Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1

Willing- Tonya next friend minor ham; Matthews, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Sara as next friend of DISTRICT, Appellee, Davis, Khayyan Armstrong Alexa and Armstrong; Karlos Mrs. Alvin Hudson v. Hudson; friend as next of Tatia Mrs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL Taylor Hilton as next Parsha friend of 1; Faulkner; Mac DISTRICT NO. Taylor, Taylor, Hilton Jr. Brian and Hindman; Stratton; Mack Don Charles Taylor; Rev. as John M. Miles next Sain; McAllister; Sheryl Dunn; David friend Janice Miles Derrick and Tatum, Appellants. and Mildred Miles; Willingham Rev. Robert on be Joshua, and as half of President of the Little as Lorene next friend minors NAACIP; Joshua, Mayne Branch of Stacy Rock Lorene Leslie Joshua Joshua; Willingham, on behalf of Joshua and as President of Rev. Robert as Tonya Willing the North Little Rock Branch friend of minor next ham; NAACIP; Knight, Matthews, Katherine individu friend Sara as next ally Khayyan Davis, Armstrong as President of the Rock Little Alexa Armstrong; Classroom Teachers Hudson Association Karlos Mrs. Alvin (LRCTA); LRCTA; Hudson; Bullington, Ed in next friend of as Tatia Mrs. dividually Taylor and as President of the Pula as next of Parsha Hilton friend Taylor, ski Association of Taylor, Classroom Teachers Hilton Jr. Brian (PACT); PACT; Harrison, Taylor; John indi Rev. John Miles as next M. vidually and as President of the North friend of Janice Miles and Derrick Miles; Willingham Little Rock Classroom Associ Rev. Robert on be Teachers (NLRCTA); NLRCTA; ation Milton of and half as President of Little Jackson, NAACIP; individually and as a Noncer Branch of Lorene Rock Support Employee Educational tified Joshua behalf of and as President of District, Appel Rock Little School the North Little Rock Branch of the NAACIP; Knight, lees. Katherine individu ally and as President of the Little Rock LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Classroom Teachers Association DISTRICT, Appellee, (LRCTA); LRCTA; Bullington, Ed in v. dividually and as of the Pula President Association of Teachers ski Classroom ARKANSAS STATE BOARD EDU OF (PACT); PACT; Harrison, indi CATION; John Wayne Hartsfield; Walter vidually and as President of the North Turnbow; Harry Haines; A. Du Jim Little Rock Classroom Associ Teachers pree; Harry McDonald; Dr. P. Robert NLRCTA; (NLRCTA); Milton Newton; ation Preston; Alice L. L. Star Jeff Jackson, individually a Noncer Love, and as ling; Appellants. Earle Employee Support tified Educational Joshua, as Lorene next friend of minors District, Appel Little Rock Joshua, Stacy Mayne Leslie Joshua and lees. Joshua; Willingham, Rev. Robert as LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Tonya Willing- next friend minor DISTRICT, Appellee, ham; Matthews, Sara as next friend of Davis, Khayyan Armstrong Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Mrs. Alvin Hudson LITTLE NORTH ROCK SCHOOL DIS Hudson; friend as next of Tatia Mrs. TRICT; Witcher; Ginny Jones; Murry Taylor Hilton as next Parsha friend of Barnes; Stephens; Vicki Leon Mar Taylor, Taylor, Hilton Jr. and Brian Gossner; Morley, Ap ianne and Steve Taylor; Rev. John M. next' Miles as pellants. of Janice friend Miles and Derrick Joshua, Miles; Willingham Lorene as next friend of minors Rev. Robert on be- Joshua, Mayne Stacy and as Leslie Joshua half of President of the Joshua; Willingham, NAACIP; Rev. Robert Rock Branch Lorene as President on behalf Joshua Branch of Little Rock North

NAACIP; Knight, individu- Katherine Rock

ally of the Little and as President Association Teachers

Classroom (LRCTA); LRCTA; Bullington, in- Ed

dividually Pula- President of the and as Teachers of Classroom

ski Association Harrison, (PACT); PACT; indi- John

vidually the North President of and as Associ- Teachers

Little Rock Classroom NLRCTA; (NLRCTA); Milton

ation

Jackson, individually and a Noncer- Support Employee of

tified Educational District, Appel-

the Little Rock School

lees. and 85-1081.

Nos. 85-1079 Appeals, Court

United States

Eighth Circuit. April

Submitted Nov.

Decided Gibson, R. Judge,

John Circuit con- part part

curred in and dissented opinion Fagg,

filed an in which Circuit

Judge, joined.

Bowman, Judge, Circuit concurred part an dissented and filed

opinion. Neal, Chicago, 111.,

Phil for Pulaski Coun- ty- Ark., Lyon, Rock,

Phil Little for North Little Rock School Dist. Clark, Gen., Atty. Rock,

Steve Little Ark., for Arkansas State Bd. Washington, William Reynolds, Bradford D.C., Dept, for amicus of Justice. E. Philip Kaplan, Hollingsworth, P.A. Billheimer, Pulliam, M. Janet Little John Ark., Rock, Little Dist. Rock School Shaw, Theodore New City, York for Josh- ua intervenors. LAY, Judge,

Before Chief and HEA- NEY, BRIGHT, ROSS, MeMILLIAN, AR- NOLD, GIBSON, JOHN R. FAGG and BOWMAN, Judges, Circuit En Banc. HEANEY, Judge. Circuit The United States District Court Arkansas, trial, Eastern District of after County found that the defendants Pulaski (PCSSD), Special School District the North (NLRSD) Rock School District of Education of the State (State Board) contributed to Arkansas continuing segregation of Little Rock schools, an interdistrict and that appropriate. was The district I. court or- AND BACKGROUND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. dered of the three school consolidation dis- tricts, millage establishment a uniform heavily popu- is the most rate, discriminatory practic- elimination of metropolitan Arkansas, lated area in en- es, magnet compassing creation to en- independent three school dis- LRSD, NLRSD, opportunities tricts: and PCSSD. The hance educational new fifty-three square LRSD covers miles and district. It held that the State Board had comprises sixty City percent about of the remedial, oversight responsi- financial and Although population of Little Rock. bilities that would be at a detailed later the City approximately of Little Rock is appeal date. The defendants from the dis- white, in two-thirds the 1983-84 school addition, trict court’s order. Joshua year, seventy percent 19,052 of LRSD’s stu- intervenors, representing parents NLRSD, dents were black. Along with students, support filed a brief in of the LRSD is one the oldest continuously op- judgment, district court’s and the United erating school districts in Arkansas. The gener- States filed amicus brief in an curiae NLRSD twenty-six square covers miles and support appellants. al comprises nearly all of the of North We hold that district court’s Little Rock. Its population 1983-84 student 9,051 (36% black, liability clearly white). erroneous and 64% PCSSD surrounds LRSD and NLRSD. appro- intra- and interdistrict relief is Cre- ated in through the consolidation find, however, priate. that We the viola- thirty-eight rural independent school dis- tions can be remedied less intrusive tricts, it square covers 755 miles and con- measures than consolidation. These mea- tains the remainder county of the not in- sures, suggested which most of cluded in the other two school districts. the school defendant districts the Joshua 1983-84, 27,839 (22%black, it had students intervenors, authorizing include the district white). Each 78% of the three districts cur- adjustments, court to make limited after a rently operates under a court-ordered de- hearing, to the boundaries between Little decree, segregation and none of the dis- (LRSD) PCSSD, Rock School District and tricts has achieved unitary status. correcting segregative practices the within 30, 1982, On November LRSD filed this districts, each of the individual im- school PCSSD, NLRSD, against action the State proving quality any remaining the non- Arkansas, and the State Board.1 On LRSD, integrated providing com- 13, 1983, April the court district dismissed pensatory programs remedial and against the claim the State of Arkansas but districts, children in all three school autho- refused concerning to take similar action rizing establish, the court to district after a Board, holding the State the that Board is a hearing, magnet limited' a number proper light general party supervi- of its programs open schools and all sory relationship with the individual school County, requiring in Pulaski and the State districts, allegations the it has funding participate compen- Board to the carried out its duties in manner satory, quality pro- remedial and education segregation increased in Little Rock. The grams, establishing maintaining district court concluded that dismissal schools, magnet monitoring and in plan practical had no State Arkansas progress. district We remand to the court disposition effect on the of the lawsuit. opinion. for action with this consistent Little Rock School v. District Pulaski responsibility yet 1. LRSD also named as defendants Pulaski Board has a remedial that has County Board Education and individuals to be defined. serving on each the defendant boards 29, 1983, September On district court de- County Pulaski education. The of Edu- Governor, nied Little Rock's motion to add the participate litigation. cation did not in this The State Treasurer State Auditor as defendants. states, however, County court District, appeal premature sug- but 560 missed County Special School (E.D.Ark.1983). reopen dis- F.Supp. gested that the district court liability and reme- separated proceedings permit court PCSSD and NLRSD trict liability litigation held phases dy remedial alternatives consoli- to advance January hearings from v. dation. Little Rock School District (8th Cir.1984)(order); Joshua, 738 F.2d 445 13, 1984, April district court is- On Little Rock District School liability, finding that its sued decision District, F.2d County Special School failed to establish and NLRSD had (8th Cir.1984)(order). had unitary, integrated districts and racially dis- committed unconstitutional court further remedial The district held “signifi- criminatory acts which resulted through hearings July August segrega- interdistrict cant substantial 1984, and heard evidence on alternative Pula- Rock School District v. tion.” Little PCSSD, plans remedial submitted District, Special ski NLRSD, and the Joshua intervenors.3 On (E.D.Ark.1984). It 351-53 19,1984, it issued its decision on November these two school districts concluded that remedy, reaffirming its view that con- which had taken actions substantial had three districts solidation edu- segregative effects on necessary the constitutional vio- the school districts cation each of It further lations. also entered had failed to county, and that the districts concerning liability and the State Board’s segregative effects which redress these re- State Board’s remedial reaffirmed the century. over they perpetuated had F.Supp. at 1227-28. sponsibilities. 597 holding also reiterated its The district court subsequently mo- district court denied “necessary Board was State by the for reconsideration. tions defendants subject be made party who must ap- appeal This followed. The issues on remedial order.” Court’s (1) the district court’s peal are: whether only long- or that the 352-53. It concluded findings of are clear- interdistrict violations interdistrict vi- solution these short-term (2) erroneous; the ly whether consolidation, is and it scheduled olations scope the of the court’s exceeds hearings precise the means to consider (3) violations; and whether constitutional accomplish end. proceedings before the district court place hearings took The first remedial of Board and PCSSD deprived the State 5, through May Be- April 30 1984. process. due held, a of hearings group fore these Rock, parents in Little the Joshua FIND- II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S unsuccessfully intervenors, sought to inter- INTERDISTRICT VIOLA- INGS OF They appealed, proceedings.2 vene ARE NOT ERRO- TIONS CLEARLY 23, 1984, Court ordered May on this NEOUS. them to intervene court to allow the district hear evidence from them directed it to Legal Background. A. concerning alternatives to consoli- remedial Desegregation Legal Standards Meanwhile, the defendant school dation. Cases. appealed from the district districts had also ago, Supreme de- Thirty years Court finding violations order interdistrict court’s Education, 347 cided Brown v. Board of three ordering consolidation 686, (1954), 483, 23, 1984, L.Ed. 873 dis- 74 S.Ct. 98 May we U.S. On school districts. 1220, (E.D.Ark.1984); District, 1227 mo- 597 an earlier 2. The district court had denied 3, January District v. on see also Little Rock School Joshua intervene tion 82, District, County Special 738 F.2d 85 School heard from court also 3. The district Cir.1984) (8th (allowing by teacher intervention intervenors, McKnight representing the teachers representatives). employed Little Rock in the three districts. County Special School v. Pulaski School District 410 Arlington Heights Metropolitan v. public Hous-

that “in the field of education the Development Corporation, ‘separate equal’ but has no doctrine 429 U.S. 252, place. Separate 555, (1977); educational facilities are 97 S.Ct. 50 L.Ed.2d 450 1, 495, Keyes Id. v. School District unequal.” No. inherently 74 413 S.Ct. U.S. Brown, Supreme 189, 2686, (1973). 93 692. Since Court has S.Ct. 37 L.Ed.2d 548 obligation Although impact discriminatory affirmed school authori- operating segregated take prove ties schools “to state action does not in itself a con- steps might violation, necessary whatever be to con- stitutional to a “[a]dherence unitary system particular vert to a racial or policy practice, which ‘with full knowledge predictable discrimination would be eliminated root and of the effects of Raney Education, v. Board upon branch.” such adherence racial imbalance 443, 446, 1697, 1698, system among 391 88 20 many U.S. S.Ct. is one factor (1968); Green v. may L.Ed.2d others be considered a court Board, 430, 437-38, determining 391 U.S. 88 in whether an inference of ” 1689, 1693-94, (1968). S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d drawn.’ Co- segregative be intent should Moreover, Penick, Supreme lumbus Board Education v. Court has held that 449, 2941, 465, 2950, instance of a failure or refusal 443 U.S. 99 S.Ct. “[e]ach duty (1979). fulfill this affirmative continues the L.Ed.2d 666 violation the Fourteenth Amendment.” Although seg an basic evaluation of Penick, Columbus Board Education v. regative important determining effects is 449, 459, 2941, 2947, S.Ct. scope of a per violation and hence the (1979); Dayton Board Edu- L.Ed.2d 666 scope remedy, reviewing missible Brinkman, cation v. 433 U.S. upon quantify court not called 2766, 2772, (1977) 97 S.Ct. 53 L.Ed.2d 851 precise segregative effects of each individ II). (Dayton ual act of discrimination. Dayton Board may impose Before a court an Brinkman, Education 443 U.S. desegregation remedy, must 99 S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d 720 find an interdistrict constitutional {Dayton II). (1979) violation. I, Milliken Supreme explained Court This Court has affirmed of in prerequisite: approved terdistrict violations and in has separate Before the boundaries of terdistrict remedies sev may autonomous school set districts See, e.g., Morrilton School eral occasions. by consolidating separate aside units States, No. District 32 v. United F.2d purposes by imposing for remedial (8th Cir.1979); United States v. remedy, it cross-district must be shown Missouri, 1365, (8th State F.2d 1371 515 of that there has been a constitutional viola- Cir.1975); Haney County v. Edu Board of produces tion one district a within County, cation Sevier (8th 429 F.2d 364 of significant segregative effect in another Cir.1970). required also a We have state Specifically, district. it must be shown (that had been found to committed racially discriminatory the acts of violations) participate intradistrict to in an state or local school districts, of though intradistrict even rem single school district have sub- been a edy required expend the state to funds in segrega- stantial cause of interdistrict violating school districts other the dis tion. Missouri, trict. Liddell v. State of 731 — Bradley, 418 717, 744-45,

Milliken v. denied, (8th U.S. cert. Cir.), F.2d 1294 U.S. 3127-28, 3112, 94 41 1069 -, 82, (1984). S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 105 83 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 30 I) (1974) (Milliken added). (emphasis Review Findings. Factual of As with fourteenth amendment viola- tion, purpose discriminatory will not the district court’s must We reverse Davis, Washington respect liability v. shown. U.S. 426 factual 229, 2040, (1976); clearly they 96 L.Ed.2d we conclude that are S.Ct. 48 597 unless

