Trahan v. Lafayette Parish School Board, Civ. A. No. 10903.

• Decision Date: 29 August 1973
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 10903.
• Citation: 362 F. Supp. 503
• Parties: Alfreda TRAHAN et al. v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

362 F. Supp. 503

Alfreda TRAHAN et al. v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.

Civ. A. No. 10903.

United States District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division.

June 22, 1973.

Supplemental Opinion August 29, 1973.

Margrett Ford, Ford & Huckaby, Shreveport, La., for plaintiffs.

J. Nathan Stansbury, Dist. Atty., 15th. Judicial District, Lafayette, La., for defendants.

Donald E. Walter, U. S. Atty., and Robert E. Shemwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the United States, Gerald F. Kaminski, Justice Department Civil Rights Div., Education Section, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PUTNAM, District Judge.

This motion is one in a long series of hearings since the beginning of this desegregation suit in 1965. The Lafayette Parish School Board seeks approval of certain new construction at public schools in the system. The plaintiffs-respondents seize this opportunity to seek re-establishment of the virtually all-black high school facility that was closed at the beginning of the 1970-71 school year. The question was relitigated fully in August, 1971, and the request denied after an extensive hearing. They also oppose the proposed construction on grounds that it would tend to encourage "white flight" from integrated schools by providing facilities in areas of growth near the city of Lafayette which are predominantly white.

At the outset we deny plaintiffs-respondents' request to reopen Paul Breaux High School. These same parties, represented by the same counsel and joined by three other classes of intervenors brought this issue before us in August, 1971. The same reasons prevail now and we do not reiterate them here in detail. See Trahan v. Lafayette Parish School Board, 330 F.Supp. 450 (W. D.La.1971). That judgment was not appealed as required by Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, Part III, 419 F.2d 1211 (5 Cir. 1970), the parties had full notice thereof through their attorneys of record and it is final.

Moreover, reports filed by the Board as required by United States v. Hinds County School Board, 433 F.2d 611 (5 Cir. 1970), show that the facilities formerly housing Paul Breaux Elementary and High Schools are still in use as a vocational educational center and as an eighth grade school, on a fully integrated basis and after considerable expenditure of time and money, and that they have been so used since the beginning of the 1971-72 school year.

We turn next to a consideration of the evidence on movant's request for approval of school construction proposed to be undertaken. We find the evidence to be inconclusive, and cannot approve the proposed work on the basis of the information presented. As to such construction, including new schools, the Supreme Court of the United States in Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed. 2d 554 (1971) said:

"The construction of new schools and the closing of old ones are two of the most important functions of local school authorities and also two of the most complex. They must decide questions of location and capacity in light of population growth, finances, land values, site availability, through an almost endless list of factors to be considered. The result of this will be a decision which, when combined with one technique or another of student assignment, will determine the racial composition of the student body in each school in the system. Over the long run, the consequences of the choices will be far reaching. People gravitate toward school facilities, just as schools are located in response to the needs of the people. The location of schools may thus influence the patterns of residential development of a metropolitan area and have important impact on composition of inner-city neighborhoods."

And again:

". . . . In devising remedies where legally imposed segregation has been established, it is the responsibility of local authorities and district courts to see to it that future school construction and abandonment are not used and do not serve to perpetuate or reestablish the dual system. When necessary, district courts should retain jurisdiction to assure that these responsibilities are carried out. Cf. United States v. Board of Public Instruction, 395 F.2d 66 (CA 5 1968); Brewer v. School Board, 397 F.2d 37 (CA 4 1968.)" (402 U.S. at 21, 91 S.Ct. at 1279, 28 L.Ed.2d at 569, 570.)

See also: United States of America v. Texas Ed. Agency, 5 Cir. 1972, 467 F.2d 848 at pp. 865, 866; and cases cited in note 27.

