Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, Civ. No. 68-C-95.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 68-C-95. |
| Parties | Jose CISNEROS et al. v. CORPUS CHRISTI INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Chris Dixie, James Wolf, Eric Nelson, Houston, Tex., James De Anda, Corpus Christi, Tex., for plaintiffs.
J. W. Gary, Richard Hall, Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendants.
Plaintiffs brought this action against the Corpus Christi Independent School District to require the District to comply with guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court for the creation of unitary school systems wherever dual school systems have been found to exist. Plaintiffs contended (1) that Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), and its progeny, apply to Mexican-Americans as well as to Negroes; (2) that Mexican-Americans have been and remain segregated in the Corpus Christi Independent School District; (3) that Negroes have been and remain segregated in the Corpus Christi Independent School District; (4) that therefore, a dual school system has existed and still exists in Corpus Christi with regard both to Mexican-Americans and to Negroes; (5) that such segregation of Mexican-Americans and Negroes has been and remains primarily de jure segregation; and (6) that the court should order the Corpus Christi Independent School District to disestablish its dual school system and to erect a unitary school system, in compliance with decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Defendants asserted, on the other hand, (1) that Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, supra, does not apply to Mexican-Americans; (2) that even if Brown applies to Mexican-Americans, that ethnic group has not been and is not now segregated in the Corpus Christi Independent School District; and (3) that even if Brown applies to Mexican-Americans, and Mexican-Americans have been and are now segregated in the Corpus Christi public schools, such segregation has been and remains de facto rather than de jure segregation.
On May 14, 1970, the court commenced the trial of these issues, and continued daily thereafter, except from May 25 through May 29, until the conclusion of the evidence on June 3, 1970. Then, after eleven days of trial, the court rendered its oral opinion and partial final judgment on June 4, 1970.
In that ruling, Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, 324 F.Supp. 599 (S.D.Tex., 1970), the court found (1) that "Mexican-American students are an identifiable, ethnic-minority class sufficient to bring them within the protection of Brown supra"; (2) that "Mexican-American students in the Corpus Christi Independent School District are now separated and segregated to a degree prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment in all three levels of the school system: elementary, junior high, and senior high"; (3) that "Negro students in the Corpus Christi Independent School District are also segregated to a degree prohibited by law * * *"; and (4) that although "some of the segregation was of a de facto nature," the Corpus Christi Independent School District is fundamentally "a de jure segregated school system." Cisneros, supra, at 606, 608, 615, 616, 620.
In its judgment of June 4, 1970, the court also ruled that, since an immediate appeal by defendants might materially advance the ultimate determination of the litigation, defendants should exercise their right of appeal under the emergency appeal provisions of Rule 2, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court also certified an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. On July 10, 1970, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied defendants leave to appeal from this court's interlocutory order of June 4.
In its judgment of June 4, the court requested that each party submit the names of 15 persons (5 Anglo, 5 Mexican-American and 5 Negroes) from whom the court would select a human relations committee, to be representative of the community, and not to include attorneys, parties to the suit, school employees, or the spouses of any of these. The court clerk selected at random six persons from each party's list, and these individuals have since functioned as a human relations committee.1
Soon after the original decision, a hearing was conducted in Victoria, Texas, to determine how a unitary school system might be best effectuated. The hearing was held in that city because of the damage to Corpus Christi caused by Hurricane Celia and the subsequent use of the United States Courthouse for emergency relief. The Victoria hearing lasted from September 2, 1970 to September 16, 1970 and the court heard testimony from Corpus Christi school officials, persons with experience in formulating integration plans, education experts, a private bus company operator, and interested citizens. The main thrust of all the testimony presented by both parties was to formulate a plan which would be educationally and economically sound, and would achieve a unitary school District. Understandably there were differences of opinion on how to do this and on what was "educationally sound" and what was a "unitary" school district. Any ideal plan will begin to break down when it must be put into reality. Since the school district was Corpus Christi and not Utopia, much of the testimony centered on what costs — operational and social — one plan or another would entail. Transportation costs, transportation time, transportation safety, school pairing, grade pairing, single grade schools, modular education (the ungraded system presently in use), extracurricular activities, the neighborhood school, administrative difficulties, social mobility, housing patterns, home buying criteria, the value of exposure to different cultures and ideas, possible conflicts with existing state and federal laws or funding procedures, the experience of other Texas school districts and the problem of public acceptance were some of the subjects covered by the testimony.