411 Anderson particularly, 52(a); more school Fed.R.Civ.P. erroneous. — City, -, eases: v. Bessemer U.S. of conspic- Pull- of the more (1985); The elimination 1504, 518 84 L.Ed.2d 105 S.Ct. governmentally ordained uous forms of Swint, 456 U.S. v. man-Standard * * * segregation racial counsels undi- 1781, 1789-91, 287-90, 72 L.Ed.2d 102 S.Ct. adjudi- minished deference to the factual II, (1982); Dayton 534 n. 443 U.S. at judges of federal trial cations Board Columbus 8; 2977 n. 99 S.Ct. at of these, as uniquely situated cases such Penick, 468-71, v. Education 443 U.S. at appraise the societal judges those opinions (concurring 99 S.Ct. at in the communities where forces at work United C.J., Stewart, J.); Burger, they sit. Co., Gypsum v. States States United Columbus, at 99 S.Ct. at 2983 U.S. 92 L.Ed. 525, 541, U.S. 68 S.Ct. Stewart, (Justice with whom Chief Justice (1948). Nor we reverse such will find- Burger joins, concurring). they on inferences when are based ings Segregation in the B. State’s Role rigorous stan- other facts unless the the Three same rule are met. Ander- dards School Districts. son, Supreme at 1511. The Court S.Ct. emphasized importance has history The district court detailed the cases, clearly rights rule in civil erroneous state-imposed segregation public in the Swint, see, e.g., Pullman-Standard in the State of Arkansas schools 1789-91, and, 287-90, steps by perpetuate taken state4 102 S.Ct. efficiency public schools of the finding of Education that the State Board agency through 80-113. proper § state State.” Ark.Stat.Ann. was the failing responsible creating of Education has the au- dises- The State Board systems regulations concerning thority promulgate in Pulaski Coun- the dual school tablish ty, by earmarking used local the district court noted: and use of funds (Ark.Stat.Ann. 80-1305), § school districts has, by of Education stat- State Board funds local school use of federal education ute, public supervision general all over (Ark.Stat.Ann. 80-142) ad- for the § districts in the State of Arkansas. Ark.Stat. Transportation Aid of State ministration general In addition to that Ann. 80-113. § (Ark.Stat.Ann. districts Funds local school responsibility, Depart- State and the 80-735), operation of for the school § specific ment of Education have numerous (Ark.Stat.Ann. 80- §§ buses local districts duties, including approval plans and 1809, 80-1810). expenditures public funds for new may lend 80-113, The State Board of Education (Ark.Stat.Ann. buildings §§ Revolving State Loan Fund review, funds from the 80-3506; 775); disap- approval and T. purchase and other for the of school buses (Ark. budgets proval local school district major repairs making equipment, 80-113, 80-1305; 773); T. ad- §§ Stat.Ann. constructing buildings, for to school additions funds for education ministration of all federal buildings, purchase new school of sites for 80-140); (Ark.Stat.Ann. disburse- §§ buildings, of new school for the construction Transportation Aid Funds to ment of State buildings. purchase surplus and for (Ark.Stat.Ann. 80- §§ local school districts 735, § Ark.Stat.Ann. 80-942. 80-736); assisting school districts included). (emphasis (T. at 1227-28 system operation transportation their findings. contest these The State Board does not Rather, 774); Revolving lending the State funds from first, argues: the district court’s (Ark.Stat. school districts Loan Fund local imposes the financial burdens on decision 80-942); disapproval or approval §Ann. of finding expenditures such (ArhStat. without that Board by school districts bonds issued local the Board’s required to redress the effects of are 80-1105; 775); advising school dis- T. §Ann. violations; second, the Board (T. 777); constitutional regarding issuance bonds tricts the of by procedural process the dis- was denied due regulation operation the school buses and of of court; third, that district court’s find- 80-1809.2). the trict ings (Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ relationship any causai to failed establish has of Education broad The State Board found and the conditions public between violations authority supervise statutory the remedied; fourth, the district court’s and generally, take of the state schools necessary to exceeds the limits necessary "pro- remedial order may it deem what action of violations. In the effects the correct event, physical of school children mote the welfare the court’s find error in organization we no promote increase the system, particularly dual elementary school in LRSD. rior to the black schools in pointed that, F.Supp. despite The court LRSD. 584 out the 330. mandating in maintaining state’s role disparities high The at the school level mid-1960’s, system the the dual until the pronounced even were more than at the nothing state done in had assist disman- elementary Historically, level. LRSD tling system. dual The the court further high maintained a school for black students found the state’s acts had an interdis- fully that was accredited the North Cen- segregative respect trict effect with to the tral Association. Id. As as late the mid- in County. three school districts 1950’s, however, no facility similar was clearly

These not erroneous. maintained PCSSD. paid Id. PCSSD transportation the tuition and costs for segregation role in the state’s the numerous black students who traveled public began schools of Arkansas in 1867 from PCSSD to attend in LRSD. legislature requir- a when the enacted law F.Supp. district court cred- public separate schools for blacks. Act testimony ited several studies and the 35, 5,1866-1867 6,1867, of Feb. No. Ark. § several to the witnesses effect 98, 1931, legislation Acts 100. In this was was identified the school district in the superseded by required which a law the provided opportuni- state which educational in board of school directors each district of ties black students. Id. This identifi- separate the state to “establish schools for cation tended to draw black students to persons.” white and colored Ark.Stat.Ann. state, particu- LRSD from all the over 80-509(c) (Repl.1980). This statute was § larly County.5 from Pulaski The state was 1, repealed on November fully Indeed, disparities. aware of these though Even the had documenting United States Constitu- commissioned studies disparities existed, required pub- tion and that that the black and white disparities prominent among were equal, lic schools be Cumming v. Rich- factors that drew black families to Little Education, County mond county Rock from the and the rest of the 197, (1899); U.S. 20 S.Ct. 44 L.Ed. 262 state. see Plessy also Ferguson, It seriously cannot be denied that (1896),

16 S.Ct. 41 L.Ed. 256 black Little Rock School District’s maintenance public in schools Arkansas were inferior the only North Central accredited throughout white schools. What was true high County in black and in- the state true for NLRSD and PCSSD. in a deed the entire area led to concentra- Expenditures per pupil for black in children tion of in this blacks district. For almost elementary schools in these were districts century only it has half assumed substantially they less white than were for giving burden quality education children, the salaries of black teachers to blacks and from far substantially schools black lower corners of State but has also been they than were for the white teachers object racially motivated attacks schools, illiteracy white and the rate political certain groups. and cultural higher substantially children was at 330.6 particular that white children. Of importance case, the black elementa- when Granite Mountain ry housing project these districts were infe- being two blacks was imposition responsibilities opinion, public housing remedial no has been construct- PCSSD, through housing state State Board. See Evans v. ed and credit restric- Buchanan, (three- (D.C.Del.) prevented buying renting tions housing blacks from judge panel), aff'd, 423 U.S. 96 S.Ct. much that district. (1975). L.Ed.2d 293 study 6. LRSD introduced into evidence following the made conclusion: encouraging migration 5. Other factors blacks of sum, jobs public housing. County to LRSD were 584 In students black from Pulaski F.Supp. pointed boundary at 345. As out in this the district attend elsewhere crossed senior

413 years. in the for state, system the the state These ac- the at behest of planned, districts, legislation against primarily school enacted directed affected tions were authorizing project the site transfer heightened identity of the that district This insured PCSSD LRSD. action from County. as the “black” district housing major project would black 20, May 1954, days three On after LRSD, and that LRSD would be built I, the Education an Brown as recognized to be the school continue responsibility is our nounced “[i]t County in Pulaski which educated district comply require with federal constitutional housing project dis- children. This and we to do so ments intend when the fully more cussed infra. Supreme Court of the United out States Notwithstanding the state’s awareness Cooper the method to followed.” lines be disparities between the educational Aaron, 1, 8, 1401, 1404, 358 78 S.Ct. v. the school districts the LRSD and other (1958). By 5 the spring 3 L.Ed.2d state, require it took remedial action to no Little Rock Board Education had the opportunities educational adequate plan adopted desegre would which in school other than LRSD.7 districts blacks by large the 1963. A gated Id. summarizing pre-Brown history of In the majority of citizens of Rock Little County, segregation in Pulaski school plan that the “the agreed was best for that, historically, court found “[a]s pupils of all Id. interests District.” of blacks was con- far as education plan approved the federal dis cerned, in Pula- school district boundaries court, Cooper, F.Supp. v. 143 trict Aaron ignored.” F.Supp. 584 ski Court, (E.D.Ark.1956),and this Aaron (8th Cir.1957), Cooper, F.2d 361 Supreme after the Court’s decisions Even sought Supreme review was II, I and Brown the State in Brown Court. steps to took no dismantle Arkansas Meanwhile, pre- the state intervened to or to segregated system school Arkansas ' desegregation of the Rock vent improve quality of the black schools November, 1956, Arkansas’s schools. generally or the defendant the state adopted sponsored voters three initiatives particular. districts in To the con- school political leadership. These by the state’s trary, it took a series of actions which delayed the elimination of dual school included: doubled, City high of Little Rock more than in Little Rock from 1920s to 23,000 51,000. They probably approximately to more became numerous in 1960s. early During period, population Paul Dunbar the same the white 1930s when Laurance Rock, magnet county excluding High School acted as of Little annexed terri- opportunity territory tory, cluded, who little to attend annexed is in- students had declined. If the high population At some in their own district. senior point, the white increased from 79,000 105,000. worked out a tuition the two districts CEN- See BUREAU OF THE County paid SUS, POPULATION, agreement which Pulaski under CENSUS OF CHAR- POPULATION, facilities individ- for the use of Little Rock ACTERISTICS OF THE vol. "county” designa- 4; CENSUS, to a students. This led ual THE CEN- BUREAU OF cards, POPULATION, incidence of on student record tion OF SUS OF CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION, a substantial number which shows that popula- vol. 1. For THE related county statistics, students were enrolled at Dunbar in tion see note 5 infra. coun- Students from the the 1940s and 1950s. Indeed, successfully argued in the State Board ty Little Rock into continued to attend case in that black a federal district court 1960s, as the but numbers decreased their right high did not have the to attend began county provide sen- more and better within school districts and that "the their high ior schools. (J.D.R.) pro- Negro education best Designated interests of will be Record at 915-21. Joint LRSD, of a moted the maintenance consolidated into movement of blacks This high serving Negro "consistently districts[.]” several un- found to

the district court Special Trustees DeWitt Pitts v. Board in PX derstated” shown District, (E.D.Ark. general population statistics. is reflected in 1949). population of the 1950 to the black From any branch, 1. An to the department amendment state Government or constitu- directing legislature thereof, oppose agency tion the to or and to resist the usur- every pation rights powers Brown in constitutional the and manner reserved govern- until time as the federal to by such this State or our sister states enforcing Brown, ment ceases from and Federal Government. employee state, providing any provide 2. Give such advice such subdivisions, any willfully or who of its legal assistance as Commission con- carry refuses to out mandates of this necessary expedient, siders or when re- automatically amendment shall forfeit quested writing by to do so resolution subject prosecution to

his office and be adopted by governing authority to penal by district, under laws be enacted any upon matters, wheth- legislature. Ark. Const.Amend. 44. Al- involving er litigation civil or criminal or though otherwise, this amendment remains on the relating commingling to the books, recognized state au- public races schools of the State. being thorities as unconstitutional. Study and collect information con- interposition economic, A calling cerning legal resolution of social and devel- opment constituting deliberate, to adopt palpable on all states and citizens a con- dangerous prohibiting stitutional amendment feder- invasions or encroach- public education, upon rights powers ments al involvement State pledging to school reserved to State under desegrega- resistance [the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitu- tion. tion], law, pupil placement 3. A Ark.Stat. -1524, authorizing 80-1519 to local F.Supp.

§§ See at 330-32. superintendents boards of education required prointegration The statute also or- reassign to transfer or students or teach- ganizations register report to to the among any ers schools within their dis- sovereignty state commission. See Aaron tricts, “adjoining or to districts whether F.Supp. 13, (E.D.Ark. Cooper, v. counties, in the same or different and for 1958). funds or pay- transfer of school other actions, Notwithstanding these the Little ments one Board another for or on Rock preliminary Board of Education took account of such attendance.” Dove v. steps to admit nine black students to Cen Parham, (E.D. F.Supp. n. 4 High tral fall School in the of 1957. Gover Ark.1959). Faubus, however, nor barred the nine stu See 584 at 330-32. High entering dents from Central January, legislature the state by ordering the Arkansas National Guard enacted, signed, legisla- and the Governor to stand at the schoolhouse door and to implementing tion constitutional “off declare the school limits” to black amendment, legislation including authoriz- responded Eisenhower students. President spend local school districts school by dispatching troops guarantee federal litigation, integration funds to defend and the admittance of the nine black students. (or delay) relieve at least school chil- They troops were admitted after the ar compulsory dren attendance from at racial- rived troops and the remained in Little ly mixed schools. Governor Orval Faubus year. Rock for the rest of the school Sub creating signed legislation also a state sov- sequently, federal court en commission, ereignty powers, with broad joined using Governor Faubus to: Arkansas National Guard to obstruct or Cooper, orders, 1. Perform and all acts and interfere with Aaron court (E.D.Ark. things necessary proper 226-27 deemed 1 affirmed, 1957),

protect sovereignty of the State of and this Court Faubus v. States, (8th Arkansas, F.2d 806-08 and her sister states from en- United Cir.1958). croachment thereon the Federal

