were discriminatory. Berry v. School District of City of Benton Harbor, 505 F.2d 238 (6th Cir. 1974). The Court of Appeals, however, determined that a prima facie case of de jure segregation had been made out by plaintiffs:

"It is clear from a recital of the facts of record in this case that a number of important indicia of de jure segregation were present even though a dual school system was neither compelled nor authorized by law. The school system was in fact racially imbalanced, teachers were assigned on the basis of race, the physical condition of the predominantly black schools was generally inferior to the conditions in the predominantly white schools, and the method of assigning students to learning groups in the black junior high school deprived black students of an equal opportunity for an education.

The Supreme Court has stated that discrimination in these areas of education constitutes a prima facie case of the existence of a dual school system. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 201, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 18, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968).4 We are satisfied

4 The six criteria most often listed as indicia are composition of the student bodies, faculty, staff, transportation, extra-curricular activities, and facilities.

that a prima facie case was made out in this instance.

"We recognize the difficulty in determining the quantum of state participation which is a prerequisite to a finding of a constitutional violation. `The necessary degree of state involvement is incapable of precise definition and must be defined on a case-by-case basis.' United States v. Texas Education Agency, 467 F.2d 848, 864 (5th Cir. 1972), cited with approval in Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, supra, 413 U.S. at 215, 93 S.Ct. 2686 (Douglas, J., concurring). The district courts are not without guidance in this difficult task, however, as there have been a number of appellate decisions addressed to this problem. Although the relevant standards have not changed since Judge Kent rendered his decision in 1971, the Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the law in this area. For this reason, the issues presented by this case are particularly well suited to fresh consideration by the district court in light of recent case law. The question on remand will be whether defendants can successfully negate the prima facie case of de jure segregation that has been made against them."

Id. at 242.

Upon remand, the case was assigned to this Judge.

Previous to the decision in the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs filed, on August 21, 1974, a motion to add parties and an application for a temporary restraining order. The added defendants were the Michigan State Board of Education; John W. Porter as Superintendent of Public Education of the Board of Education of the State of Michigan; and the Boards of Education of the Eau Claire School District and the Coloma School District. The injunctive relief sought was to cancel the transfer to the Eau Claire School District (Sodus transfer) and to the Coloma School District (Eaman transfer) of portions of the Benton Harbor School District. These transferred areas were overwhelmingly populated by white students and the transfers were claimed to increase the alleged segregation of the Benton Harbor Schools. The Sodus and Eaman transfers were alleged to have been approved by Defendants Porter and the Michigan State Board of Education. As I noted in an opinion accompanying the preliminary injunction:

"The appropriate educational authorities did not seek leave from any federal court before carrying out the order of the State Board of Education, even though the Board's order alters the very subject of the suit — the Benton Harbor School District." Opinion Granting Preliminary Injunction, at 3.

Finding that the transfers would...