United States v. Board of Sch. Com'rs, Indianapolis, Ind., IP 68-C-225.

• Decision Date: 18 August 1971
• Docket Number: No. IP 68-C-225.,IP 68-C-225.
• Citation: 332 F. Supp. 655
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

332 F. Supp. 655

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, et al., Defendants.

No. IP 68-C-225.

United States District Court, S. D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

August 18, 1971.

John D. Leshy, Civil Rights Division, Office of Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Stanley B. Miller, U. S. Atty., Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff.

G. R. Redding, Stephen W. Terry, Jr., E. C. Ulen, Jr., Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants.

Harold E. Hutson, Indianapolis, Ind., amicus curiae.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

DILLIN, District Judge.

This action, filed May 31, 1968, was tried by the Court on July 12-21, 1971. The Court has considered the voluminous testimony, the more than 200 exhibits, the post-trial briefs, has taken judicial notice of certain historical facts believed to be matters of common knowledge, and now files its findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of this memorandum. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. GENERAL

This is a school desegregation action brought by the United States pursuant to Section 407(a) and (b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6(a) and (b). The defendants are The Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, Indiana (hereinafter "School Board" or "Board"), the members of the Board, and its appointed Superintendent of Schools.

The defendant School Board is a common school corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana. It is situated within Marion County, Indiana, and governs, manages, and controls all of the public elementary and high schools within a geographical area known as the School City of Indianapolis (hereinafter "School City"), all as required by Indiana law. The shape of the School City resembles that of a trussed fowl, with its head to the north, its bound feet to the south, and its flapping wings extending east and west. The east-west wingspread, at its greatest, is about 16 miles. The north-south dimension of the School City is about 13 miles.

During the 1970-71 school year, the School Board operated 110 elementary schools. The usual (but not invariable) grade structure of the elementary schools was a kindergarten-through-eighth-grade structure. Among these 110 schools were 6 junior high schools. During the 1970-71 school year, two of the elementary schools were devoted entirely to the education of mentally retarded children, and one of the elementary schools was devoted entirely to the education of physically handicapped children and children having both physical and mental handicaps.

During the 1970-71 school year, the School Board operated 11 high schools. With the exceptions hereinafter noted, each of these high schools housed students in grades 9 through 12 who had attended one of the "feeder schools" regularly assigned to the particular high school. The exceptions to these general statements are that Crispus Attucks High School (hereinafter "Crispus Attucks") housed students in grades 10 through 12 only, its 9th grade class having been divided between the newly acquired Cold Spring Campus and Northwest High School (hereinafter "Northwest") and that Shortridge High School (hereinafter "Shortridge") housed a 9th grade made up of students from assigned "feeder schools" and 3 classes of students who were attending Shortridge under "the Shortridge Plan." Also, a comparatively small number of students were transferred to high schools other than those to which originally assigned, pursuant to the transfer policies of the Board.

The total enrollment in the elementary schools at the close of the 1970-71 school year was 77,658 students (excluding special education students). Negro students constituted 37.4% of that total. The total enrollment in the high schools at that time was 22,487 students. Negro students constituted 33.6% of that total. There were approximately 4,379 faculty members, of whom 976 (22%) were Negro.

Of the seven persons currently serving as members of the School Board three are Negroes (Mrs. Cary D. Jacobs, The Reverend Landrum E. Shields, and Mr. Robert D. DeFrantz). Mr. Shields served as President of the School Board from the date of the Board's first meeting in July, 1970, until July 13, 1971, on which latter date Mr. DeFrantz was elected to the Presidency, in which position he presently serves. The Board does not appear to be polarized along racial lines, and the personnel of central administration, operating under the direction of the Superintendent, likewise reflects a reasonable racial balance.

On February 6, 1970, an Indiana not-for-profit corporation, Citizens of Indianapolis for Quality Schools, Inc., attempted to intervene herein as a party defendant, asserting that its membership consisted exclusively of parents of students in the Indianapolis public schools who possessed a legally cognizable interest in the proceeding on such account. The motion to intervene was accompanied by petitions executed by some 5,000, more or less, parents who requested such intervention. The petition to intervene was denied by the Court, for the reason that the corporation did not appear to have an interest sufficient to permit intervention as of right pursuant to Rule 24 (a) (2), F.R.C.P.Hobson v. Hansen, D.C. Dist., 1968, 269 F.Supp. 401; Blocker v. Board of Education of Manhasset, New York, E.D.N.Y., 1964, 229 F.Supp. 714. Permissive intervention was also denied. However, Mr. Harold E. Hutson, attorney for the petitioner, was permitted to appear as amicus curiae, and in such capacity he attended the trial, was furnished with copies of all exhibits, and participated in the argument and post-trial briefing.

II. THE ISSUES

There are but two ultimate factual issues in this case, and two critical dates. The two dates are May 17, 1954, the date of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ("Brown I"), 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873, 38 A.L.R.2d 1180, and May 31, 1968, the date on which this suit was filed.

Brown I, of course, held that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place, and that segregation of children in public schools by operation of law solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprives the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities and hence of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Approximately one year later, in the same case ("Brown II"), 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, the Court ordered the District Courts involved in Brown and its companion cases "to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees * * as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases." It thereupon became the duty of all of the States, operating through their various agents, i. e., boards of school commissioners and the like, such as the defendant Board, to desegregate such school corporations as were practicing de jure segregation of their pupils as of May 17, 1954.

The two ultimate issues herein may therefore be stated as follows:

1. Did the School Board operate a dual school system, or, put another way, did it have a deliberate policy of segregating minority (Negro) students from majority (white) students in its schools on May 17, 1954?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, had the Board changed its policy so as to eliminate such de jure segregation on or before May 31, 1968?

The plaintiff United States of America has the burden of proving the affirmative of the first issue and, if proved, the negative of the second. The defendants deny de jure segregation on either of the critical dates, and further urge that a third critical date must be considered: the date of trial. Their argument in the latter connection is that no matter what may have gone before, if the Board is operating a unitary system as of the date of trial there is no justification for judicial intervention or for the granting of relief in equity.

As will be set out in more detail hereafter, the Court finds for the plaintiff on each of the ultimate issues of fact. The argument that conditions as of the date of trial should control the action is rejected, first for the legal reason that complaints, and the proof of same, must relate to conditions as of the date of filing; plaintiff is always entitled to judgment, if only for costs, if it proves the essential elements of its complaint as of such time. It is true that the initiation of a legal action may, and frequently does motivate the defendant to grant all or part of the relief sought prior to trial, thus rendering the action moot in whole or in part. In a simple action such as a suit on account, where the only relief sought is money, it is obvious that payment in full by the defendant before trial would effectively render the action moot for all time, save for payment of costs. Where the relief sought is equitable, however, particularly in a complex case such as this where the equitable relief sought is affirmative rather than being limited to a negative injunction, voluntary compliance in advance of trial would not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to insure the continuation of such compliance by appropriate orders. In any event, however, the Court finds that the Board had not, as of the date of trial, effectively desegregated its school system to the extent required by Brown II.

III. HISTORY

Perhaps one of the greatest public misunderstandings as to the operation of the public schools of the State of Indiana is that the responsibility for the conduct of such schools is purely local. It is not difficult to understand the basis for such misconception as the schools are, as a practical matter, operated by...