415 1958, appeal pending, op- While the above was February, of extreme In “because * * * largely hostility engendered public ponents desegregation a state secured by and actions the the official attitudes prevent injunction opening court to the Cooper Legislature,” the v. and Governor integrated high “partially schools” of 1407, 12, Aaron, 358 at 78 at U.S. S.Ct. again, Rock. the federal dis- Little Once petitioned the district court to local officials injunction set and this trict court aside plan at 1961 “the postpone until least Cooper, Court affirmed. See Thomason v. integration in the Little Rock gradual racial (8th Cir.1958). 254 F.2d 808 public which the Little Rock schools” 1958, called August, Governor Faubus adopted in 1955 for Board of Education had “emergency legislature, session” of the an high school level for implementation at prevent- aimed at which enacted three laws year. 1957-58 school Aaron v. Coo- ing Little Rock of Education Board (E.D.Ark.1958). 13, F.Supp. 14 per, 163 complying Act 4 autho- from with Brown. The district court found “between Governor, by proclamation, rized to spring and of 1957 there was a marked fall any public any or close all schools within toward change public attitude [the pending referendum “for” school district a plan,” persons desegregation] integration willing accept “against” “racial of all formerly been to it or who had changed minds and had come to district;” their the school Act 6 had schools within “that the local School the conclusion permitted segregat- to transfer prevent do to had not done all could public private ed schools across district 21. The integration.” 163 they ordinarily lines if the schools attended legislature’s noted that the state court desegregated; were to and Act 9 autho- had their effect at “enactments 1957-58 rized the removal recall members throughout the State in Rock and Little (This Act of local school district boards. plan[.]” stiffening to the Id. opposition removing was from the aimed “opposition of this- state-fostered Because fa- Rock Board of Education those who * * * integration principle desegregation.) vored * * * pattern of south- runs counter 13, 1958, Fau September On Governor three ern life which has existed over proclamation closing a the four issued bus id., years,” “correspond- hundred and the schools, high Little Rock white and black. ing damage program,” the educational They throughout the 1958- remained closed itself, 26, Little Rock id. at and the year, the school board leas 59 school two-and-one-half-year the court held that private corpora to a the schools desegregation was neces- moratorium operate intended to them on tion which sary. The federal courts segregated basis. reversed, Cooper, Aaron v. This Court operation uncon found that such would be (8th Cir.1958), 33, and the F.2d private corpora enjoined stitutional affirmed our decision on Supreme Court schools, operating the see Aaron tion from 1958, 12, approval quoting with September (E.D. McKinley, v. filed the school board: pleading Ark.1959), v. Aar sub nom. Faubus executive, aff'd legislative, judicial de- on, 4 L.Ed.2d 80 S.Ct. government op- the state partments of curiam). Nevertheless, (1959) (per of Little Rock posed closed for Little Rock schools remained laws, calling enacting out schools during period, year, and entire school making vilifying fed- troops, statements from courts, failing and some black students many white law federal eral agencies segregated law enforcement attended utilize state Little Rock public to maintain judicial processes legislature The Arkansas state PCSSD. peace. authorizing the state a statute enacted of stu pay the interdistrict transfer 1, 15, 78 S.Ct. at Cooper, 358 U.S. Aaron segregated desegregated to (1958). dents public private However, schools. Ark. litigation Acts 1959 fashion. Acts, Special No. 236. See Ark. Session again alleging once commenced that black independent an study No. 6. In being children were denied admittance to among described the transfers number predominantly white schools Little Rock County the three districts to “assigned ‘Negro’ schools near their preserve segregation as “excessively home.” Clark Board v. Education of of high.” at F.Supp. Significant 584 339. District, 661, Little Rock School 369 F.2d numbers of interdistrict transfers contin- (8th Cir.1966). 665 ued until PX 10. 1965. 1965, April 22, formally On the Board Shortly closing after the school act was pupil assignment abandoned use of the law unconstitutional, declared the Little Rock adopted plan. a freedom-of-choice Board of announced Education it id., case, in the Clark litigants When the reopen high would the Little Rock alleged that plan this freedom-of-choice year for the 1959-60 school because “we standards, failed to meet constitutional public will not abandon free education in Little Rock School Board advanced “a num- * * * order Norwood desegregation.” to avoid desegregation plans ber of good in a Tucker, 798, v. (8th Cir.1961). 287 805 F.2d faith provide effort to a solution to continu- announced, publicly The Board also how- Little Rock School Dis- litigation.” ous ever, that it advice from awaited “Gover- County Special trict v. Pulaski School * * * attorneys nor Faubus and his [on] District, However, 584 at 334. * * * whereby may method we maintain January 1967 was “[u]ntil compulsory segregation operate and still governor faced with a hostile and state schools.” Id. public high our unfriendly legisla- administration an ture,” id., During year, up 1959-60 school helped “hysteri- which stir id., assigned particular schools in ac political atmosphere,” cal led to pupil place cordance with the Arkansas proposals the defeat of the several for ment laws of 1956 and 1959. Ark.Stat. desegregation. more effective school through Ann. 80-1519 In Par §§ rely Little Rock continued to on a free- Dove, v. (8th Cir.1959), ham 132 271 F.2d (as desegregation plan dom-of-choice mod- Parham, and Dove v. (8th 282 F.2d 256 Clark, 661) until, 1968, ified in 369 F.2d Cir.1960), pupil we held that the Arkansas plan it generally became clear that this was placement facially laws were not unconsti ineffective and not meet the would consti- although recognized tutional we Supreme tutional standards practice perpetu laws could in be used to spelled out in Green v. recently Court had segregated ate schools. 271 F.2d at 136. New School Board Kent Coun- Tucker, In Norwood v. (8th 287 F.2d 798 ty, 430, 438, 1689, 391 U.S. S.Ct. Cir.1961), we held that Little Rock (1968); Raney v. Board of L.Ed.2d 716 using Board of Education “the stan- District, Education Gould School * * * dards and criteria the Arkansas [of 88 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 727 placement pupil purpose for the laws] (1968); and Monroe Board Commis- impeding, frustrating thwarting and inte- Jackson, sioners 391 U.S. gration.” Id. at 808. We called the (1968). S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d We continuing Board’s injunc- attention to the Clark v. Board Education noted Aaron requiring tion the first case them District, Little Rock 426 F.2d “ * * * steps’ to ‘take affirmative facili- that, (8th Cir.1970), despite considera- accomplish operation tate and of the school progress desegregating ble several Little nondiscriminatory basis.” Id. district on a schools, Rock ‘freedom of choice’ “[u]nder approximately Negro 1968-69 75% Thereafter, in which their Rock Board of students attended schools Ed- race or more of the attempted pu- ucation the Arkansas constituted student to use 90% placement pil nondiscriminatory body.” law in systems. crimination in their school Nor year, the Little the 1969-70 school For racially has taken action to foster neutral it adopted plan of Education Rock Board Rather, approved has ra- siting. assignment geographic pupil based

for sitings in cially segregative school violation id., Clark, held zones. we attendance recently court decrees as of district deseg- plan’s program student impressive pro- 1980. Id. fostered It has regation did not meet the constitutional grams improve quality education to eliminate racial discrimina- requirement im- generally, has made no effort but Id. at 1041. We tion “root and branch.” prove educationally de- the instruction Education the Little Rock Board of ordered discriminatorily prived served black file the district court an effective provides 1228. It students. 597 implementation no desegregation plan for transportation not pro- but does funds year. later than 1970-71 school transportation specific to aid vide funds the Ultimately, it not until was F.Supp. It desegregation. at 1228. year most Little Rock 1973-74 school that has also failed to seek all federal funds See School desegregated. were schools desegregation efforts. available to aid Rock, Desegregation in Little U. S. Com 1950’s, encouraged the it has consoli- Since 1977). (June, Rights 7 mission on Civil promote of districts to effi- dation school Thus, although of the Little Rock Board education, ciency quality and but has shortly after announced Education had encourage no consolidation taken action to I that would begin desegregate Brown to it segregation to racial which it re- end the pro by complete 1957 and the century. its schools at quired for over a 1963, by day, the active intervention To state takes the cess this the delaying permit de position a central factor in Arkansas law does not state was that local in their Rock until to assist school boards segregation of the Little Appellant desegregation efforts. Brief of 1973, contributing increasing to and in the Board at 6. dis State in LRSD.8 The concentration blacks peri throughout that this trict court found County Special School C. Pulaski day, never and to this the state has od Segregation in the District’s Role acknowledged duty assist its affirmative to County Dis- of the Pulaski districts in their local school tricts. promulgated efforts and has never encourage district court set forth some detail guidelines which would rules significant to its dis- the factors it considered to eliminate the local school districts during contrary in Arkansas finding specific statewide trends dis- to The district court's plaintiffs’ criminatory by period, support to the defendants had a the same and tend actions continuing theory racial effect the racial turmoil substantial the state-created supported by general composition is of LRSD 1950’s fostered substantial white LRSD population 1950 to statistics. From and school flight This LRSD to PCSSD NLRSD. from City population of the of Little the white throughout and then trend continued 1960’s (if through significantly growth declined Rock By during the 1970’s. accelerated excluded), popula- is while the white annexation population had increased to of PCSSD white and the remainder of North Little Rock tion 50,000 123,000 During in 1950. the same from County extraordinary increased an Pulaski by population period, increased PCSSD’s black through population gains Including rate. 10,000. See BUREAU OF THE CEN- less than SUS, 1950, boundary expansions Rock of the Cities Little and 1980 CENSUS OF annexation) (13,219 by persons added POPULATION, OF CHARACTERISTICS THE (6,414 persons an- Little added North Rock POPULATION —ARKANSAS. THE nexation), corresponding population losses popula the black student From 1956 County, unincorporated of Pulaski areas 3,481 10,274, an increased from tion LRSD Rock population of Little white time, During same over increase of 87%. 3,807 by only while from to 1960 increased population of LRSD decreased the white student population in- North Little Rock white 16,242 11,951, a decrease of 25%. See 11,526 population and the white creased (E.D. Cooper, 860-61 Aaron County increased remainder of Pulaski 1956), exhibit 9. and PCSSD Ark. 13,266. generally demographic were data These holding signifi- that PCSSD had committed County trict boundaries in Pulaski ignored.”) cant violations. County paid interdistrict It further many Pulaski found these violations are of continu- interdistrict transfers. Some black fami- justify imposing nature and county an interdis- lies moved from the to Little Rock trict disparities which would include PCSSD. because educational These clearly opportunities. 915-19; erroneous. J.D.R. F.Supp. at 330-40. PCSSD created 1927 pursuant was Acts, Act 152 of cooperated Arkansas gave County residents Pulaski out- and the state in a substantial side of the cities of Little segregative by permitting Rock and North act the annexa- right organize single Little Rock the tion of lands for the construction of a black 21, 1927, July On housing project, district. consol- residential the Granite approved by idated school district project, insuring ref- Mountain thus referendum, erendum. Pursuant project students in the would attend County Education or- PCSSD, school in LRSD rather enhancing dered that “all of Pulaski position outside LRSD’s the school territory embraced in the cities of responsibility district with the of educating Rock and North Little Rock be created housing project black children. This dis- special organized into a greater district to be cussed in detail When the infra. County named and known Spe- as state closed for the LRSD 1958-59 school 584 F.Supp. year cial School District.” at 340. to avoid the of that system, “The historic intention accepted school PCSSD students [was] of boundaries of the cities Rock segre- Little and from the Little Rock schools into the gated North Little Rock remain coterminous with county. of the These inter- respective school 584 district until transfers continued the mid- districts[.]” F.Supp. at 340. 1960’s. inadequate 1960’s, maintained generally elementa- Until the late LRSD

ry grew schools for blacks and was City grew, without an as the of Little Rock and high accredited school for blacks until 1955. there is no contention that these annexa- F.Supp. tions, Accordingly, many 584 at 329-30. significant exception with the elementary black county project, students from the Granite Mountain were intended any county and who segregative 1968, black student from the In a effect.9 high wished to an Supreme attend accredited school Court announced that freedom-of- had no reasonable plans alternative other than to choice failing to dismantle dual systems attend the black schools Little Rock. and that “if it cannot be (“As F.Supp. 584 at 330 plan far as the edu- shown that such a will further rather concerned, of delay cation blacks were than unitary, school dis- conversion to a nonra- Village Heights 9. Cammack was annexed in 1948. The was annexed 1967. The number of not of record does involved reveal the number students students involved in the annexation is dis- party record, in this annexation no to this closed in the but the annexation encom- litigation discriminatory any purpose attributes passed only of the value of the real .0058% to this annexation. J.D.R. 2104-06. Euclid property in PCSSD. J.D.R. 2169-85. Candle- Place was annexed in 1949. The indi- record wood was annexed in 1968. It was a white cates that nineteen students were involved in apparently residential area annexation party this annexation. J.D.R. 2107. No to this significant a was not one as it involved litigation discriminatory purpose attributes only .0016 the assessed valuation of the Coun- Meadowcliff, to this annexation. ley Val- Pleasant 2186-2202, 655, ty. J.D.R. addition to Brady were annexed in 1961. The above, the five annexations outlined LRSD an- record does not reveal the number students nexed a tract of uninhabited land in 1964 parties involved and attribute no discrimina- Metropolitan use a site as for the Vocational tory purpose to this transfer. J.D.R. 2108-50. open School from LRSD Each the annexations cited above came at a PCSSDschool districts. J.D.R. 651. T. time when each Pulaski school district at 1129. operating system. a dual school Walton

419 to remain coterminous cial, nondiscriminatory system, trict boundaries Monroe, racial unacceptable.” 391 from an unconstitutional mo- springs held must be 1705; Raney, 459, significant at 391 88 that has interdistrict effects U.S. at S.Ct. tive 1698; Green, 446, 88 391 Rock District.” 584 U.S. at S.Ct. Little 26).10 required 88 It (finding S.Ct. U.S. at at 341 eliminated root and segregation be result, City As a Little parents and children of branch. ninety-one square encompassed miles Rock action to secure com LRSD took immediate only fifty-three square covered while LRSD pliance these decisions. This Court industrial and residential miles. Attractive Supreme complied with the Court mandate county part were made areas implement compre required LRSD City of Little Rock but remained within desegregate the schools of plan hensive becoming PCSSD rather Edu that district. See Clark v. LRSD. These areas are residential sec- District, 426 Little Rock School cation of many tions white families either denied, 402 (8th Cir.1970), cert. F.2d 1035 and, subsequently moved into lived 122 29 L.Ed.2d U.S. 91 S.Ct. result, children their now attend schools in Education, v. Board (1971) ; Clark City If the boundaries of the PCSSD. denied, (8th Cir.1971), cert. F.2d its had Little Rock and school district re- 30 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. coterminous, mained black-white ratio Cir.1972) (8th aff'd, (1972), F.2d sixty- the Little Rock schools would now be (mem.). Supreme After the Court decided forty seventy-thirty.11 rather than trilogy, the concurrent annexa the Green court that the Little found tion of lands Rock and, on, LRSD point between PCSSD and had LRSD ended boundaries keep predomi expand, maintained to city but bound been continued predominantly relatively nantly black and PCSSD LRSD remained static. aries of Rock, further found that these bound at 340. The dis white. It had a County Spe ary manipulations have substantial trict found that “Pulaski court segregative freezing its effect. 584 cial District’s acts of School findings are practice 351. These not to the of at boundaries discontinue They clearly were based on City Little Rock School Dis- erroneous.12 allowing 10. The 1,500 city Nearly in within limits. additional district court found that PCSSD was the living early the 1970’s students and 323 black students in terested in consolidation until white desegre city adopted comprehensive bused to PCSSD schools located when LRSD the (The gation expression plan. city latest of such in beyond the limits. 14, 1968, May on when the PCSSD terest came agreed accept request for a Board to LRSD’s The district court also found: 12. meeting the boards to consider consoli of two large the formal and Because of numbers of Proceedings Records and of PCSSD dation. Board, among the transfers of students dis- informal 14, 1968; finding May F.Supp. at 341 abetting of the the tricts and the transfers banc, 22.) May an this Court en On districts, cooperation among the the districts Matthes, required opinion by Judge M.C. areas, personnel in other the recur- and their comprehensive desegregation implement a to plan of consolidation the rent consideration long-standing practices trilogy, decided with the Green consistent to of annexations the Green, 439; May U.S. at 1968. districts, city the Court finds that two 1694; 446; Raney, at U.S. at 88 S.Ct. S.Ct. at County districts in Pulaski were three school Monroe, 1698; at 88 S.Ct. at historically separate not and autonomous. finding that the PCSSD The district court F.Supp. at 341. change in attitude toward consolidation Board’s Although find evidence in the we substantial was, clearly racially part, motivated not support district of record court’s erroneous. attempting cooperation in extensive interdistrict Rock, 20,000 3,000 we blacks to central Little find to confine Approximately whites and finding clearly erred in of that the court of the Little Rock blacks live the areas County districts were not three Pulaski in PCSSD. Ten schools are now included which 3,000 Among separate the factors approximately and autonomous. in this area serve located clearly were his- indicate that districts students who live students and 300 black white expert development, facts recited herein and on the lows real estate not edu- testimony Dr. cational needs. Robert Dentler who testi- boundary fied that the lines had an inter- 379-80; 69; T. T. at at He effect. went on state: 340-41. * * * major consequence of During the first two decades tumultu- boundary they lines established as LRSD, desegregation ous the peak 1928 at of consolidation ef- segregated and free remained forts initiated small rural districts of problems accompanied which state-re- support County with the of the sisted Rock. It was State, by now to a come condition brought not until 1968that suit first they keep where the Little Rock School desegregate the PCSSD schools. Zinna- very predominately District black and mon v. Board Education Pulaski opportunities limit the therein of black District, County Special School No. LR- students. (W.D.Ark.1971), slip op. 68-C-154 at 1. generated boundaries also have This suit remained dormant until consequences respect Health, Department while the differences Education aid, negotiated in State State aid & Welfare for instructional with the PCSSD generally Board of related services Education to work out an State inte- transportation. gration plan. litigation aid for After While the differ- extensive which an enjoining led to order County ences which have PCSSD’s favored discriminatory school years plans, over the construction very have been remedied entry PCSSD consented to the of a recently years there are all decree by Judge Smith Henley J. Chief supported the State aid formulas —then Judge of United States District the benefit of Court non-black for the higher proportions Eastern District of Arkansas —inte- by far of non-black grating its schools. disadvantage students and Zinnamon both to Lit- County Special tle Education Rock School District and North Little District, (W.D. No. Rock. LR-68-C-154 Ark.1973). The district court found that The boundaries also echo with refusals comply PCSSD had failed to with the Hen- modify them from within Boards trial, ley that, many decree and noted Directors, at least 1968. In since oth- PCSSD Board Education members were words, years er after of conversation even aware contents of the de- boundaries, about the merits of the about cree. significant Some of more viola- especially mutual assistance for purposes tions found the court were: race, suddenly have not do with these boundaries harden and the Pulaski 1973, 1. After PCSSD continued to any further refuses modi- close neighborhoods schools in black and to side, fication them on of the one and the build schools in new distant suburbs that Little Rock Board of Directors does not developing popula- areas of white press move or on modifications so far as F.Supp. Many tion. 584 at 346. I can find. ninety percent new schools are over white. example, signify High

