Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board

498 F. Supp. 580, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13551
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Louisiana
DecidedSeptember 11, 1980
DocketCiv. A. 1662-A
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 498 F. Supp. 580 (Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 498 F. Supp. 580, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13551 (M.D. La. 1980).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN V. PARKER, Chief Judge.

This school desegregation ease, like many other such cases, has bounced back and forth with regularity from district to appellate to district court levels since its original' filing in 1956. Its twists and turns are well documented in the reports of judicial decisions and they will not be detailed here. 1

The facts necessary to an understanding of the present posture of the case are: In 1960 the first order issued enjoining the school board from continuing to operate a racially segregated school system. In 1963, in response to a district court order, the school board implemented a “freedom of choice” desegregation plan which was eventually disapproved by the Court of Appeals. In 1970 the board submitted and the district court approved a “neighborhood zoning plan” for further desegregation of the school system. No appeal was taken and the board continues to operate under that 1970 court order. In 1974 plaintiffs-intervenors filed a motion for further relief, alleging that the neighborhood zoning plan had failed to achieve complete and effective desegregation of the entire system, as the law requires. The district court denied further relief and dismissed the suit, and the matter was again appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The matter is now before the Court on the latest remand with instructions from the Fifth Circuit. That Court reversed a district court finding of August 21, 1975, that the East Baton Rouge Parish school system is a “unitary” school system, that is, one from which all state-imposed racial segregation has been eliminated “root and branch.” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 14, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1275, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). The Court of Appeals directed this Court to reconsider that determination and to recon *583 sider the motion for further relief, and the Court of Appeals spelled out in considerable detail the precise issues to be reconsidered, as well as the standards to be applied in that reconsideration.

The United States, now also an intervenor, has filed a motion for partial summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., in which plaintiffs-intervenors join and which is the matter now pending for resolution. The United States claims that material facts, about which there is no genuine dispute, establish that it is entitled to judgment “on the issue of liability” as a matter of law. This action is presently assigned for trial beginning October 27, 1980, and the government asks that summary judgment be granted and that the trial be limited to the issue of “appropriate relief.”

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the government, as it is required to do by Local Rule, has submitted a list of material facts which it claims are undisputed and has also submitted portions of the depositions of Clyde H. Lindsey, a former Superintendent of Schools, and Lorin V. Smiley, an Assistant Superintendent of Schools. The school board opposes the motion and has submitted affidavits by former Superintendent of Schools, Robert J. Aertker, and Dr. Lindsey. The school board admits that the government’s list of undisputed facts “except for minor statistical errors” is correct. The matter was submitted to the Court on September 5, 1980, upon the filings and briefs of the parties. No oral argument is required.

The motion for summary judgment offered by the government presents two specific issues for resolution: (1) Does the continued existence of too many one-race schools demonstrate that the 1970 desegregation plan has not effectively desegregated the school system? (2) Does the teacher assignment plan instituted by the board under the 1970 court order have the effect of lowering the quality of education of black students by placing less experienced teachers in “black” schools?

On March 28, 1980, this Court by minute entry outlined the nature of the issues to be tried, insofar as here pertinent, as follows:

“I. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT

“A. If the evidence shows continued existence of substantially one-race schools, the school board will have the burden of proving that school assignments are genuinely non-discriminatory.

“B. The Court will scrutinize all such schools and the burden will be upon the school board to prove that their racial composition is not the result of present or past discriminatory action on the part of the board.

“C. If the evidence shows continued existence of substantially one-race schools, the Court will apply a presumption against the school board that their racial composition is the result of the school board’s discriminatory actions.

“II. TEACHER REASSIGNMENT

“A. Has the reassignment plan which was designed to remedy the disproportionate racial balance of teachers in the schools led to placement of inexperienced teachers in the ‘black’ schools?

“B. If the answer to ‘A’ above is ‘yes,’ has this hurt the quality of education in the ‘black’ schools?

“C. In the light of the dual purposes involved-desegregation must be effected and quality education must be promoted-are changes in the teacher assignment plan now required?

“D. If the answer to ‘C’' above is ‘yes,’ what are those changes and what effect will they have upon the educational system?”

Student Assignment

The undisputed facts which are to be measured against the above-stated standards establish the following:

During and before 1954, when the Supreme Court declared that state-imposed segregation of the races in public schools violates the Constitution, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), state law required that the public schools in East Baton Rouge Parish *584 be segregated by race and they were, in fact, segregated. In 1954 there were 53 schools in the system, 31 white and 22 black.

At present, about 68,000 pupils attend 113 public schools in East Baton Route Parish. The racial proportion is about 60 percent white^O percent black. At this time (the 1979-1980 school year) the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board operates 35 all-black schools 2 and 32 all-white schools. Although the government has not seen fit to establish precise numbers, it is undisputed that a majority of black students in the ' parish still attend all-black schools and a majority of the white students still attend all-white schools. Only 46 schools (about 40 percent of the total) have racially-mixed student bodies. 3

Of the 22 black schools existing in 1954, the school board has closed 4, with no white children ever attending, and has continued to operate 12 with at least 95 percent black student populations. Since 1954, the school board has also constructed 14 additional black public schools, all with at least 95 percent black student populations.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
498 F. Supp. 580, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-east-baton-rouge-parish-school-board-lamd-1980.