Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, Civ. A. No. C-1499.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-1499. |
| Citation | 380 F. Supp. 673 |
| Parties | Wilfred KEYES et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, et al., Defendants, Congress of Hispanic Educators et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
James M. Nabrit, III, New York City, Holland & Hart, by Gordon G. Greiner, Robert T. Connery, Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs.
Wood, Ris & Hames, by William K. Ris, Henry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton, by Michael H. Jackson, Denver, Colo., for defendants.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, by Vilma S. Martinez, Sanford J. Rosen, San Francisco, Cal., Paul A. Baca, Carlos M. Alcala, Denver, Colo., for Congress of Hispanic Educators, and others.
Hobbs & Waldbaum, by Larry F. Hobbs, Jeannine Bradley Volz, Denver, Colo., for Montbello Citizens' Committee, Inc.
Ronald C. Butz, Richard H. Plock, Jr., Denver, Colo., for Moore School Community Assn. and Moore School Lay Advisory Committee.
Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Denver, by Michael R. Enwall, North Denver Legal Services, James W. Wilson, Frederick P. Charleston, Eastside Legal Services, Denver, Colo., for United Parents of Northeast Denver, a non-profit corporation, and others.
Clark, Benson & Vernon, P. C. by Thomas Quentin Benson, Colin M. Clark, Denver, Colo., for Citizens Assn. for Neighborhood Schools, an unincorporated association.
Martinez & C De Baca, by Roy R. Martinez, Armando C De Baca, Denver, Colo., for Concerned Citizens for Quality Education.
This is one more (and hopefully the final) episode in the Denver school desegregation case. The object of the present trial has been determination of a just, equitable and feasible plan for the desegregation of the schools in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court requiring elimination of invidious discrimination and the deprivation of equal educational opportunity.
The scope and magnitude of the problem is evidenced by the numbers and ethnic origins of students as of September 28, 1973. In the elementary schools there were 46,060 students, including 17.6% black, 27% Spanish surnamed and 54.1% Anglo. The total enrollment in the junior high schools on the same date was 21,018, including 18.5% black, 24% Spanish surnamed and 56.6% white. The senior high schools totaled 20,542. The percentage of black students was 17.3%, that of Spanish surnamed students was 17.8% and that of Anglo students was 63.8%.
Segregation exists in minority schools on the one hand and non-integration of Anglo schools on the other throughout the District. There tends to be extreme concentrations of minority students at the north end of the District and equally high concentrations of white students in the middle and progressively to the south part of the District. In general, Hispano (Chicano) families live on the west side of the District. Here again, there are highly concentrated schools, although many of the schools even though segregated are somewhat less concentrated than the black schools. Some of these Chicano schools lend themselves to integration without transportation.
It is to be noted that the School District and the city are coterminous and have an area of 100 square miles.
The cause has been in litigation since the action was filed in June 1969. Following a preliminary trial, a partial desegregation plan was adopted in the northeastern sector of Denver. This was a plan which had been first adopted by the then School Board. Soon after adoption of the plan by the Board, there was a School Board election which resulted in two of the members of the School Board who had voted in favor of the plan being defeated. Immediately the newly elected members brought about the repudiation of the Resolutions which would have produced partial desegregation. This triggered the filing (in June 1969) of the present suit. A hearing on a preliminary injunction was held and various subsequent trials and hearings were conducted on the merits and on the adoption of an appropriate plan. At the same time, there were circuit court appeals,1 and the cause has been before the Supreme Court of the United States for partial as well as full-scale review. See Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973). The published decisions showing some of the background leading to the present controversy are set forth below.2
Writing for the majority of the Supreme Court Mr. Justice Brennan noticed numerous evidences of pervasive de jure segregation and reversed the cause for the purpose of a determination by this court as to whether the de jure segregation which had been found in the northeastern quadrant of Denver was independent, isolated and unrelated to the segregation conditions present in the rest of the School District.3
Following the Supreme Court decision which was rendered in June 1973, rehearing denied, 414 U.S. 883, 94 S.Ct. 27, 38 L.Ed.2d 131 (1973), and the remand, a further evidentiary hearing was held in accordance with the remand.
In its December 1973 decision, using the guidelines which had been furnished by the Supreme Court decision, this court ruled that the Park Hill segregation was not an isolated and independent condition and consequently that it was to be concluded (from the Supreme Court mandate) that the entire system was subject to the identical condition present in Park Hill, i. e., de jure segregation, and that this (in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision) required that there be desegregation "root and branch." Following this decision, a further pretrial hearing occurred on December 17, 1973. Each of the parties was given approximately 30 days from the date of the December 17, 1973 hearing to submit a plan for the desegregation of the Denver schools. Subsequently, such plans were duly filed, as were objections by each of the parties. At a further trial of two weeks' duration from February 19, 1974 to March 4, 1974, evidence was presented with respect to the tendered plans.