The boundaries also to me For Id. Northwood Junior them, opened under in under the circumstances of School was in a remote system rural, a suburban what was what location far from a black residential area counties, once as 38 and which only existed rural now has a student enrollment is congealed modernizing eight percent into a black. suburban North Pulaski was 1977, system in is such that under these bound- built remote from black resi- ary in the conditions school construction fol- dential areas furthest reaches of staff, ty torically separate salary are and its own districts that each established taxes, schedule, always regulations. operating district has its levied its own elected rules and education, of own board hired its own facul- 1983, F.Supp. County, in students. 584 at 348. PCSSD had black bus- Wakefield, percent. Watson, population student six es black students about 1975, Elementary though built in schools Cato was and Cloverdale even these and, again in a remote area in it had highest schools have some of the enroll- less population a student which was in ments blacks PCSSD and are located percent ten Middle School busing black. Robinson identifiably a short distance from and, in had a black F.Supp. built in 1981 white schools. 584 at 354-55. slightly eleven population student over Racially identifiable white schools are percent. The district court credited the busing maintained blacks schools Dentler, testimony plaintiffs’ Dr. Robert neighborhoods. F.Supp. in built white witness, expert county pains that “the took at 348. they not to site new schools where would Similarly, apportion 3. PCSSD failed to blacks, they and others be accessible busing fairly among the burden of white dilapidated plants and ar- dusted off old Thus, a and black students. black student ranged to have them as walk-in schools for system is enrolled PCSSD two possible well out of reach black students likely one-half times more be bused transportation white students.” There desegregative purposes than a white stu- in has new construction or near the been no dent, F.Supp. dispropor- and a county, or to central the east tionate number of black students PCSSD southeast, live. The district where blacks long distances, are bused often schools court concluded that there were substantial already racially as which are identifiable continuing inter- and intradistrict ef- Id. black. fects from PCSSD’s violation of Zinna- cooperated with the PCSSD specific must order mon’s building the location and Rock now and the future cease desist Otter Creek Schools white Fair and building from schools sites which are not neighborhoods city within the limits but equally accessible to blacks and whites. just outside the of LRSD. 584 boundaries All of these at 346. events racially F.Supp. at 346. Both schools are against contrary to Swann’s admonition High Fair identifiable white schools. “in the location of new schools the areas of School, percent has a thirteen black expansion, farthest white suburban enrollment, is less than two miles located Swann, Negro population centers.” High from LRSD’s Parkview School which 126, 1278-79, 91 S.Ct. enrollment, fifty-six percent has L.Ed.2d 554. busing is reasonable distance from assignments continue to 2. Student High an PCSSD’s Mills School which has discriminatory racially made on a basis. forty percent enrollment of over black. Thus, fifty-one has a Otter Creek PCSSD, racially identifiable as sixteen are percent, only fourteen black enrollment racially and thirteen are iden- black schools near PCSSD and but located several as white schools. some instanc- tifiable significant- elementary schools with es, neighboring operated schools are as ra- higher ly black enrollments. Thus, Mabelvale cially identifiable schools. goals for meet the 5. PCSSD failed to High is close Cloverdale Junior promotion princi- hiring and black the (both are High School within Junior 584 teachers and administrators. pals, PCSSD), Rock of Little but are Accordingly, are F.Supp. at 347-48. there in 1983 was but Mabelvale’s enrollment employment promotion opportu- and fewer the Clover- only percent 12.7 black while in and the absence nities for blacks PCSSD slightly more than dale’s enrollment teaching and role models in admin- of black F.Supp. at percent black. 584 thirty-three Id. These factors have discour- istration. racially maintains identifi- PCSSD 354-55. community in growth of a aged the black busing in white not able black schools F.Supp. at 347. busing black PCSSD. and in additional students 6. The that a significant chances black student will numbers until mid-1960’s educably mentally be classified as retarded played and role in delaying substantial greater significantly are in than desegregation F.Supp. in at LRSD. they are in 584 F.Supp. LRSD. at 350. 339-40. LRSD, 7. Unlike PCSSD has failed to comply NLRSD fully has failed to with develop programs encourage partic- court, orders of ipation of black students in and curricular Education, Davis Board No. LR-68- F.Supp. extracurricular activities. 584 at (E.D.Ark.1977), Court, Da- C-151 and this 348. Education, vis v. Board 635 F.2d 730 (8th Cir.1980), comply failed to with re- respect desegre- PCSSD has with to the quirements that biracial committee gation faculty be F.Supp. at staff. citizens, established that two Thus, black a measurably blacks have elected and selected the black communi- being smaller chance of hired as teachers ty, capacity serve ex-officio on its Board or administrators NLRSD than in LRSD. F.Supp. of Education. at 347. This segregation NLRSD maintains within its input failure reduced of the PCSSD system part by grossly overclassi- black community school site selection fying pupils special its black into education housing project decisions and exacer- mentally (EMR) and educable retarded cat- in-migra- bated the historical trend of black egories. per- nineteen It over classifies tion out-migration to LRSD and white cent of its black as or students retarded PCSSD. disabled, nearly three and one- learning times as are many similarly as clas- half Segre- D. North Little Rock’s Role in in LRSD. at 348. sified gating Three Districts. Moreover, its placement EMR rate for The district court found that is 8.9 higher blacks times than it is significant NLRSD had committed several whites, compared average to a national interdistrict Our violations. review of the placement rate of two and one-half times as record us convinces the trial court’s many black students white students. respect to the violations list Placing Special children in A Education: erroneous, clearly ed below are not (K. Strategy Heller, Equity W. impact the current Holtzman, Messick, 1982). eds. S. justifies these violations an interdistrict remedy which would involve NLRSD. We argues overrepresen NLRSD do, however, take nature and extent of tation blacks its EMR classes can be NLRSD into violations consideration in factors, explained by economic and social (which framing largely in IQ as well as differences in between black respect district). tradistrict with to that and white students. The district re court pre-Brown period, In the failed NLRSD jected argument hearing all after equal adequate maintain schools for expert testimony on the issue. It not did students, particularly high black so holding. err in may These factors ex significant school level. This failure led to plain why may there more black than high transfers of black school students students, they EMR white but do not ex LRSD, NLRSD to contributed to plain why experience the NLRSD should be LRSD, concentration blacks nation, so different a concentration which has LRSD, they Arkansas or in nor do explain day. continued to this why similarly over represented in specific learning

When the LRSD schools were closed for disabili NLRSD, categories. year, ty experts along appellees’ 1958-59 at PCSSD, its this opened segregated schools tributed difference EMR classifica race, to many some white and black students tion to and the district court was opinion from LRSD. justified accepting These transfers continued this and Vinson, Finley discouraged housing project. B. chair- this difference holding holding attending company man of the board from that district. black largest which owns the bank Arkansas Housing E. Violations Interdistrict with the and who was an executive Housing the Defendants. Authority Rock from 1950to that, 1950’s, state, early in the testified court made detailed and The district LRSD, Housing Authority, Rock the Little regarding the findings existence extensive development cooperated in the and PCSSD housing in the Little Rock segregated housing project which major of a all-black regarding and the causal metropolitan area was intended to channel black residential PCSSD State of Arkansas and role of the far development toward the southeast this condition. creating perpetuating Rock, away of Little boundaries reviewing these for clear After He from residential areas. stated white none, error, find and conclude that the we very should be made clear that “[i]t amply supports the district court’s record * * * segre- device this was a to maintain determination. * * * gation There no of races. was bones “[p]ublic court found that The district Although this made it.” land was about historically has housing in Pulaski PCSSD, the decision part of was also segregation.” subject of racial been made level for LRSD state local Little Rock School District v. territory to annex this from PCSSD en- (E.D.Ark. County, 584 development chan- sure that this black was 1984). private housing patterns, As with LRSD, only neled into which was the dis- product fact demographic is the this capable providing trict education discriminatory conduct interrelated Mr. Vinson testified that blacks. county. and the The state part of the state out annexation with the “worked public delegated responsibility in hous- its In County School District.” order to effect city governments by county LRSD, from this transfer of land housing authorizing operate them to au- legislature passed in 1953 an the Arkansas adoption upon by each an thorities act, (Repl.1980), Ark.Stat.Ann. 80-436 § enabling Ark.Stat. appropriate resolution. the land transfer without which allowed The cities of North Little Ann. 19-3004. § procedures set forth resort to standard adopted Rock these Rock and Little have Mr. Vinson testified Ark.Stat. 80-456. § resolutions, County has not but Pulaski segregated housing units over empow- Although the resolutions done so. Mountain constructed Granite were public develop construct er the cities (with forty fifty preexisting clearance of beyond projects up housing to ten miles that, expected, many units), as was limits, housing city authority city neither housing units built segregated more PCSSD, project in and the has ever built a following years. in the This in this area indicate Pulaski Coun- record does not segregated essentially area an black is still housing. Id. at ty constructed such has housing area served several overwhelmingly high en- black per- seventy-one development ranging rollments pattern Typical In public percent cent one hundred black.13 the 1953 Granite Mountain Elementary Washington general had a are black. 13. There are five schools area of students, project and the related 217 of whom are the Granite Mountain segregated enrollment grown housing high general which has There no schools in this black. area, High project. Mann Junior Horace overwhelming- around in students from students, had an enrollment of ly apparently area attend Cen- black residential Intermediate had are black. Booker whom sum, considering High without tral high School. students, 342 of in 1982 of 411 an enrollment 2,000 students, stu- more than had Rockefeller Intermediate whom are black. eighty percent approximately of whom dents— students, 288 of an in 1982 of 402 enrollment project Mountain are black—live in Granite Elementary had a are black. Carver whom generally These students at- and related areas. students, all of whom of 495 1982 enrollment sum, Burger written, there is substantial evidence in Chief Justice “People has support gravitate facilities, record to the district court’s just find- toward school cooperated state, that PCSSD with the response schools are located in to the needs Housing Authority people. Little Rock and The location may of schools LRSD in this intentional and pattern successful thus influence the of residential attempt segregate nearly development blacks a of metropolitan a area and neighborhood all-black in nearly important impact and all- composition have on the black within Swann, neighborhoods.” schools LRSD. 584 city at inner 342. U.S. at S.Ct. at According 1278. findings, the district court’s factual PCSSD The district court also found that the Zinnamon decree violated building Housing Authority Little Rock accentuated nearly a dozen new schools after 1973 in segregation public and, thus, housing outlying furthest of developing areas schools, by razing neighborhoods black populations. white These schools now (which areas) bordered on white and relo- generally have enrollments that are over cating uprooted in housing blacks ninety percent white. Id. at 346. As we projects in eastern Little Rock. White resi- noted, supra have at 91 S.Ct. at dents, neighborhoods whose were more se- Dr. Dentler Robert testified about the ra- cleared, lectively were relocated western cially discriminatory nature of these school Little Rock. The district court found that siting decisions. The court conclud- these decisions were “a deliberate ed that decisions school sites made policy Housing Little Rock Authority any given “without consideration to the governmental other bodies to maintain impact or effect such selection would have racial segregation.” Id. residential on desegregation and is therefore a consti- The governmental concurrent acts of tutional violation.” Id. at 346. bodies, especially the county state and generalized district court’s factual districts, school are also reflected in the (which specific based on the racially segregated private housing market here) facts we have recounted are direct in metropolitan Little Rock. The district unequivocal: especially probative court cited as of state housing practices, 36. These both liability example of a black realtor who public private, together with the disciplined by the state real estate predominantly manner in which black ar- realtor, commission. The who sold a home willingly eas were transferred to the Lit- to a neighborhood, black in white had tle Rock School District from the Pulaski violated a commission regulation which for- County Special School District contribut- bade from being realtors “instrumental ed greatly to the disparity the racial introducing neighborhood into a a charac- * * * composition of these districts. property ter of or occupancy, members of any nationality, race or individuals presence

whose clearly will be detrimental magnet relatives, 66. property neighborhood.” factors of values jobs public Although housing units have en- license, the realtor his received couraged high proportions of blacks mi- state commission him warned about grating “misconduct,” to move to the Rock such and he was fired from District. job.

his Id. Id. at segregat- also to the contributed ed private housing nature of the After long market careful review of the record through siting. below, compiled its decisions As we conclude that the dis- Education, high, junior elementary

tend intermediate Graduate School of this all- which housing project enrollments are over significant "magnet was a eighty percent black. The district court credited attracting disproportionate factor” in number Willie, testimony of Dr. Charles Professor of of blacks to LRSD. 584 Education Urban Studies the Harvard

