Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School Dist., Civ. A. No. 68-C-95.

Citation324 F. Supp. 599
Decision Date04 June 1970
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 68-C-95.
PartiesJose CISNEROS et al. v. CORPUS CHRISTI INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas

James Wolf and Chris Dixie, Dixie, Wolf & Hall, Houston, Tex., James DeAnda, Edwards & DeAnda, Corpus Christi, Tex., for plaintiffs.

J. W. Gary and Richard A. Hall, Branscomb, Gary, Thomasson & Hall, Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SEALS, District Judge.

In Civil Action Number 68-C-95, a civil rights class action, the following will constitute the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and may be amended and/or supplemented at a later date,1 but these Findings today will control and determine the disposition of the issues before us.

First, this court finds that it has jurisdiction and that this is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Needless to say, this court considers this to be a most important case. Not only because of the great interest that has been manifested by the large attendance of citizens in the courtroom, and the amount of time and space the news media have devoted to the coverage of the trial, but the court also realizes and understands that we are considering two of the most important aspects and interests of the school patrons and also of the school administration: the taxes of money and the children.

Because it is an important case I want again to express my appreciation for the efforts of the attorneys who have appeared here, not only for their cooperation in providing the court with all the relevant and pertinent evidence, voluminous data and statistics, but also for well-written briefs, and also for the expeditious manner in which the evidence was presented.

This type of legal controversy, which is prevalent all over the country, has finally come to the City of Corpus Christi, as it has come to many other communities over our land, and the magnitude of the problem is reflected in the great volume of litigation and opinions which we lawyers are familiar with.

Although, as you could realize, it has not been an easy task, I have had the advantage of three (3) weeks of night and day studying these exhibits, this voluminous data, taking two brief cases to Miami, constantly reading the opinions and having them available to me as they are published, and also, thanks to the attorneys in the case, of having the advantage of having daily copy made of the proceedings and testimony. One great advantage and help to the court was the way and manner all the statistical evidence was worked and catalogued at the beginning of the trial, and which was offered and stipulated to early in the trial, and which was available to the court for study for these three (3) weeks. We also were fortunate in having available every recent appellate decision concerning these matters.

Although the statistical data and evidence was largely undisputed, I find as a matter of fact for the record that the data presented by the plaintiffs is accurate and correct as to student populations, percentages of ethnic groups— that is, as we have called them in this trial, Anglo, Negro and Mexican-American —locations of schools, and the makeup of the student population, the location and ethnic patterns of general population within this area, the number of teachers, the schools they are assigned to, and the ethnic background of each teacher in each school, and the location of past and present boundaries, the time and cost of construction of new schools, the cost of renovating of old schools, the number of children bussed in the past and in the present, and who they were, and who they are.

I especially find that the plaintiffs' Exhibits No. 4,2 4-A,3 4-B,4 4-C,5 and 4-D6 are accurate and very illuminating. The same is true for plaintiffs' Exhibits 6-A,7 6-B,8 6-C,9 and plaintiffs' Exhibit 7,10 also plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 35,11 and plaintiffs' Exhibit 36.12 The court accepts as true and correct the other objective data and statistics offered by the plaintiffs.

Of course, most of this evidence, if not all, was furnished by the defendants, and the court is deeply appreciative of the cooperation, and of the long, tire-some work that the school administration had to undertake to furnish this data.

I also find that the defendants' objective statistical evidence is true and correct, such as defendants' Exhibits 1,13 2,14 2-A,15 3,16 3-A,17 4,18 5,19 6,20 7,21 9,22 10,23 11,24 14, 15 and 16.25

The plaintiffs' and defendants' exhibits as mentioned mainly include objective evidentiary data over which there is no dispute, as I understand the parties, but I do understand that each side contends there are different factual and legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from this objective, statistical evidence which the court, of course, will have to decide. As to the other exhibits, the court will consider them and give to them whatever weight and credibility, as well as relevancy, the court feels they deserve in deciding the factual and legal issues involved.

Finally, the court recognizes that experts, similarly trained, similarly educated, and with good intentions, do disagree over fundamental issues.26 And that is not only true in the field of education, but this court sees it every day when we have trials with experts, where they disagree over the most basic and fundamental issues. And there have been some disagreements manifested during this trial that just could not be reconciled and the court must use its own judgment to see that justice is done after carefully considering all of the evidence. Although there has been a somewhat lack of basic empirical evidence which has been validated or demonstrated by experience or results, and the educators spoke of that often during the trial, the court must decide this case on the evidence before it.