The principal parties offered evidence in explanation and support of their tendered plans and offered in addition evidence criticizing the plan of the adverse party. Various intervenors representing virtually all possible viewpoints in the community presented testimony and exhibits as to their particular problems arising from possible adoption of one or the other of the plans.
The School District's plan which was entitled "A Plan for Expanding Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools" has four sections. Section I deals with integration of the professional staff through reassignment and retraining; II with integration of the student body and changes in the use of facilities; III with integration of the student body through new programs; and IV with integration through programs, activities and related improvements.
The percentage guides for desegregation adopted by the Board were a minimum of 25% Anglo in each school and a maximum of 75%. Applying those figures it said that there existed a total of 53 elementary schools within the range and thus by this standard integrated.
There were (said the plan) 17 schools which had less than 25% minority students and a total of 22 schools which had a predominantly majority percentage of Anglos, that is to say, in excess of their 75% maximum.
The plan sought to close eleven schools and transfer the students attending these schools to other schools for the avowed purpose of improving either integration or educational opportunity. In addition to the eleven elementary schools which were recommended to be closed, the Board proposed to close one junior high school and older sections of two elementary schools. As a result of all proposed closings there resulted a transfer of 4165 students to other facilities.
As a result of the School District's proposed elementary school closings and the reassignments, there were fifty-four schools (instead of the former fifty-three) with an Anglo enrollment of twenty-five to seventy-five percent. There were thirteen schools not touched which remained predominantly minority in that their Anglo enrollment was less than twenty-five percent (and in most instances substantially less).4 Fourteen schools continued to have concentrated majority or Anglo percentages.5
Thus, the plan made no effort whatever to desegregate or to integrate the above schools except for the three week, half-day sessions each semester at the enrichment center.
As noted, the School District made some effort to integrate several less highly concentrated schools by the closings in the central part of the city.
Following is the School Board's summary analysis of school closings and resulting enrollment figures:
WESTWOOD
Westwood's 603 pupils, 35.3% of which were minority, would be transferred to Force, Godsman, Goldrick and Schenck. The Anglo percentage at Force was reduced from 72.3% to 63.2%; at Godsman, from 73.2% to 62.6%; at Goldrick, 75.0% to 68.9%; at Schenck, from 64.4% to 58.9%. Thus, at best the closing of Westwood and the transfer of students brought about a slight reduction of the Anglo percentage in these schools.6
Sherman School, with an Anglo percentage of 61.1% was proposed to be closed and its 208 students were to be transferred to Fairmont which had an enrollment of 647. As a result of this, Fairmont's percentage of Anglo students would have been raised from 15.3% to 26.4%.7
The Board also proposed to close Boulevard School which had 27.0% Anglo enrollment and 259 total students. The proposal was to transfer the Boulevard students to Ashland with the result of decreasing the Anglo percentage in Ashland from 32.1% to 30.4%.8
Crofton Elementary School was proposed to be closed and its 285 minority students of a total of 287 were to be reassigned to Bradley, Ellis and Fallis. The Anglo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., Nos. 74-1349
...court determined that each was inadequate and commenced its own independent study. The result was the court's adoption of its own plan, 380 F.Supp. 673, which was contained in a Final Decree and Order dated April 17, We consider first whether the trial court properly concluded that the Scho......
-
Morgan v. Kerrigan
...impresses us, on the contrary, as a plan which is more designed to avoid adoption of a desegregation plan. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, D.Colo.1974, 380 F.Supp. 673, 682. See also United States v. Texas Educ. Agency, 5 Cir. 1972, 467 F.2d 848; United States v. Board of Educ. of W......
-
Keyes v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, DENVER, COLO.
...1, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548, 413 U.S. 189 (1973); Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 368 F.Supp. 207 (D.Colo.1973); Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 380 F.Supp. 673 (D.Colo. 1974); Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 521 F.2d 465 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1066, 96 S.Ct. 806, 46 L.Ed.2d 6......
-
Keyes v. Congress of Hispanic Educators, Civ. A. No. C-1499 (69-M-1499).
...U.S. 189, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973) ("Keyes VII"), on remand, 368 F.Supp. 207 (D.Colo.1973) ("Keyes VIII") and 380 F.Supp. 673 (D.Colo. 1974) ("Keyes IX"), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 521 F.2d 465 (10th Cir.1975) ("Keyes X"), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1066, 96 S.Ct. 806, 46 L.E......