425 v. Board School Commis are valid and United States findings factual triet court’s of sioners, (S.D.Ind. according 183, embody F.Supp. clear error the 189 do not 456 part, set part in & in 1978), of review we have forth vacated standard 637 aff'd denied, Cir.), above. cert. (7th 449 F.2d 1101 (1980). 114, 45 66 L.Ed.2d 101 S.Ct. conclude that the We also district held The district court no error of law exam court committed the action of such official bodies locat- housing perpet ining segregative patterns * * * projects within IPS such by an [was] the state and PCSSD. As uated cases, pur- the racially motivated with invidious aspect desegregation the of school pose keep the by pre- blacks within the housing first issue was addressed Jus IPS, Indianapolis in Milliken I: Stewart, concurring Uni-Gov and to tice keep territory the of the added suburban example, shown, it to be for Were segregated defendants for the use of the sep had state contributed officials * * * only. whites drawing or by races re aration of the * * * lines, by natural, drawing school district transfer the obvious that was [I]t districts, or between of school units of probable result erect- and foreseeable racially discriminatory use purposeful, wholly ing public housing projects within laws, housing zoning or then a state territory IPS would be to concentrate of calling pupils for transfer of decree poor projects in such and thus to blacks restructuring lines for or across district perpetuate public seg- school increase might appropri lines well be of district regation IPS. within ate. Id. (emphasis at 3132 418 U.S. at S.Ct. Appeals the The Court of held that added). supported amply court’s appeals At courts acted least two v. record, United States Board of the suggested standard of on Justice Stewart’s Commissioners, F.2d at School governments liability have held state finding and affirmed the district court’s responsible remedying segrega- school “that decision the 60’s to locate all partially result of tion which state- was public housing within the Marion housing authorized local authorities.14 segre- IPS was result of boundaries of case, Indianapolis the district court re- agen- state gative responsible intent history long segregated counted a hous- Id. cies.” at 1111. ing, as a result of which less one in the Indi- Although the district court Indianapolis’s popula- percent of suburban anapolis not its reason- case did elaborate United v. Board States tion was black. that, legislation ing, along it found Commissioners, School discriminatorily reorganized City which (S.D.Ind.1971). The court attributed resi- Indianapolis Indianapolis relative to hence, (and, seg- segregation dential District, responsible School state housing regation) part violations com- housing to some for the violations extent Housing Authority of mitted segregation which exacerbated the (HACI). The Indianapolis court schools. The district court referred to that, through from 1957 HACI found instrumentality,” United HACI a “state as public housing projects in areas within built Commissioners, (IPS) States v. Board School District Indianapolis Public (S.D.Ind.1975), and as by Negroes, percent ninety-eight inhabited above, “responsible have noted as a we districts. none in the suburban school but imply necessarily approval majority While not Although this does of the United States Su- merits, specifically preme addressed the it is a which "cannot be Court has fact housing support Missouri, in- extent to violations which Liddell State overlooked.” (8th 1984), terdistrict cases, remedies F.2d 1203 n. 8 Cir. and cases Supreme de- that the Court has we note cited therein. in each the cases we cite. nied certiorari agency.” result, law, state As a the state was case is an additional justifying factor responsible funding held certain imposition ancil- liability upon remedial lary First, services as of the interdistrict Arkansas. regards public State of remedy, Appeals the Court housing, af- note that municipal we hous- United States v. Board implicated firmed. ing here agencies authorities Commissioners, state, 637 F.2d at 1116. obliges which the state to participate phase in the remedial this The courts reached a similar result in the In litigation. construing Housing the Au- adjudicated Act, et thority Ark.Stat.Ann. 19-3004 § Delaware, Wilmington, The the case. Wil seq., Supreme the Arkansas Court de- has mington Housing Authority operated over clared: 2,000 public housing city, in the units but Housing Authority A agent is an the forty predominantly fewer dealing public state with health stan- suburbs, despite period of white a “extraor squarely dards and falls within the tradi- dinary population growth” in the suburbs. powers police City tional of the state. A Buchanan, Evans v. F.Supp. 428, 393 435 Housing Authority operate does not per cu (D.Del.) court), (three-judge aff'd scope within the of “municipal affairs” riam, 963, 381, 423 U.S. 96 46 S.Ct. (i.e., affecting, germane those to or con- result, (1975). L.Ed.2d 293 the As a dis cerning municipality govern- and its “[pjublic housing trict court concluded that ment) distinguished as from those state policies also contributed to the concentra excepted in officers the Home Act. Rule minority Wilmington.” tion of residents in Id. The state’s culpability partial and re Housing Fort v. Authority Smith responsibility medial in the interdistrict Smith, City Fort 254, 256 506 Ark. remedy was subsequently affirmed. Ev (1974). See also Arkansas S.W.2d 536 Buchanan, v. (3d ans 750 582 F.2d Cir. Rock, Gas Louisiana Co. v. 1978) (en banc). 506 (city 256 Ark. S.W.2d and housing authority do principal- not have a The courts have their not limited atten agent relationship). violations; public housing private tion to housing discrimination has also been the We believe structure of the state for state liability desegrega authority basis in school housing supports law read- Buchanan, Evans v. cases. ing. Although tion operate the state does not se, panel per three-judge housing a con authorities the state culpability legislature sidered evidence of state housing authorized the authori- Commission, (Ark.Stat.Ann. 19-3004), the Delaware Real Estate a promul- ties § licensing agency, a gated finding state enforced realtor’s declaration of state- necessity canon housing (§ ethical which discriminated wide reform 19- regard provision 3002), ap- same as the cited in the established standards for the pointment, qualifications case at bar. The district court reached the tenure of same result in Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board housing (§ 19-3005), commissioners enu- Educ., (W.D.Mich. powers housing merated the authorities 1973), Michigan sub 19-3011) nom. Oliver (§ (including eminent domain aff'd Education, State (§ 19-3015)), gave 508 F.2d 178 the authorities denied, (6th Cir.1974), 19-3017-3019). cert. power (§§ to issue bonds (1975). S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 449 That private regards housing segregation, As concluded that of Michi Court “the State regulat- we believe the state’s role in gan escape should not be allowed to consti practices Ar- through real estate responsibilities by fractionalizing tutional Commission, see Real Estate Ark. kansas jurisdiction through many agencies.” its 71-1303, 71-1307, impli- Stat.Ann. also §§ Id. at 183. segregation cates it in residential precedents, together segregation Our review of these to the racial contributed schools. with Arkansas statutes relevant Little Rock opportunities for black some educational housing recounted above violations by identifying PCSSD students and in the constitu- deeply implicate the state NLRSD as white districts. by the court. found tional violations finding by this Court would re- Any other implicate state as a The acts which delegating dividing state ward began long primary constitutional violator government among of state the functions Brown, century-old, state- before As many and divisions. its branches provid- system mandated dual school in the Kalamazoo district court declared markedly for black ed inferior education case: system This students. dual was achieved * * * parcel out cannot its State through the transfer of stu- delibertely achieve jurisdiction and dents from NLRSD and PCSSD LRSD. do di- pieces it could not bits and what When the Little Rock Board of Education rectly such a situation by statute. When Supreme comply decided to with the exist, must look the court alleged desegregate is its Court’s orders and schools Brown, agency closely of each pre- at the actions after state intervened has met its consti- desegregating determine whether it Board from for vented the years. To each responsibilities. nearly twenty persisted allow The tutional state plead violations in thirteen agency opposing constitutional Brown, exculpation only years of its taken agencies in after has of other desegrega- in actions to assist to mock Constitution minimal own would be day. tion of its schools to this of the United States[.] Education, v. Board Kalamazoo Oliver private housing policies exac- Public and (W.D.Mich.1973), 185 segregation. 368 Public hous- erbated school aff'd Michigan State sub nom. Oliver segregated and most units were (6th Cir.1974), Education, 508 F.2d in residential ar- projects were built black denied, 963, 95 S.Ct. in serve black cert. eas LRSD NLRSD to Note, also Hous (1975). public housing units were See No L.Ed.2d families. as a Basis Inter- PCSSD, ing Discrimination the Granite Mountain in but built for Remedies, Desegregation by land deannexed district School project was built on (1983). approval the inten- Yale L.J. 340 PCSSD with state with project would tion that this all-black problem As a actor concurrent that this ensure located in LRSD and would discrimination, housing the PCSSD must segre- attend the that black students would the remedial burden. also bear its share of in Rock. The gated schools black com- have acted with school boards Where persist day. this this action until effects of conjunction developing plicity discriminatory develop- real estate with districts have acted school defendant ment, responsible for been held they have perpetu- independently to concurrently and See, e.g., Oli- remedy. their share seg- problem of school interdistrict ate the ver, F.Supp. at 171-73. legacy of inferior regation. long in PCSSD and NLRSD schools for blacks Summary of F. Violations. (which exemplified the absence of high until after black school originally an accredited which The state’s actions Brown) many blacks to attend induced then forestalled its segregated LRSD and LRSD, subsidy from often with a twenty years are desegregation for over PCSSD has continued or NLRSD. for PCSSD to be relevant not too remote time the Zin- ignoring signal attitude Rather, history this long appeal. segrega- state, perpetuated has namon decree: it on the concurrent actions siting as- and student through tion PCSSD, exerted an unmistak NLRSD apportionment signment, unequal on the schools of effect able races, transportation burden between by singling out metropolitan area hiring goals, overclas- to meet staff provided failure school district LRSD as the schools, pupils special ty quality black sification of edu- of black set aside programs, cation and failure to cultivate place LRSD as best black participation full black students Undoubtedly, obtain an education. process. the educational significant percentage out-migra- of white in-migration tion and black Moreover, attributable policies practices its racially factors other discriminato- respect to annexation deannexa- tion, ry (These has committed substantial in- acts of PCSSD the defendants. factors Supreme terdistrict violations. Until the include historical movement of white Court’s and this decision Green Court’s city families from the to the middle-class decision, implementation of that higher fertility suburbs and the rate of willingly expanding consented to LRSD families.15) However, plaintiffs intro- simultaneously City as the of Little Rock demonstrating duced evidence substantial expanded. year, After that contin- “disproportionate” number of expand ued to but the boundaries of the whites, left LRSD or school district remained constant. There is upon moved into PCSSD instead evidence conflicting as to reason for moving from other areas and that substan- this, but court found that tially more blacks moved into LRSD than PCSSD declined to deannex this land for would have done so in otherwise the ab- unconstitutionally discriminatory reasons, discriminatory sence of the defendants’ ac- support and we there is believe substantial resulting tions and the racial turmoil in finding. for this the record The effects found, id., LRSD.16 The district court that policies practices of these continue to plaintiffs proving met their burden of that 5,000 students, today. Nearly be felt more had defendants committed substantial eighty-seven percent of whom are interdistrict constitutional violations with white, city now live within the limits but continuing substantial and interdistrict ef- attend schools. PCSSD light support- fects. In of the substantial NLRSD has also contributed interdis- ing record, evidence we cannot de- by failing trict segregation, to maintain findings clearly clare these erroneous. adequate Brown, schools for before blacks by opening segregated its argue schools to strong defendants amicus during 1958-59, by failing ly transfers I, that supra, Milliken Lee Lee Coun comply desegregation with the orders of ty Education, (5th 639 F.2d 1243 court, by grossly overclassify- the district Cir.1981), and City Goldsboro Board of pupils programs its in EMR Wayne Education v. County Board by failing desegregate faculty and Education, (4th Cir.1984), 745 F.2d 324 dic staff of its schools. tate a contrary disagree. result. We In I, history Milliken there was no of state-im We believe it is clear these that actions posed segregation, nor opposition of state strong the defendants exerted inter- to the local school attempt district’s to com polarized district influence which the races ply Brown, with and, nor creating was there disparities in the availabili- his- Significant criminatory 15. numbers of white children attend of the actions defendants outlined private parochial County. or opinion disproportion- schools in in this contributed to the We are able from not this record determine ate movement of whites into instead of discriminatory of the acts defendants that, LRSD. 584 at 347. He testified particu- phenomenon, have contributed this factors, among pub- other the concentration of larly in view fact that number of housing projects (particularly lic in LRSD attending County in Pulaski schools project all-black Mountain Granite served happens to be consistent national norms with segregated three as the seed for decades of hous- metropolitan areas. ing development), the existence LRSD bound- aries not coterminous testimony 16. The district court credited the Rock, and PCSSD’snumerous violations of the Willie, Dr. Charles Professor of Education and (including Zinnamon decree school site loca- Urban Studies at the Graduate School Harvard tions) significance. were of Education, intentionally that the various dis- federal district court id. transfers, at tory boundary of interdistrict Although the Goldsboro district violations, 325-26. housing changes, and violations alleged Wayne County had Moreover, established decrees. Milli- schools, haven” the district “white court city ken I involved the consolidation of one Wayne found that the school dis- fifty-three district with suburban districts during only period counties, one school the record was trict built three where de- sixty-year question, replace old indicating fifty- void of evidence that the Here, building. nearly PCSSD built closely geo- four districts were interrelated during period, the relevant graphically, a dozen economically, politically and specifically court found and the district culturally, as the are districts here. that “the selection of sites new schools superficial There are some similarities entry de- built after the Zinnamon Lee, this case and Lee. between any has made without considera- cree been here, there two suburban districts impact such tion for the selection would single city in a one district located desegregation.” history county, and there was a of interdis- 336-37. See also id. pre-Brown period. trict transfers Further, Goldsboro, there was no Lee, But in court found showing any government official or interdistrict violations that had occurred opposed agency had ever the location or continuing significant, were neither nor public housing construction of within the Appeals and the Court of for the Fifth Wayne County 745 F.2d at school district. simply finding Circuit held that Moreover, history no there was Here, clearly not erroneous. as we have segregative pur- interdistrict transfers for noted, already the district court found that finding segre- poses, no district court significant the interdistrict violations were boundary changes, gative annexations simply continuing, and we hold that nor evidence of school district failure clearly these erroneous. comply desegregation decrees. Moreover, segregative Lee did involve transfers, segregative interdistrict bound- III. THE REMEDY. ary changes, state-imposed or residential segregation, city and the district had been Proposed A. Remedies. previously unitary. declared August 2, July From reopened district court the hear distinguishable from also Goldsboro ings appropriate consider the grounds. on several Goldsboro this case hearings, system At the unitary a school interdistrict violations.17 had declared been Board, argue liability proceedings 17. The while conclusion of State NLRSD and PCSSD hearing solely ques- deprived procedural limiting appeal they the remedial to the on proceedings proper process the course of means of consolidation. We due tion of reject any possible problems court. We this conten- the district with the before conclude hearings scope tion. were cured when remedial pro- reopened argues deprived the remedial it district court that was State Board testimony ceedings and on alternative entered heard process the district court due because liability complains it was de- remedies. NLRSD on the State Board's further pro- order, reopened prived opportunity at the said of the court had after the remedial concerning ceedings experts, but to cross-examine LRSD’s a proceedings liabil- had concluded all of the record shows that court’s careful review ity. error in the district find no We liability. error abuse court committed no or All of the State Board's clarification NLRSD, fact, regard. concerning findings by discretion district court only deprived of the chance to recross-examine have substan- remedial order State Board witness, expert liability The record LRSD's Dr. Dentler. support of the hear- tial in the record oppor- that NLRSD was able cross-examine ings, had full indicates State Board a at which the hours, expert one one-half and LRSD's tunity to be heard. fully objections we the district court was process are conclude that due NLRSD’s several deny inquiry. unpersuasive. argues its discretion further similarly the dis- within It (We cross-examined Dr. note also that PCSSD improperly at ordered consolidation trict court each PCSSD NLRSD offered an alter- plan requires PCCSD’s all students in the native. three districts to choose the they school attend, selecting wish to among Alternative. PCSSD’s of the schools the three districts. Stu- plan its July PCSSD submitted dents do who not receive their first or days six hearing. before remedial second choice of school due to oversub- plan preserves autonomy scription “mandatorily are to assigned county three school districts and relies on another an interdistrict ad- [to school] the creation of a substantial number of composed ministrative committee of admin- specialty magnet “voluntary schools and personnel istrative from each of the three mandatory transfers with districts.” backup.” at 1222. Enrollments are to be controlled “to ra- plan PCSSD’s calls first for the creation cially balance all schools in each of the special of a “substantial number of schools * * * proportions controlled three districts ap- special program offerings proximating that countywide public present districts,” each of the three school enrollment in the preceding school in addition to the traditional curriculum * * * year. Specialty schools specialty offered at “standard schools.” J.D.R. at programs racially will be balanced at the Suggested specialty themes for countywide proportion plus or minus five programs schools and in elementary percentage points.” J.D.R. at 2506-07. gifted pro- include a and talented goals Individual racial gram, physical pro- a balance are development program, a multi-language program, school, posed lab “remote schools” with a minimum Piaget school, model an extended school requirement by 1988-89 so that no less center, day school, a Montessori a creative percent than fifteen of the remote school school, personalized arts pro- education enrollment will be black. To in- facilitate gram computer/science/math and a pro- transfers, terdistrict policies several gram. high Junior school themes include a proposed, including the “effective schools” gifted program, and talented visual com- model grade and uniform structure includ- munication, pre-international Baccalaureate ing kindergarten, grading, uniform attend- program, physical development, pro- arts discipline ance policies. n gram, ecology and environmental edu- proposes that the three districts cation, and high math/science. Senior capacity, routing share vehicle supervi- college prep high themes include transportation system, sion of the they that school, high performing arts, school for the joint purchase consider the contract of a program, law enforcement engineering, computerized routing scheduling and sys- communications, math/science, military tem, purchase vehicles, and the of identical academy, computer technology and busi- ness, joint electronics, purchase parts, of fuel and drafting, ecology and en- education, sharing repair vironmental gifted and a facilities and and enforcement program. talented regulations. of common J.D.R. at 2509. extensively.) Dentler hearings None of NLRSD’s other of the remedial to alternative remedial improper references to the record reveal plans. limita- by opportuni- tion the district court of NLRSD’s process complaints PCSSD raises similar due (cid:127) ty to cross-examine witnesses. Nor was NLRSD reject Any which we as well. concern with the improperly deprived opportunity an to choosing ap- district court consolidation as the present expert testimony. its own The district propriate remedy in its order at the conclusion excluding court was well within its discretion in liability proceedings by of the was alleviated proffered concerning surveys NLRSD’s and other evidence opportunity Moreover, present remedial alternatives. testimony about the extent of interdis- the district court's concern- adequate opportu- trict effects. NLRSD had an ing liability were sufficient to allow PCSSD to nity present concerning such evidence present remedial alternatives which would ad- scope liability hearings, of the violations at the scope dress the of the violations. properly scope and the district court limited the argues plan rep- that its “would requires that the costs associated PCSSD plan Its step strong both in assignment resent a forward rais- of students quality of education for all and in eq- by all three in an districts be shared prospects permanently improving the receiving and manner that districts uitable viable, racially-integrated system public another district be reim- throughout County.” schools capita per J.D.R. at bursed on a basis. found, at 2517. district court J.D.R. that, transporta- although 2511. It notes however, plan places that “undue PCSSD’s shared, sup- be financial tion costs should * * * voluntary reliance on transfers [and] port state made avail- from the must be adequately fails to address the interdistrict Id. able. segregative effects to exist and can- found proposed the formation also PCSSD approved.” at 1223. be would tri-district committees which several in several ar- cooperative ventures discuss Wedge” 2. NLRSD’s “Masem/Western delivery preparation food eas such Alternative. pro- and maintenance service. Under posal, the three district controllers would Shortly July before the remedi- cost in committee discuss details of hearing, meet NLRSD a statement al submitted explore areas of finan- sharing argued and to other that consolidation cooperation, including scope establishment cial three districts exceeds the millage County, court, rate single in Pulaski found interdistrict violations and, millage campaigns, particularly, coordinated coordinated those attributable NLRSD, bonds, that marketing of revenue common audit but “NLRSD believes accounting procedures, proposals the deannexation violation of the Pulaski joint remedy. funds, requires School A grant project joint or District special equitable remedy fair and would be to purchasing bidding practices. PCSSD adopt wedge’ concept similar to ‘western require the of a similar would formation proposed Dr. Paul Masem in Inter- suggest crite- committee “formulate and 2, Option venor Joshua Exhibit Number opening closing of facilities ria for at 1788. A.” J.D.R. expanding renovating as well as for existing proposal, it schools.” Under its Wedge Plan” calls The “Masem/Western appear that the would be would committees sepa- three districts to retain their for all biracial. identities. The rate and autonomous of NLRSD remain un- boundaries would proposes faculty from all changed, but boundaries between three districts be recruited to teach changed and PCSSD would be schools, accept- specialty that teachers “compensate approximately for the loss assignments maintain con- ing interdistrict 4,000 white students to the Little Rock relationships with their home dis- tractual District caused [PCSSD’s] they subject “to all other tricts but at 1787- deannexation violation.” J.D.R. procedures applicable to the rules and north of Interstate 88. PCSSD and west they also in which teach.” PCSSD south of the Arkansas River would 30 and cooperation interdistrict on a vari- proposes part of LRSD east and become LRSD. personnel ety of matters. of Interstate 30 would south become con principal objection to the PCSSD’s proposed of PCSSD. As result of by the district solidation ordered boundary changes, composition “the racial destroys it the institutional court is that districts, counting student trans- ongoing strengths of an school district districts, will be as follows: fers between public control schools. impedes local Bradley, 280- See Milliken 433 U.S. County Special L.Ed.2d 745 97 S.Ct. 69%(W) 31%(B) District II.) (1977)(Milliken 54%(B) 46%(W) Rock School District Little Little Rock School North statement favor of consolidation but 369KB) 64%(W) District aspects was critical of several which plan. expert consolidation Their LRSD’s magnet interdistrict proposes an NLRSD witness, Masem, Paul testified Dr. about majori- program and an interdistrict school remedying plans three the inter- and (m-to-m) student ty-to-minority transfer short of intradistrict violations consolida- ip promote desegregation program to plans primarily tion. These con- magnet Ten to three districts. twelve present cerned with alterations in the schools, programs which would offer such boundaries of the three districts. The dis- computers, math and science and back- options rejected trict court on the schools, fundamental would be lo- to-basic ground they “adequately remedy would not Little Rock. The m-to-m cated in central the constitutional violations found program provide transportation would be- Court.” 597 at 1224. County tween all Pulaski schools within thirty travel time such as some maximum forty-five Each in Pula- minutes. 4. The LRSD Alternative. County thirty percent ski with less than The district court determined that black enrollment would set aside seats for plan only proposal LRSD’s was the students, priority transfer with adequately would address Rock students. and intradistrict violations which were es- Board, Policy repre- An Interdistrict at trial. tablished sentatives from each district and from the principal component of the LRSD intervenors,

