Lora v. Board of Ed. of City of New York, 75-C-917.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-C-917.,75-C-917. |
| Citation | 456 F. Supp. 1211 |
| Parties | Isaac LORA, as member of a class representing all Black and Hispanic students currently assigned to Special Day Schools for Emotionally Disturbed Students in New York City, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Charles Schinitsky, The Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Div., Brooklyn, N. Y., Nathaniel R. Jones, James I. Meyerson, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, New York City, for plaintiffs; Michael J. Dale, Henry S. Weintraub, Brooklyn, N. Y., Lydia Tugendrajch, Gene B. Mechanic, New York City, of counsel.
Allen Schwartz, Corp. Counsel, New York City, for defendants; Joseph F. Bruno, Norma Kerlin, Gregg M. Mashberg, Carol Noymer, Mary Tucker, New York City, of counsel.
Plaintiffs complain that their constitutional and statutory rights are being denied by the procedures and facilities afforded by New York City for the education of children whose emotional problems result in severe acting-out and aggression in school, behavior which may produce danger to others as well as themselves. These children often have severe academic problems. They have been placed in special day schools for the education of the emotionally handicapped. The schools utilize smaller class size, specially trained teachers and support staff, and special facilities, designed to provide a "generally therapeutic" atmosphere.
Racial composition of the pupil population in these special day schools is 68% Black; 27% Hispanic; and 5% other, primarily White (figures as of October 31, 1977). The high percentage of "minorities" in these schools is not a recent phenomenon; rather, a disparate racial composition has remained constant for nearly 15 years. The other major services for children with emotional disturbance, "classes for emotionally handicapped" (CEH classes) have a higher proportion, 20%, of non-minority students. Still higher is the proportion of Whites in the New York City public school equivalent grades: 36% Black, 23% Hispanic and 41% "other."
Starting from this striking racial disparity plaintiffs have added extensive evidence supporting their thesis. They contend that the special day schools are intentionally segregated "dumping grounds" for minorities forced into inadequate facilities without due process. White students with the same problems, it is maintained, are treated more favorably in other settings. Defendants and their witnesses deny any racial bias. They point with considerable pride to the advantages afforded, at substantial taxpayers' expense, in an effort to bring these problem students into the mainstream of education and society.
Laid bare by the dispute is one of the most excruciating issues of our democratic society. Almost every American agrees that the ringing words of the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal," mean at least that each person shall have an equal opportunity to develop and exercise his God-given talents. But many children born into deprived social, economic and psychological backgrounds lack the equality of real opportunity they would have had were their familial circumstances more fortunate. Unfavorable environment in such cases overwhelms favorable genes. To afford equality of opportunity so far as we can, we depend primarily on education. The free public system of education is the great equalizer, conceived to allow those born into the lowliest status the opportunity of rising as far as their potential talents, drive and luck will take them. But the system is — and perhaps by its nature must be — inadequate to lift fully the burden of poverty, of discrimination and of ignorance that so many of our children carry.
Depressingly revealed by the record are some of the almost insoluble problems of educating certain of the products of this background — the socially and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NAACP v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc.
...(Title VII); Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, supra (Title VIII); New York City Board of Ed. v. Califano, supra; Lora v. Board of Education of City of New York, supra; and Larry P. v. Riles, supra (Title VI). See, Perry, Michael, op. cit. This general formulation obviously fails to specify e......
-
St. Louis Dev. Dis. Treatment Center v. Mallory
...F.Supp. 869, 879 (S.D.Tex.1981); North v. Dist. of Col. Bd. of Ed., 471 F.Supp. 136, 140 (D.D.C.1979); Lora v. Bd. of Ed. of Cty. of New York, 456 F.Supp. 1211, 1269 (E.D.N.Y.1978), vacated, 623 F.2d 248 (1980).66See also Doe v. Brookline Sch. Comm., 722 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1983); Tilton v. ......
-
SOCIETY FOR GOOD WILL TO RETARDED, ETC. v. Carey
...At the liability determination stage, for example, courts have visited the relevant institutions, see, e. g., Lora v. Board of Education, 456 F.Supp. 1211 (E.D. N.Y.1978); relied heavily on the testimony and assistance of experts, see, e.g., Rhem v. Malcolm, 371 F.Supp. 594, 599-620 (S.D.N.......
-
Society for Good Will to Retarded Children v. Cuomo
...Oakdale Parents Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Ochberg, 492 F.Supp. 1035, 1037 (E.D.Mich. 1980); Lora v. Board of Education of New York, 456 F.Supp. 1211, 1292-1293 (E.D.N. Y.1978), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 623 F.2d 248 (2d Cir.1980); Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F.Supp. 373, 377 (M......
-
Examining how the inclusion of disabled students into the general classroom may affect non-disabled classmates.
...in a regular school hazardous to their own safety and welfare and to the safety and welfare of the other pupils." Lora v. Bd. of Educ., 456 F. Supp. 1211, 1219-21 (E.D.N.Y. (51.) Id. at 1219-22. (52.) Reid v. Bd. of Educ., 453 F.2d 238, 240-41 (2d Cir. 1971). (53.) Id. (54.) STILL WAITING, ......