Now to the issues in the case. It appears to the court that the controlling and ultimate issues, stated in general terms, are as follows:

First, can Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873, and its progeny apply to Mexican-Americans in the Corpus Christi Independent School District; or, stated in another way, is Brown limited to Negroes only?

Second, if Brown can apply to Mexican-Americans, does it under the facts of this case? Stated in another way, assuming Brown applies to Mexican-Americans, are the Mexican-American students segregated or in a dual school system?

Third, because I think most of us agree that the Negroes in Corpus Christi are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution under Brown, as it was a case involving black and whites, and later Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit cases, the question or issue here is: do we have a dual or unitary school system as it affects Negroes in Corpus Christi?

Further, or fourth, if we do have a dual school system here as defined by recent Fifth Circuit cases, and that Negroes and Mexican-Americans are denied their Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, is this a de jure or de facto dual or segregated school system?

And finally, if we do have a dual system, how can the court, and under what plans and programs, disestablish a dual school system and establish and maintain a unitary school system in contemplation and compliance with the recent Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit opinions?

And so, in determining the first general issue in this case, which is whether Brown can apply to Mexican-Americans in the Corpus Christi Independent School District, the court now makes the following observations concerning the implications of Brown to this issue: This court reads Brown to mean that when a state undertakes to provide public school education, this education must be made available to all students on equal terms, and that segregation of any group of children in such public schools on the basis of their being of a particular race, color, national origin, or of some readily identifiable, ethnic-minority27 group, or class deprives these children of the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment as set out in Brown, and subsequent decisions, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal. Although these cases speak in terms of race and color, we must remember that these cases were only concerned with blacks and whites. But it is clear to this court that these cases are not limited to race and color alone.28

In this case, if the proof shows that the Mexican-Americans in the Corpus Christi Independent School District are an identifiable, ethnic-minority29 group, and for this reason have been segregated and discriminated against in the schools in the manner that Brown prohibits, then they are certainly entitled to all the protection announced in Brown. Thus Brown can apply to Mexican-American students in public schools.

Having decided that Brown can apply to Mexican-American students in public schools, the court now must determine whether under the facts of this case the Mexican-American students in the Corpus Christi Independent School District do fall within the protection of Brown.

The court finds from the evidence that these Mexican-American students are an identifiable, ethnic-minority30 class sufficient to bring them within the protection of Brown.

It is clear to this court that Mexican-Americans, or Americans with Spanish surnames, or whatever they are called, or whatever they would like to be called, Latin-Americans, or several other new names of identification—and parenthetically the court will take notice that this naming for identification phenomena is similar to that experienced in the Negro groups: black, Negro, colored, and now black again, with an occasional insulting epithet that is used less and less by white people in the South, fortunately. Occasionally you hear the word "Mexican" still spoken in a derogatory way in the Southwest—it is clear to this court that these people for whom we have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Lau v. Nichols
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 18, 1973
    ...F.Supp. 1235, 1239, 1241-1242 (D.N.J.1971), aff'd mem., 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. ......
  • United States v. Texas Education Agency, 71-2508.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 2, 1972
    ...Alvarado v. El Paso Independent School District, 5 Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 1011 No. 71-1555, June 16, 1971; Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Ind. School District, S.D. Tex.1970, 324 F.Supp. 599, appeal docketed, No. 71-2367, 5 Cir., 459 F.2d 13; Tasby v. Estes, N.D.Tex.1971, C.A. No. 3-4211-C, 342 F.......
  • Graves v. Barnes, Civ. A. No. A-71-CA-142 to A-71-CA-145.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • January 28, 1972
    ...group or class) in the public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, 324 F.Supp. 599 (S.D. Tex.1970). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that the record supported allegations that there had been discr......
  • Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, 71-2397.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 2, 1972
    ...the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873; Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, S.D. Texas 1970, 324 F.Supp. 599 (Cisneros I). The court ordered an immediate reassignment of the District's teaching staff, consideration of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Restricting the freedom of contract: a fundamental prohibition.
    • United States
    • Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal No. 16, January 2013
    • January 1, 2013
    ...equal protection treatment of race "through the black/white paradigm."). (331.) Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent. School Dist., 324 F. Supp. 599, 606 n.30 (S.D. Tex. 1970) (quoting expert testimony finding Mexican American to be a minority from a racial point of (332.) Cubas v. Rapid ......

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