Joshua would be established to plan is consolidation the three school pro- administer and coordinate the various plan geocoding districts. This utilizes a plan. visions of the The Board would re- process arriving assignment at student funding ceive from each of the three school areas, and it divides Pulaski into districts, and it would establish a citizens’ plan six subdistricts. The establishes a advisory community input board to channel (+ ) (-) composition racial standard of participation. twenty-five percent makeup of the racial plan compensato- NLRSD’s also calls for population. the student To facilitate stu- ry programs and remedial in all three dis- transfers, dent the schools are to be of tricts to increase the educational achieve- equal grade quality and structure. ment of black students. The Interdistrict plan LRSD’s also calls for the creation of Policy Board would hire outside consult- magnet Metropolitan schools at Vocational ants to ensure that all three districts have High populated primarily areas adequate compensatory programs. plan blacks. calls for rejected The district court the NLRSD administrative staff at all levels and in all plan ground “places on the too much provides units. It for an interim board upon voluntary reliance motivations of qualified directors which will select a county patrons there are insuffi- [and] * * * superintendent. The court stated expect cient incentives the [inter- * * * it would soon set the date for an transfers to be successful in district] persons replace election of the interim desegregating[.]” at 1223. court-appointed board. The court also de- plan The court concluded that “the NLRSD that, study by termined after the new su- adequately fails to address the interdistrict board, perintendent and the interim a deter- constitutional violations found millage mination would be made as to the Id. Court[.]” uniformly applied rate to be within the consolidated district. 3. The Joshua Intervenors’ Alterna- tive. The court also directed the three districts public meetings in The Joshua intervenors did not advance a to hold at least three particular plan presented position explain the but a their districts to consolidation

433 Milliken plan accept constructive criticism. consistent with the Constitution. II, 280-81, pre- 433 U.S. at 97 S.Ct. at 2757-58. that it was The court then determined of the mature to address the concerns constructing desegregation In a respect faculty- Knight intervenors with remedy, may rigidly require a court not a many potential con- assignments because particular racial balance. Pasadena Board by problems should first be dealt with tract Spangler, Education v. 424, 427 U.S. of the interim boards. 436-38, 2697, 2704-06, 96 S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d I, (1976); 739-40, Milliken 599 418 U.S. at Finally, the court reiterated that 3124-25; Swann, 94 S.Ct. at 402 U.S. at had taken actions and inactions over state 22-25, Nevertheless, 91 S.Ct. at 1279-81. effect years which “had an interdistrict Supreme has it clear Court made Rock, upon the Little composition of the racial the awareness of Little Rock school districts.” 597 North district or a school school districts is a of F.Supp. at 1228. “Other branches starting point developing useful an ef state, court’s earlier as set forth * * * remedy, fective and thus the limited use of responsibility share with the opinion equitable racial ratios is the Court’s within for these constitutional viola- State Board Swann, 25, discretion. 402 U.S. at 91 S.Ct. tions, must be the the State Board but at 1280. their violations as remedial vehicle Thus, Supreme approved Court has a (citations F.Supp. at 1228 well[.]” remedy imposed by the district court re omitted). The then stated that court quiring that all schools in the school dis nature of these “precise would detail roughly trict be within the same racial bal oversight obligations” at a financial and ance. Columbus Board Education v. of Id. later date. Penick, 449, 3, 443 U.S. 455 n. 99 S.Ct. 2941, 3, (1979); 2945 n. 61 L.Ed.2d 666 Required Remedy. B. The Swann, 23-25, 402 U.S. at 91 S.Ct. at 1279- Having consequently approved found interdistrict vio 80. Our Court has and defendant school the use of ratios in lations the state flexible E.g., districts, of remedies on numerous occasions. having heard from all Missouri, 731 F.2d at Liddell v. State parties concerning the remedial alterna 7;n. Clark v. Board Education 1302 & tives, responsible the district court was Rock, 265, 705 F.2d 269 & n. 6 devising remedy correct the that would (8th Cir.1983); Liddell v. Board Edu violations that it found. A constitutional Louis, 667 F.2d 643, cation St. 649 & n. power equitable has federal court broad States, Adams v. United (8th Cir.1981); desegregation remedy. The over devise 1277, (8th Cir.1980); 620 F.2d 1296 & n. 30 remedy is to riding goal of such a eradicate Morrilton School District No. 32 v. Unit vestiges state-imposed segregation. all States, 222, (8th ed 230-31 606 F.2d Cir. Education, v. Board Swann U.S. Special Booker v. 1979); School District 15-16, 1267, 1275-76, 28 L.Ed.2d 91 S.Ct. (8th Cir.1978); No. 585 F.2d 353-55 (1971); Green, 391 U.S. District Oma United States equitable princi 1693-94. Three S.Ct. at ha, (8th Cir.), cert. de 521 F.2d (1) process: ples guide the courts nied, 46 L.Ed.2d 96 S.Ct. remedy the nature of the is determined (1975). event, case, in this we violation; (2) scope the nature and closely remedy to the tailored must, greatest degree to the requiring par violations and we are designed restore the possible, be victims racial in each district. ticular balance discriminatory position conduct occupied in they would have the absence sustain the district court’s We conduct; (3) holding must take the interdistrict violations the courts such justify local defendants interdistrict relief to account the interests of state and into affairs, The more the extent noted below. trouble- managing their own authorities 434 employment faculty question transportation, is the district court whether

some administrators, holding participation in was the and black in consolidation erred effectively only remedy cure can that would school affairs all be corrected We hold that carefully guidelines remedy interdistrict violations. tailored for regard. in In district court erred as set to be established the district court agreement holding, express we our so forth below. district court that consolidation would Third, pre- we have set forth method of a cost-effective and efficient be important three serves the interests the districts, desegregating the three school managing school have in own districts their I, require under Milliken we cannot but Supreme As the in affairs. Court stated remedy unless it is essential to correct I, “the district Milliken notion that school violation. a constitutional ignored bemay casually lines or treated as reasons, three not believe we For we do a mere administrative is con- convenience First, require that reme- can consolidation. trary history public in to education * * * It dy scope exceeds the of the violations. country. autonomy our Local has finding that the based on the long thought been essential both to the autonomous, districts were not school community maintenance concern and finding sup- have held that that is not we public support quali- to the sure, by the be ported evidence. To ty I, process.” of the educational Milliken with each cooperate districts did oth- three 418 94 S.Ct. at 3125-26. through the late to maintain a er 1960’s light In the circum the above districts, system school in each of dual stances, requirement and the rem that our identity, each district own

but retained its edy closely confined to will one that board, fixed elected its own school its own exist, remedy violations found to we re budget, faculty staff, hired its own mand the district court with directions to developed transportation system, its own remedy19 modify embody its follow schools, its and either constructed own ing principles: agreed disagreed proposals annex or deannex sections to anoth- 1. Each school district shall in- of its district remain dependent with er.18 an elected board school own with its administrative structure Second, other are bet- remedial measures powers taxation. designed seg- to restore the ter victims regation the Pulaski Schools to 2. boundaries of NLRSD are to re- position they they occupied present would ab- main are at time. This Thus, discriminatory partial recognition the vio- sent conduct. of the fact that the relating to and deanne- extent lations annexations nature and of its interdistrict viola- xations, segregated housing, siting, less tions are severe than those education, assignments, special Moreover, student other defendants. black- court, Additionally, reaching Appellate the district modification has been described as an ability,” decision that the districts not auton- Corpora its Petition "inherent U.S. Steel omous, gave weight many to the white fact that tion, (6th Cir.1973), F.2d cert. de transferred from to NLRSD and nied, (1974), U.S. 859 has this Court period and that from 1954 to occasions, e.g., Thomp on several exercised re paid tuition most instances was sending son, (8th banc). Cir.1981) (en F.2d receiving to the We do district. not feel authority Circuit has under The Fifth exercised its these sufficient transfers constitute evi- modify this section court remedies autonomy. dence establish a lack of Conley cases. v. Lake Board, (5th 434 F.2d Cir. Charles School provides, pertinent part: 28 U.S.C. 2106 § (5th 1970); Dyer, 312 F.2d Ross Supreme other court Court or Board, Cir.1963); Bush v. Orleans Parish School affirm, appellate jurisdiction may modify, va- (1962). 308 F.2d cate, any judgment, set aside or decree reverse lawfully brought or order of a for before it court review[.j may ap- adjustments the district court make to population of this district school white county as a that of the whole. the boundaries other those indicated proximates good they be purpose or no would served if finds that better Little above would NLRSD, students, changing its of by boundaries. meet the needs the educational however, to each required shall correct be remedy and the constitutional viola- would by found the violations of the constitutional adjustments tions to the same extent as the court, comply fully and to with district (a) (b). in and court this prior orders of the district and 4. the boundaries between LRSD After required to It will thus be make Court. adjusted, and have been each PCSSD necessary to its student as- modifications re- school district as reconstituted shall be plan, employment of signment quired to its so revise attendance zones principals, and administrators reasonably that each will reflect plan adoption racially of a neutral evaluat- composition racial of its district. Consist- placing requiring special ing and ent with earlier district court orders with coop- required It will to education. also be schools, respect these to school districts aspects of rem- in the interdistrict erate may, permitted necessary, where be de- edy herein. outlined guideline from this remedial in that court, hearing, after a 3. The district may school enrollments over- or underre- adjust the boundaries between shall present by or whites blacks as much as as follows: PCSSD LRSD one-fourth the remedial guideline of (a) All land of Little Rock within why, either race. We see no reason on this LRSD, assigned and the stu- shall be record, the variance should exceed this lev- living assigned in shall dents that area be Columbus, el. See 443 U.S. n. in to schools LRSD.20 3; Swann, n. S.Ct. 402 U.S. at 23-26, 91 at 1279-81. If all- S.Ct the four (b) All land in the Mountain area Granite nearly elementary all-black schools as PCSSD, in and the stu- be included will by conditionally allowed this in Court in living assigned shall be dents that area v. Board Clark Education The record is not of to schools PCSSD. Rock, (8th Cir.1983), 705 F.2d 265 are re- to the this precise clear as boundaries of LRSD, compensatory tained and remedi- area, hearings evidentiary thus will held programs type required al that we It by the district court to determine them. nonintegrated for the schools in Louis St. the intent Court that bound- this put for the shall be into effect four schools. reasonably reflect aries of area shall Missouri, See Liddell v. State F.2d by impacted the 1953 the area The additional at 1312-18. cost of these from deannexation of land PCSSD programs paid shall be the State LRSD. Arkansas. (c) adjustments lieu indicated court, (a) (b), upon may also applica- district court consider the may special problem a by party appeal, few remote schools tion to this conduct 4, 1973, evidentiary hearings County. determine The June decree whether Judge permitted Henley adjustments other than those indicated J. Smith (b) (a) deviate the racial substantially would have standards that he system impact populations the school on the student established for allow- same from the in one or district and would better meet deviation standard each from the of the students of the two schools distant black commu- educational needs hearings, nity. such The district court should consider districts involved. After PCSSD, education, assignments, special This is based on all the defend- student 20. transportation, employment faculty and ad- interdistrict violations outlined in this ants’ ministrators, pre- post opinion, including relating well as the -Brown violations deannexations, sitings, and the historical transfers other annexations continuing housing public effect. lack of low-income violations exception granted by Judge whether the considered imple- district court and Henley permitted should be to continue. mented where feasible. Voluntary intra- or interdistrict ma- boundary changes If the result jority-to-minority transfers shall be encour- losing PCSSD or por- a substantial aged, being with the State of Arkansas bases, tion of their tax the district court required to transporting fund cost of equalize shall consider measures to the tax opting for interdistrict transfers in rates these districts. The may court also pay sending benefits to the consider whatever other financial measures receiving schools for the interdistrict trans- parties it or the necessary, consider includ- required paid fers similar to those to be issues, retirement of bond to ensure an All

