Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 19 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 4:82cv00866 BSM |
| Parties | LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. PLAINTIFF v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
The North Little Rock School District ("North Little Rock") is petitioning for a declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision [Doc. No. 4141], and the Pulaski County Special School District ("Pulaski County") is petitioning for a declaration of unitary status [Doc. No. 4159]. The Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") object to both petitions.
Extensive hearings were conducted in both cases. After viewing the witnesses in open court and listening to their testimony, and reviewing the exhibits offered into evidence, North Little Rock's petition is granted in the areas of: (1) special education; (2) compensatory education; (3) compensatory programs aimed at dropout prevention; (4) extracurricular activities; (5) discipline, expulsions and suspensions; (6) secondary gifted and talented education; (7) school construction and facilities; and (8) desegregation monitoring. The petition is denied in the area of staff recruitment.
Pulaski County's petition is granted in the areas of: (1) student assignment: interdistrict schools; (2) multicultural education; and (3) school resources. The petition is denied in the areas of: (1) student assignment; (2) advanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs; (3) discipline; (4) school facilities; (5) scholarships; (6) specialeducation; (7) staff; (8) student achievement; and (9) monitoring.
Two hearings were conducted, one on North Little Rock's petition and one on Pulaski County's petition, and each posed a number of challenges. In both hearings, a number of the witnesses seemed to view the judge's role as that of Harry Bailey, the innkeeper in Geoffrey Chaucer's book, The Canterbury Tales. That book gives the fictional account of twenty-nine pilgrims traveling to pay homage to Saint Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the anniversary of his death. While dining at the Tabard Inn, Bailey suggests, and the pilgrims agree, that whomever tells the best story on the road to and from Canterbury will receive a free meal at Bailey's inn. Bailey had the job of determining who told the best story.
Although the parties were reminded a number of times that the only determination to be made is whether the districts acted in good faith and substantially complied with their desegregation plans, several witnesses seemed intent on telling the most interesting stories or, at the least, the ones they felt the court most wanted to hear. For example, one witness testified that North Little Rock has done all it can to teach black kids how to read and speak English correctly. The witness supported this proposition by noting that teachers let their students rap in class. Although, at first blush, it might seem understandable for this witness to assume that a middle aged black judge would find this appealing, that presumption is simply untrue. In fact, it was appalling, especially considering that all one has to do is listen to the interviews of many rap artists to realize that knowing how to rap does not necessarilylead to literacy nor does it aid one in speaking English correctly. Indeed, after viewing a number of rap music videos or listening to interviews of rap artists, one could easily be left with the sincere impression that rappers, as a group, are some of the most illiterate and ignorant sounding people society has to offer.
On the other hand, many of the witnesses offered by Joshua said little that was relevant to the issues at hand; however, some of them attempted to tell interesting stories. For example, one black basketball coach testified that he suffered grave discrimination at the hands of North Little Rock when he was first given a 200-day contract which was later increased to a 217-day contract, while the newly hired white football coach received a 240-day contract. In that teachers are paid by the day, this caused the less experienced football coach to be paid more than the basketball coach.
This testimony, which seemed to be quite interesting to some of the people in the courtroom, and which took up a substantial amount of time, added nothing to the case because it was based on flawed logic and inaccurate analysis. This is true because, unlike basketball coaches who begin practice after the start of the school year, football coaches are required to work during the summer because that is when football practice starts. Therefore it is customary in Arkansas for football coaches to have contracts that reflect that, in addition to the normal school year, they work extra days during the summer. This truth, however, did not stop minute after grueling minute of mindless testimony about the injustice suffered by the basketball coach.
There are many other examples of witnesses who attempted to tell the most interesting stories and who seemed to simply enjoy hearing themselves talking. Those examples and the stories told can be found in the extensive record of the proceedings.
Desegregation in education; what a concept. During one hearing, the lawyers were asked whether either North Little Rock, Pulaski County, or the Little Rock School District ("Little Rock") denied any black students the right to attend any of the public schools in those districts. The answer, of course, was no. The lawyers were also asked whether black students are guaranteed a better education by merely being placed in classrooms with white students. In essence, the question is whether the mere presence of white students guarantees that black student achievement will rise? Of course no lawyer was willing to answer yes to that question. It seems that no one associated with the case truly believes that black children learn through osmosis and that black student achievement will be increased by the presence of white students or by the mystical power of whiteness.
That being the case, the question then becomes, "so what are we fighting about?" It seems that the answer to that question is that desegregation does not mean what many of us think it means. Desegregation does not mean that black families should be free to send their children to their neighborhood schools. This case does not involve a Linda Brown who has to walk past her neighborhood school, which is all white, to attend a segregated black school that is farther away from her home. Desegregation now seems to mean racial equity ineducation or the notion that the schools black children attend should have the same facilities, the same quality of instruction and the same quality of extracurricular programs that the schools attended by white children have.
After reading the briefs, the transcripts from the various hearings, and the scores of exhibits filed herein, it is very easy to conclude that few if any of the participants in this case have any clue how to effectively educate underprivileged black children. It is cause for great concern that a number of the various participants in this case seem to believe there is some magic spell that will do the trick, such as some special racially-based formula or program. Even more concerning, however, is that it seems that some of the participants do not really care.
Brown v. Board of Education is the pivotal case in desegregation litigation. 347 U.S. 483 (1954). This case has become an integral part of American history and established that separate does not mean equal, explicitly rejecting Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Brown, 347 U.S. at 495. The task of carrying out school desegregation was delegated to district courts in the follow-up case, Brown v. Board of Education, referred to as "Brown II." 349 U.S. 294,299 (1955). The Court directed that desegregation was to occur "with all deliberate speed." Id. at 301. Because an exact deadline was not set, however, school districts took advantage of this language and tookminimal steps towards desegregation.
Believing it sufficient to simply give black children the option to attend white schools, many school districts implemented freedom of choice plans. These plans allowed white and black children to choose what schools they wanted to attend. Freedom of choice plans did little to integrate schools. Few children chose to attend schools in which they would be in the minority race. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), specifically addressed such a situation. The Supreme Court acknowledged that following Brown II, the "principal focus was on obtaining for those Negro children courageous enough to break with tradition a place in the 'white' schools." Green, 391 U.S. at 436. The Court went on to state, however, that Id. Accordingly, desegregation plans became more complex, encompassing many aspects of the education system, in order to establish "a unitary, nonracial system of public education."
In Green, the Court recognized specific components of school systems that must be free from racial discrimination before finding a school district unitary: student assignment, faculty and staff assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. Id. at 435. As this court has previously recognized, the desegregation plans of North Little Rock and Pulaski County go beyond the factors established in Green. Therefore, by complying with their desegregation plans, they are complying with Green.
Acknowledging the efforts to delay desegregation, the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial