Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County

312 F. Supp. 1127
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 22, 1970
DocketNo. 70-31-Civ-TC
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 312 F. Supp. 1127 (Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County, 312 F. Supp. 1127 (S.D. Fla. 1970).

Opinion

[1128]*1128ORDER

CABOT, District Judge.

This school desegregation suit was brought by the father of two students and by the president of the Broward County Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against the Board of Public Instruction and the School Superintendent of Broward County, Florida, who operate an urban school system of 116 schools and more than 112,000 students. Jurisdiction vests in the court under Title 28, U.S.C. § 1343(3), and Title 42, U.S.C.A. §§ 1983 and 1985.

Hearing was held on January 16, 1970, on the application of the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from maintaining a dual system of public schools segregated by race and to compel them to formulate and operate a unitary integrated system of public schools. The court has considered the testimony, documentary proofs and advices of counsel.

The defendants have admitted and the court finds that the defendants are not operating a unitary integrated school system but are operating a dual system of public schools segregated by race contrary to recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, October 29, 1969, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19; United States v. Hinds County Board, 5 Cir., November 7, 1969, 423 F.2d 1264; Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School System (and consolidated cases en banc), 5 Cir., 1969, 419 F.2d 1211, as modified by the United States Supreme Court in Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board and Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 1970, 396 U.S. 290, 90 S.Ct. 608, 24 L.Ed.2d 477.

Alexander supervened all authority to the contrary, sent the doctrine of deliberal. speed to its final resting place, and adopted the principle of “immediacy” with respect to the time allowed to establish a unitary school system. Singleton specifically provided that the “immediacy” doctrine must be applied in “these and all other school cases now being or which are to be considered in this or the district courts of this circuit.”

Thus the principles established in the authorities cited apply to this case although the case was not filed until January 9, 1970, and the first hearing held January 16, 1970. The court finds that the summary of a plan for establishing a unitary system, which was prepared by the School Board [Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1], is not in sufficient detail to enable the court to determine its efficacy to establish a unitary system. The parties have agreed that the Board shall have until February 16, 1970, to file a suitable plan and that a hearing on objections to the plan may be held by the court on March 3, 1970. The court finds these periods of time to be the minimum needed for the purposes prescribed. No other plan exists which might be sooner adopted to establish a unitary system.

The Board advised that they had earlier consulted with the Office of Education of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and with the State Department of Education, as well as having some contact with the Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center, School of Education, University of Miami, in attempting to formulate a suitable plan for establishing a unitary system. The court suggests that the Board further avail itself of their expertize and especially that of the Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center.

Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that:

I.

Effective immediately the defendants may no longer operate a dual system based on race or color and are to operate henceforth subject to the terms hereof “as a unitary school system within which no person is ‘effectively excluded from any school because of race or color.’ ” United States v. Hinds County Board, supra, at 1267.

[1129]*1129II.

To effectuate the conversion to a unitary school system the defendants shall file with the court by February 16, 1970, a comprehensive plan to establish a unitary school system as set forth in the eases cited heretofore. Three copies shall be filed with the court and a copy furnished simultaneously to counsel for plaintiffs. The plan should include all details necessary to enable the court to test its efficacy to establish a unitary school system under the cited cases, and should include the following:

1. Charts showing student population by school, grade, and race, collected separately as to elementary schools, junior high or middle schools, and senior high schools.
2. Charts showing student population, current and proposed, by race and school, including totals and percentage of Blacks.
3. Charts showing school building capacities, permanent and portable, current and proposed.
4. Charts showing racial composition of instructional staff (faculty), current and proposed, collected separately as to elementary, junior high or middle, and senior high, including totals and percentage of Blacks.
5. A program of staff support or in-service training for orientation of faculty and other staff.
6. Criteria for establishing faculty and other staff eligibility for involuntary transfer between schools and for selecting faculty or other staff to be demoted or dismissed, if that should prove to be unavoidable.
7. Description of boundaries for attendance zones applying to each school.
8. Description of changes in transportation system.
9. A plan for establishing integrated athletic and other activity programs.
10. A pupil locator or spot map showing residential locations of the school pupils.
11. Timetable for implementation of the proposed plan. If any substantial delay is proposed in effectuating any phase of the plan, state the justification therefor.

III.

A hearing on objections to the plan will be held before the court on March 3, 1970, at 10:00 A.M.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS of LAW and FINAL JUDGMENT

OPINION

FINDINGS OF FACT

This school desegregation suit was brought by the father of two public school students and by the president of the Broward County Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against the Board of Public Instruction and the School Superintendent of Broward County, Florida, alleging, inter alia, denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendants operate an urban school system of 116 schools and more than 112,000 students on the Florida “Gold Coast.” The school system is growing at a high rate (8.1% from September, 1968, to September, 1969), consistent with the growth of the county, which is said to be the fastest growing major county in the nation. Jurisdiction vests in the court under Title 28 U.S.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
312 F. Supp. 1127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-board-of-public-instruction-of-broward-county-flsd-1970.