Liddell. three defendant school dis- equitable transfer of benefits and obli- tricts in Pulaski shall be included in gations accompanying the boundary program. transfers, this To facilitate these changes and the corresponding transfer of proposals of the PCSSD for “effective physical plant and related debt. model,” structures, grade schools uniform grading, discipline policies attendance and party Each appeal to this is to bear its carefully shall be considered. costs, own exception with the of the Joshua Intervenors, whose costs may require

6. The district court lim- will be borne a equally Board, magnet specialty by LRSD, ited number of or schools State programs or to be established at locations and NLRSD. initially by Magnet

to be determined a Re- This action is remanded to the district view approved by Committee and the dis- court for further action consistent with this (Both trict hearing. court after a PCSSD opinion. thoughtful propos-

and NLRSD have made regard.) schools, als in magnet if ARNOLD, ordered, Judge, concurring Circuit by Magnet shall be administered dissenting part. person Review Committee with one to be by per- named each school district and two sons to be named the State of Arkansas. I. The State of required Arkansas will be I agree with much of the Court’s able pay customary any pupils state aid to opinion. particular, approve I complete- schools, attending plus these an additional ly of its decision not to order consolidation one-half of educating the cost of the stu- of the three school districts operating now attending dents them. The local share of County, Arkansas. Consolida- any magnet