At the hearing the court considered: the plaintiffs' proposed student assignment plan (Foster plans) filed on August 17, 1970 (a revision of plans submitted during the trial); the school district's revised plan filed on August 31, 1970, after the court had rejected its plan of July 15, 1970, as unconstitutional on August 26, 1970; and the elementary school plan submitted by the plaintiff and which was fashioned by a Corpus Christi housewife and patron of the school system. (Scott plan).
On September 15, 1970, the day before the hearing ended, the plaintiffs moved for the court to request the intervention of the United States Departments of Justice and of Health, Education and Welfare. Since the court had denied a motion for intervention by a non-profit group of Corpus Christi parents, Concerned Neighbors, Inc., in August as being untimely, the plaintiffs' unusual motion caused some concern. However, the court came to the conclusion that the experience, knowledge, and objectivity of these departments would aid the development of a unitary plan and so on October 16, 1970, the court requested their assistance. The court was further influenced by the fact that there appears to be a growing National Policy favoring integration as expressed in Government actions and, further, because any integration order would be helped by the active assistance of the Government.
Thereafter, the Office of Education and the United States Attorney's office participated in the conferences held in the case and filed such motions as they desired. A team from the Office of Education conferred with the Human Relations Committee and made trips to Corpus Christi to familiarize itself with the operation of the school system. On April 30, 1971, following the Supreme Court's April 20th decision in the so-called "busing cases,"2 a conference was held with all parties. As a result of that conference an order was issued on May 3, 1971, directing the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to submit a plan by June 1, 1971, for the creation of a unitary school system not inconsistent with the guidelines in the Swann cases, n. 2 supra. The plaintiffs and defendants were given until June 10th to file their objections. The government's plan was submitted on June 2 and both parties filed their objections eight days later. Shortly after the filing of the HEW Plan, the Human Relations Committee addressed a written exhortation to the Board of Trustees, urging its members "to submit another proposal that has a chance of being accepted by the court." The Committee included a number of recommendations designed to assist the Board in formulating such a proposal.3 On June 10, the court granted
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
defendants an additional period, until June 21, to file another plan. The Board declined this opportunity, and so notified the court on June 16. On June 18, the court received a letter containing general proposals for integration, from David Saenz, a school patron and witness for the defendants. This was treated as a motion for intervention and denied on June 28, 1971. No further plans were filed.
One of the thorniest questions faced in the remedy phase was the amount and cost of transportation necessary to carry a unitary plan into effect. The plaintiffs contended that money would be available from the federal government and that, if necessary, the school district could pledge delinquent taxes as security in purchasing buses. The School District replied that the federal money, though available for transportation, was not available for transportation alone, and that if it did not comply with state regulations on the purchase and acquisition of new equipment it would not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lau v. Nichols
...404 U.S. 1027, 92 S.Ct. 707, 30 L.Ed.2d 723 (1972); Cisneros v. School District, 324 F.Supp. 599, 616-20 (S.D.Tex.1970), supplemented by 330 F.Supp. 1377, application for reinstatement of stay granted, 404 U.S. 1211, 92 S.Ct. 9, 30 L. Ed.2d 15 (1971), aff'd in part, modified in part and rem......
-
Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District
...integration of the school system in accordance with contemporary constitutional guidelines. Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, S.D. Texas 1971, 330 F.Supp. 1377 (Cisneros II). See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 1971, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.E......
-
Corpus Christi Independent School District v. Cisneros
...against school children on the basis of race or color, 324 F.Supp. 599. He directed how this was to be accomplished, D.C., 330 F.Supp. 1377, saying at the same time that he would grant no stays of his order. The school district asked the court to stay its order and a stay was granted by a d......