Among the factors to be considered by the Board are (1) the school board's affirmative duty to consider race before proceeding with planned school construction, United States v. Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, Fla., 5 Cir. 1968, 395 F.2d 66; Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 5 Cir. 1972, 466 F.2d 1213; (2) the extent existing facilities can be utilized without an unreasonable burden on the students, Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School District, 8 Cir. 1971, 449 F.2d 493, cert. den. 405 U.S. 936, 92 S.Ct. 954, 30 L.Ed.2d 812; (3) whether or not the proposed construction would be governed by segregated housing or in an open housing area, and the statistical growth of the area to be served by the new schools, i. e., whether composed of newcomers to the Lafayette area or simply "white flight" from the existing systems, (4) the correction of inequities that might exist in the present plan of operation, which was never intended as a permanent plan, Trahan v. Lafayette Parish School Board, supra, (5) the racial composition of the new schools, if in fact they are such, and related questions.¹

The Court is confident that the board and its staff have carefully studied the needs of the school system and the pupils enrolled therein. Mr. Gauthe testified at the hearing that the expenditure of five and one-half million dollars contemplated at this time will only solve space problems for from two to five years, according to his estimate. We emphasize that this administrative decision is entirely up to the board; we do not and cannot pass upon the wisdom of the additions proposed, or whether or not more lasting benefit could be obtained for the system by other means. As a federal court, our only concern is whether or not the proposed work is within Constitutional bounds as outlined above.

The Biracial Committee established by the Court approved the purchase of property adjacent to the Plantation and Acadian elementary school sites. Both facilities presently serve grades K through 7.² Thus, the necessity of establishing "new schools" and separating them into grade structures of K-4 and 5-7, with separate principals, lunchrooms, kitchens, and administrative staff, would seem to be unnecessary and could increase the per pupil expenditure in operating these schools to the point where it could conceivably work to the detriment of other schools in the system. Further, at Plantation, the effect would be to reduce the percentage of black-to-white children to about 7% in the K-4 school, while increasing it to 16% in the 5-7 school, thus tending to re-establish a dual or separate school structure at this location. More hard statistical data, as opposed to opinions and conjecture on (1) the projected population increases in Zone 6 and 6A, its satellite zone of predominantly black students in grades 5 through 7, must be produced, (2) together with statistical data establishing whether or not the new residents of the zone are the product of expansion and growth in the Lafayette area, or the product of what has been termed "white flight" from the newly integrated parish schools. The same is true in respect to Acadian Elementary and its zones 2 and 2A, and the Carencro High School proposals.

As to the new schools, if such they are to be, we must also be informed of the proposed administrative staff required as well as classroom teachers for each grade, and whether or not conventional or innovative instructional methods will be employed.

A review of the data filed by the Board in its semiannual reports indicates that the proposed improvements at Carencro Heights Elementary School and the Paul Breaux Vocational Center do not jeopardize the unitary status of the school system.

At this time, we do approve the Vocational Center proposals, as well as the transfer of temporary classrooms to Comeaux High School and to Prairie Elementary, all as outlined in the April 30th proposal, supplemented by the Superintendent's testimony. Since some restructuring of the grades at Carencro Heights and Carencro Elementary is proposed, we will await the information hereinafter ordered before giving this our formal approval.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

On June 7, 1973, this court heard evidence on the application of the defendant Lafayette Parish School Board for a declaratory ruling that certain proposed improvements to its public schools would not tend to reestablish a dual or segregated school system in this parish. It was opposed by plaintiffs in the suit, and on June 22, 1973, the Court ruled denying the Board's motion in part. The Court granted the motion insofar as it applied to Paul Breaux Vocational Center and movement of temporary classrooms to Prairie Elementary and Comeaux High Schools. A countermotion by plaintiffs to reopen as a full high school a former all-black campus formerly known as Paul Breaux High was denied. We also indicated that the Carencro Heights Elementary proposal would be approved in due course.

We stated on June 22, 1973, that the evidence presented by the Board was insufficient to sustain its burden of proof that the proposed construction would not result in a resegregation of the system. The matter was one involving an expenditure of public funds in excess of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00), and we spelled out in unmistakable language the factors to be considered by the Board and by the Court in making this determination.

Because of the impact of an...