the cost of school established tion would mean popu- destruction of three paid by shall be the three participating larly governed government, units of local schools on a basis to be determined and substitution in their judi- court. The state shall also stead of one be re- quired pay cially one-half of the cost of judicially supervised created and construction or necessary rehabilitation remedy school district. Such a is well with- magnet house the schools and the full cost judicial power States, of the United transporting any students who attend and I support upon should not hesitate to VII, them. See Liddell 731 F.2d at 1309- proper proof, proof but the here is insuffi- 12.21 reasons, cient for several impor- the most tant of which is that proposals of consoli- respect PCSSD’s cooperative programs scope set forth dation “exceeds the pages [parties’ on seriously opinion of this should be 430-31 violations.” constitutional] Ante at 434. case, 21. On the basis of /ntradistrict violations in Lid- were no interdistrict violations in this dell, this Court state, ordered State of Missouri the basis of intradistrict violations pay programs for similar to those described in may remedy against this Court order a similar Missouri, paragraphs 5 and 6. Liddell v. State-of state. Thus, 731 F.2d 1305-12. even if there 1983). (A remedy might similar also be step a drastic that should Consolidation racially identifiable for clearer cases. order for some reserved PCSSD.) The State of Ar- NLRSD consolidation, rejected the Court Having pay programs. these kansas should out analyze the record and set proceeds to long-continued violation of The State’s decree, remedial to be adminis- detailed sig- played Amendment has Fourteenth remand. by the District Court on tered bringing part in about this nificant intra- today greatly differs relief ordered district condition of racial isolation.1 Some If by the District Court. that ordered aspects remedy, of the Court’s other what that prepared to affirm we are transfers, example, voluntary intrad- either done, this case has we should remand court interdistrict, of students from istrict remedial and a detailed for further they majority are in a racial schools where Although power to modi- we have decree. they minority, to those where seem level, appellate it is fy a decree at unobjectionable. power. The Dis- exercise that unwise to disagree- (though today we are trict Court boundary directs that the Court be- conclusions) presid- is some of its adjusted tween LRSD PCSSD be so distinguished scholarly by a ed over that all land within the of Little Rock one, court, not this is That judge. assigned It shall be to LRSD. also directs Instead, a position to write a decree. best the re-transfer of the Granite Mountain full-grown today springs decree And, wisely, the area to PCSSD. Court’s will, Court, I a decree that of this brow open any party, opinion leaves it on case, parties this say, all the dare startle remand, to move the District Court to make (if any) there are who including even those boundary-line adjustments, different so they see. like what long they substantially the same have impact populations on the student of each has decided to award Since the Court level, how- district. I concur the result reached appellate relief at the detailed though ever, portion opinion, of the appropriate for me to indicate in this Court’s it is different from those respects agree opinion. I I for reasons somewhat with its what view, gives. my In constitu- findings of it PCSSD’s agree that the District Court’s violations, when considered as a of the tional intradistrict violations on effect, whole, (NLRSD) had some interdistrict have North Little Rock School District boundary changes ordered this County Special Dis- and the and the Pulaski School (PCSSD) approximation a fair of the mea- clearly are not erroneous and Court are trict necessary to undo that effect. There affirmed. These violations sures should be imprecision in Moreover, necessarily some this rea- corrected. the Court should be soning, much on inference change and it rests as properly declines to the boundaries evidence, it is not unfair as-on direct but NLRSD. Its constitutional defaults decisionmaking any signifi- for the risk of erroneous not been shown to have fall, imprecision kind of creates to effect. It is also that this cant current interdistrict part, re- at least in on those who have violated compensatory to order appropriate reaching In this conclu- four the Constitution. programs education for the medial heavily by expert I influenced tes- allowed sion am virtually all-black schools that we believed, (LRSD) timony that the District Court Rock School District in the Little that, obliged to accordingly, we are also the Little Rock v. Board Educ. Clark (8th clearly-erroneous rule. District, accept under the F.2d Cir. (1983), require S.W.2d and with a argues it to 279 Ark. that we cannot 1. The State implementing opinion, Ark.Stat.Ann. money statute spend another, in one school district more argument This is in- with a 80-850.10—80-850.22. §§ because to do so would conflict Clause, Supremacy Supreme Under the opinion of Arkan- substantial. Court recent VI., Constitution, Amend- Art. cl. the Fourteenth requiring, sub- CONST. under the State sas stantially equal per-pupil funding throughout state statute or ment overrides inconsistent State, provision. constitutional DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. Swann, U.S., at 16 remaining violation. features From [91 S.Ct. at Before boundaries remedy, especially imposition its 1276]. Court’s separate and autonomous school districts responsibility large State financial by consolidating the may be set aside oper- the construction and of Arkansas for purposes separate units for remedial or schools, magnet respectfully I dis- ation of by imposing remedy, a cross-district sent. must first be shown that there has been a constitutional violation within one dis- II. segre- produces significant trict reading out after a One fact stands gative Specifi- district. effect another opin- and this Court’s the District Court’s cally, racially it must be shown that dis- has more black students than ions: LRSD criminatory of the state or local acts or PCSSD. the school either NLRSD districts, single of a school dis- 19,052 enrollment of year LRSD’s trict have been a substantial cause of white, Tr. black and was about 31% 69% segregation. Thus an inter- 27,839 enrollment of while PCSSD’s remedy might district order where white, was about black 22% 78% racially discriminatory acts of one or per- LRSD’s PCSSD X Table 1. segre- racial more school districts caused growing steadily, and one centage has been district, gation adjacent in an or where impetus major behind the senses deliberately lines have been to order consolida- District Court’s decision drawn on the basis of race. In such permit not to LRSD tion is a determination remedy circumstances an interdistrict black, virtually all or so. As a become appropriate would to eliminate the be matter, policy agree I that such result is a segregation directly caused may An desirable. all-black by the constitutional violation. Con- raising adequate problems funds from the versely, without an interdistrict violation tax, property since most voters the dis- effect, and interdistrict there is no consti- white, trict still whatever the make- will wrong calling tutional for an interdistrict up public body. schools’ It student remedy. is also true that both black and white stu- 744-45, 418 U.S. at 94 S.Ct. at 3126-28. benefit, socially educationally, dents Supreme The Court also tells us that no facts, exposure to each other.2 These particular degree of racial balance is re- sense, legislative certainly relevant a Constitution, id. at quired by the present judicial directly less so in the con- 3125; single S.Ct at that tradition “[n]o judges text. task as is not to force Our public deeply education is more rooted than these school districts to do what we think is schools,” operation local control over the right socially good, apply but law 3125; id. 94 S.Ct. at “[t]he result, the facts and announce what- right Negro respon- constitutional of the may ever it be. residing dents in Detroit is to attend a district,” id. unitary system in that Analysis governing must start with the 3128; 94 S.Ct at and that legal Supreme standard laid down “[t]he suggestion ... that schools which have a Bradley, It is stated in Milliken v. Court. majority Negro students are not ‘de- 3112, 41 418 U.S. 94 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1069 support (1974) (Milliken I.): segregated’ ... finds no in our cases,” id. prior at 747 n. S.Ct. at controlling principle consistently n. 22. expounded holdings in our is that scope remedy significant Supreme of the is determined I also find summary reasoning nature of the and extent of the constitutional Court’s produce appears proposition 2. The or class- all accounts to more schol- that all-black schools inferior, necessarily educationally a selection of rooms are ars of note and to offer broader courses, however, quite thing, districts with which it and I do not than the "whiter" a different LRSD, merge. ironically, subscribe wishes to to it. The "blacker” so, the case? If otherwise have been review- decisions it was whose courts lower questions These must be extent? what ing: answered, fit will not else whole, it Viewing record as violation, fit the crime. punishment nor the the District Court clear that seems primary shifted the Appeals the Court upon great of stress is laid 1. A deal met- remedy to the Detroit focus from a the Brown that, decision the fact before their con- only because of ropolitan area thereafter, the education for a time De- desegregation of total clusion that for black children provided by PCSSD racial bal- produce the troit would provided for white grossly inferior to that as desirable. they perceived ance provided to that children in PCSSD and assumption on an proceeded white, Both courts children, As LRSD. all black not be schools could the Detroit came to consequence, some black children their view desegregated truly would not other- go to school who —in constituted what current been there. But what wise have —unless student composition of the movement, the racial much of which effect is this substantially re- body each school having? If years ago, dates from 50 pop- composition of racial flected the education, LRSD for an students came to metropolitan area as ulation or elsewhere to and then went back home families, whole. obviously and raise their work produc- migration not now be their would 3124-25. 94 S.Ct. at 418 U.S. at ing any effect on the racial charac- current A. body. student It is true ter of the LRSD parents to LRSD and standard, if black moved I look first at the Applying this there, might their descendants remained attributed violations constitutional attending LRSD schools. have oc now be violations That such PCSSD. appears to have this sort of move- desegre Court curred, after the before and both says in ment in mind when against PCSSD “[s]ome gation decree entered county to moved from the case, Per black families I do not doubt. the Zinnamon disparities in of the Little Rock because shocking that current haps is the fact most 418, opportunities,” ante members, being educational from fa far PCSSD board this the record reference cited for decree, but had not miliar with the Zinnamon 915-19, statement, in fact contains in the J.D.R. they testified read it when even The transfers that did support no for it.3 question for But District Court. be, appear principally cur occur be must what is present purposes LRSD, parents, moving without their into of these violations? rent interdistrict effect Wayne relative. One of LRSD’s own to live with a City Bd. See Goldsboro of Educ. 116, testified, kind Tr. that of Educ., 745 F.2d 330-31 witnesses County Bd. into LRSD ceased County Board of movement of students Lee v. Lee Cir.1984); (4th 1950’s, requiring (5th Education, in the when state laws Cir. F.2d in the dis- domiciled chil school children be 1981). they more white Have caused schools, they going to school be- trict where were or black to PCSSD dren to come addition, them, strictly In gan to be enforced.4 than would or avoid children to leave significant agree in- 4. The Court seems transferred to LRSD also 3. Some white students stopped movement of students terdistrict seeking "city PCSSD X school education." days ago. years even in the Ante at 415. And 62; (LRSD’s witness); PX 36. It p. Tr. 118 simply occurring, it was not when it was just in LRSD that were black schools was not transferring into of black students matter regarded as superior. schools there All more whites 1953 and 1963 LRSD. Between better, hardly surprising, is sinister and this from PCSSD to LRSD. blacks transferred than only urban center is the true since Little Rock specific figures are instruc- Some of the PX 36. many is much richer in Arkansas and 1953-54, and 223 white chil- In 47 black tive: school districts. the other LRSD; PCSSD to transferred dren white; and in 1959- 42 black and 254 infers, was based on racial families into Little the Court now of black any movement animus, been, keep percent- the black a desire to occur must have that did Rock age in extent, larger PCSSD down. simply a some leaving poor people phenomenon of voted, fact, May In PCSSD city. opportunity seek farm-to this) (and now concedes LRSD concept historically, of consolidation with stresses that 2. The Court favor of formed, Parsons, Floyd Superintendent of is, was first it LRSD. when PCSSD 1971, confirms that to LRSD from 1962 to intention of LRSD was the PCSSD, pro tanto during poorer his time office expand the boundaries LRSD district, sought consistently consolidation. City of Little Rock annexed every time the it, opposed not for territory, It was LRSD that additional so reasons, either, simply racial but because continue to be coterminous. LRSD would fi- adhered to: the did not want to take on the additional This intention has not been territory responsibility educating good deal of nancial PCSSD’s City has annexed (testimony of Mr. and not students. Tr. 1131-32 that has remained within PCSSD Parsons, LRSD).5 true, It is “deannexa- called been transferred LRSD therefore, only declined to that no deannexations have tak- tion.” But if PCSSD has place territory racial rea- en since but to blame this on transfer to LRSD for sons, keep desire not to increase its in order to itself “white” PCSSD’s “black,” percentage plausible. this failure to “dean- student is not LRSD would (No one justify nex” relief. however, many respects, other claims that school-district lines were drawn PCSSD has fallen short of its constitutional initially for racial reasons: back obligations, or at least the District Court formed, segregation was when PCSSD was clearly finding. has not erred in so It unconstitutional, thought and no to be cooperated with LRSD and the State gerrymander one needed to school-district transferring racially segregat- to LRSD the is, preserve boundaries to it. The claim (to housing project ed Granite Mountain rather, the PCSSD-LRSD line was later). impos- It discussed more detail reasons.) maintained for racial ing upon propor- black students an unfair eight separate busing purposes There have been transfers tion of the burden (and desegregation, meeting goals territory from PCSSD to LRSD it is not its teachers, PCSSD). apparently hiring none from for the of black it is as- areas, eight signing disproportionately Of these transferred seven black students predominantly educably mentally Tr. 948- to the classification of have been white. retarded, comply hardly 49. This is the action of a school and it has failed to the Zinnamon decree that seeking requirements in district to maintain its “white- (The exception ness.” is the Granite Moun- a Bi-Racial Committee be established and area, I tain deannexed of which that two black citizens serve as ex officio hereafter.) And, speak point, per- of the shall The Court’s members school board. though, charges haps important present purposes, it most is a bit different: has, in violation of the Zinnamon deseg- when it clear that some real PCSSD became decree, regation going place, neigh- located was to take the new schools white places hardened. Dr. Robert A. Dent- borhoods or inconvenient to black boundaries students, ler, witness, principal expert made and maintained a LRSD’s number makeup point. the same I found had schools whose racial falls outside “[T]he specified by the the decided its Board of Directors to make a limits decree. These factors, policy especially school-siting further the deci- formal no deannexations sions, policy, naturally the in 1968 ....” Tr. 343. This new affect movement of (LRSD’s black and 5. Mr. Parsons also testified that he knew no 363 white. Tr. 133-34 witness). movement white students from LRSD to PCSSD. Tr. 1142. It therefore awards interdistrict has thus effects. PCSSD and families. State, against person relief only decree but not the Zinnamon violated quite I of Education. the State Board direction Supreme Court’s also been, of Arkansas has agree that State 20-21, case, 91 S.Ct. at atU.S. Swann field, persistent violator of consti- in this located schools not be that new rights. agree I cannot that these tutional expansion, of white suburban “in the areas (with exception) respon- are one violations centers.” Negro population from farthest disparity existing for the racial now sible having a sub- these factors I believe LRSD, they or that between PCSSD effect. The stantial current (again exception) interdis- justify with an testimony, and it is expert contains record against trict relief the State. these constitutional implausible, 1. The recounts in detail the ma- Court making violations, together, are considered nifold sins and omissions of the State LRSD “blacker” “whiter” and PCSSD point in this field. There is no Arkansas I have been. have would they otherwise denying history set out in the Court’s why I do not believe indicated many years the opinion. particular, actually caused PCSSD’s violations State, although professing adherence to the movement degree of white any substantial equal” “separate but doctrine that was PCSSD, move- or of black LRSD to land, in fact maintained then the law of But another kind of PCSSD. ment out of separate unequal, schools that were coming from of families movement—that people of the State bore the and the black County area— entire Pulaski outside Furthermore, inequality. of this brunt believe, substantially influ- has, I been on, Legisla- the Executive and from 1954 re- (This sort of movement enced. government set Branches of State tive experts as “white ferred to one law, against like a flint their faces pro-white emanations overflight.”) The dis- covering themselves and State with period given off over a has that PCSSD present legal But is the rele- honor.6 what have, metaphor, may if I use such a years, extent that of these facts? To the vance seems, factor attract- a substantial been (including any individual school since those parents, especially white County) fully de- in Pulaski is not three drawn, could, as the lines are now parents partly segregated, the is at least re- State being outside without move into PCSSD pay price. It has sponsible and should boundary City Rock. The of Little decided, years since Brown was been (making change by the ordered Court inequality are not so soon but centuries coterminous) would and the LRSD whatever, showing no dissipated. There is white, ante black and make 40% 60% claim, however, and no that the State has black and instead of 70% 30% boundary lines to caused school-district ap- change a fair This seems white. 10% for racial reasons. be drawn or maintained percentages of what the racial proximation details, history Much of the Court absent the influence would have been therefore, ques- simply irrelevant to the I therefore concur violations. PCSSD’s present relief in the tion of interdistrict adjust the LRSD- Court’s decision case. boundary line to this extent. point 2. The is made that State is, statute, given of Education Board B. including general super- powers, extensive state, public that the of Arkan- schools in the The Court holds State vision over all 80-113, approval and the violations Ark.Stat.Ann. sas has committed constitutional § expenditures public-school plans and producing are substantial that hand, years fairly a few after 1959 picture, testified that "Little Rock the whole 6. On the other considered, many gloomy integrated as the Court im- ... than cities in is not so was far more plies. expert grew up.” on the his- Plaintiffs own witness where I Tr. 103. the North tory desegregation in Pulaski of school of Education had case? If the State Board buildings, Ark.Stat. school for new funds duty encourage 80-113, fulfilled its to diligently These statutes 80-3506. Ann. §§ boundary give to line be- interpreted desegregation, would been have never the sort of wide- located of Education LRSD and PCSSD be State Board tween power this Court at- supervisory place from it now is? ranging where different boards, Instead, local school it. to of students tributes the racial distribution Would legal financial as- except for certain districts be different those two between almost operations, have been pects of their I not believe that it now is? do from what See Ark.Stat. completely autonomous. supports any definite answer the record 80-509, comprehensive de- listing in Ann. repeat § I that the State’s questions. these Decisions, of local boards. powers tail justify compelling it to fully defaults would schools to locate example, as to where for remedy. in an But participate miradistrict preroga- as the always treated been have case, primari- at least that is not what this They chosen the local boards. tive of ly, is about. of Edu- sites, Board Tr. and the State specific respects, 3. There are certain authority to claimed the has never cation Arkansas, however, in which the State of on where a district’s decision overrule motive, discriminatory racially actu- with a Rather, school, the state- Tr. 788. build ally in the movement of school assisted Board shall that the State ment in 80-113 § During lines. children across district public plans expenditures “approve year the schools school buildings” for all new school funds school closed, from Little many children interpreted to authorize the State has been segregated Rock attended only decisions to review local paid The at least of the PCSSD. State recognized con- plans meet make sure transfers, willing and I am cost of these proposed and that standards struction more many white assume financing legally and fiscal- methods from this action. black benefited than of the State under the statutes ly sound was, I cannot see that this as it Shameful Tr. limiting school districts’ bonded debt. any continuing, current effect episode has the State Board and local 775. Both of students as between on the distribution so construed the statute at districts have The LRSD schools re- LRSD and PCSSD. There is no evidence that least since 1931. and there is no opened the fall of purported to re- Board has ever the State attended that students who evidence decisions, school-siting either for de- view return to in 1958-59 did not elsewhere It purposes. other segregation any or for would, however, they I LRSD when could. for unfair to blame the State is therefore agree history, that the on the basis of this siting provisions PCSSD’s violations voluntary majori- pay should for State the Zinnamon decree. between PCSSD ty-to-minority transfers true, says, that the It is Court be a fair recom- and LRSD. That would of Education’s efforts to assist State Board in the late fifties. pense for what it did desegregation have been encourage racial tur- suggests that the Court (though suspect I little and too late too created the State LRSD 1957 moil to somewhat more credit it is entitled immediately following has years it).7 again, what is the gives But the Court percentage of black students specific increased inter- of this fact to relevance example, that says, It for present in the district. for in the district relief contended University, applied Baptist for and received Ti- example, the State Board did assist school districts position tle V federal funds to desegregating. specific work with local create a made posi- decision was ... desegregation process. “The This boards in the funds, probably expended more could be paid those funds out the State’s own tion was any agency efficiently ... that was if it were in State did funds. Tr. not federal 784-785. politics pressures.” subject Tr. 804. apply funds. In- for federal not stead, Center, "cooperated very State Board of Education the Arkansas Technical Assistance Tr. closely at Ouachita.” 805. organization by with the Center private sponsored Ouachita a LRSD. The school districts and was a of the state intervention “the active desegregation directly in delaying of were thus involved a in the State central factor territory segregated schools until on Little Rock transfer of which increasing contributing built, concentra- to the housing project was to be a fact that in LRSD.” of blacks Ante at 417. tion they must known. I can part this statement the first of With violation, This was clear part agree completely, but second appropriate remedy should be de- and an The idea sequitur. to me a non seems Court, it. The ante at to cure vised turmoil in LRSD racial that “state-created Mountain area be directs that the Granite substantial white in the 1950’s fostered PCSSD, retransferred to and leaves to the NLRSD,” flight to PCSSD from LRSD on remand to determine “the District Court 8, seems completely at 417 n. ante coun- precise boundaries of ... area that was plau- more It be much terintuitive. would impacted by the 1953 deannexation of land efforts to to infer that the State’s sible agree I from PCSSD LRSD.” Ibid. it segregation LRSD made maintain remedy, this or some substantial whites, likely once the schools had more by equivalent to be selected the District there. Even reopened, to remain been Court, ibid., appropriate. see pro-segregation turmoil it correct fostered white late 1950’s somehow long phenomenon ended before flight, this III. implementation the 1973 sum, affirms, properly this Court for the increase and could at most account erroneous, clearly the District Court’s 48%, percentage of black students of intradistrict violations percentage in LRSD which was black violations, part These as well of PCSSD. See v. Board Educ. Clark NLRSD, by as those committed should be District, 705 F.2d Rock School main, relief, In the intradistrict corrected. (8th Cir.1983). the State Board Education which however, respect, I In one other be share, made to should be ade- should be properly attributes interdis lieve the Court quate purpose. I also believe liability Housing author to the State. trict PCSSD, LRSD, violation an interdistrict State, existing by creatures of the ities are respect has been made out State statute, and the Little Rock Hous virtue of the location of the Granite Mountain and fos ing Authority clearly maintained Housing Project, and that PCSSD’s other cases, segregation. In some racial tered boundary change or- justify the violations might interdistrict relief be unfair to award Court. As to the State Board dered districts on the basis against school Education, however, grant I would not case, housing A “school like violations. relief, except respect any interdistrict with vehicle, carry only a limited amount can funding voluntary student trans- to the Swann, baggage. 402 U.S. at 24 S.Ct. [91 of the Granite fers and the retransfer Bradley v. School Board at 1280].” From extensive addi- Mountain area. Richmond, 462 F.2d Virginia, City of State, granted against the tional relief (4th Cir.1972), by an aff'd remaining remedial details or- from the Court, 412 equally divided Court, respectfully by this I dissent. dered (1973). But 36 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. here, PCSSD, LRSD, legisla and the State GIBSON, Judge, con- R. Circuit JOHN cooperated with the Little Rock ture all dissenting part, curring in respect Housing Authority in of the Gran FAGG, Judge. joined Circuit segregated Housing Project, a ite Mountain Although agree I much of what the in 1953. At that project constructed today, I not believe there is court does do time, housing project territory in support evidence the record by a sufficient was transferred was to be located requiring part of the court’s decision Assembly from that special act of the General boundary City I that the lines of the of Little that an interdis- Milliken established remedy appropriate the LRSD be made coterminous. only upon Rock and trict is Therefore, respectfully showing I dissent. Further- of “a constitutional violation with- more, agree nearly I with all of produces significant while in one district that Judge persuasive segregative district;” Arnold’s discussion and spe- effect in another reasoning, opinion that his like- I believe cifically, “racially discriminatory acts * * * that there has wise fails to demonstrate have been a substantial cause proof significant been sufficient interdis- segregation.” interdistrict Id. at justify segregative realign- effects to trict Further, 94 S.Ct. at 3127. an interdistrict ing the boundaries of the LRSD and the remedy appropriate only is “to eliminate City of Little Rock. segregation interdistrict directly caused the constitutional violation.” Id. plain, fully makes and I con- record 745, added). (emphasis at 3127 S.Ct. conclusion, cur in the court’s there appeals Two courts of have read this lan- egregious have been substantial and fact guage require proof clear of cause and intradistrict constitutional violations as a effect of a constitutional violation and a segregative result of acts on the careful delineation of the extent of the PCSSD, and the the effects of NLRSD effect an remedy may before interdistrict agree must remedied. I which be also with In be involved. Lee v. Lee Board that the record does court’s conclusion Education, 1243, (5th 639 F.2d segre- sufficient reveal Cir.1981),the court stated: gative justify effects to consolidation of the three districts. We believe the Court’s deliberate choice phrases such as “substantial” “di- agree I today further with the court “significant rect cause” and segregative transfer, the Granite Mountain which oc- expresses effect” also an insistence that segre- curred had an interdistrict remedy in cases where an interdistrict is However, gative effect. I believe that the requested, proof there must be clear current effects of this violation are not cause and effect and a careful delinea- clearly delineated either in the district tion of the extent of the effect. findings court’s of fact and conclusions of showing, of such a absence school dis- law, or in today. conclusions court’s carefully trict lines are to be observed Contrary today, to the court’s decision remedies confined to views, Judge well as Arnold’s I believe that affecting orders school district this issue should be remanded to the dis- segregation which the condition of is precise specific trict court for more manifest. seg- as to the current interdistrict transfer, regative effect of the 1953 Accord Goldsboro Edu- Board of appropriate remedy for consideration of an Wayne County cation v. Edu- tailored to the constitutional violation that cation, (4th Cir.1984). 745 F.2d is found to exist. emphasized The Fifth Circuit also in Lee

My opinion substantial, chief concern with the that there must be “a direct effect,” broadly princi- segregative court is that it reads too and current 639 F.2d ples govern equitable (emphasis original), the federal at 1260 before an power Bradley, remedy may remedial Milliken 418 interdistrict be ordered. This argument persuasive, remedy 94 S.Ct. 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 for a can (1974) (Milliken I). Arnold, Judge condition, while not tailored to correct a Mil recognizing principles cogently I, these liken 418 U.S. at 94 S.Ct. at pointing out currently the manner which the court unless it offends the Constitu them, misapplied improperly upon relies his tion. As the court stated Milliken I: “A overly power may own factual conclusions based on an federal remedial be exercised generous interpretation ‘only on of the record to the basis of a constitutional viola and, case, justify today. any equity ordered tion’ ‘[a]s in 1953 role that the deannexation and the the violation determines nature ” may played at that time. PCSSD Id. at remedy.’ 94 S.Ct. scope of the v. Charlotte-Meck- Swann (quoting at 3124 also relies violations relat- The court on Education, 402 U.S. lenburg Board sitings justify to an interdis- to school 1267, 1276, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 91 S.Ct. remedy. These which are trict violations im- (1971)). reemphasized The Court this opin- at some detail in the court’s discussed on federal remedial portant limitation to ion involve decisions the PCSSD build Building Contractors power General away from the centers some twelve 375, 399, 102 S.Ct. Pennsylvania, This, population. argued, it is of black (1982), 3141, 3154, in which 73 L.Ed.2d 835 outlying to attract whites to the served should areas, resulting that a remedial decree it cautioned a of schools number by the required farther is a no over white enrollment. This “extend with 90% of that violation.” foundation for the the court nature and extent weak today Adjusting orders. the boundaries of we turn is also well to observe before It and the LRSD the latter the PCSSD so that today issues the court specific that to city with are coterminous Little Rock limits not remedy, has been adopts its own which ques- not affect the schools in will twelve parties argu- by the in their addressed tion, city are located which far from the briefs, and differs substan- ments or which simply There in the limits. no indication that ordered the district tially from suspect sitings record that the had findings necessary to fact court. any impact on the the Little schools within remedy simply do not this court’s support that, city limits of the Rock as a result finding by Specifically, no there is exist. today, court’s decision will now be turned segregative court of current the district a to the LRSD. over support that the conclusion effect opinion Judge Arnold’s in detail treats Little Rock and City of boundaries might interdistrict effects result from what made coterminous. LRSD be history of annexations and deannexa- court, support of its portion that The district court’s order stressed tions. mandating boundary of that the discussion freezing of the boundaries. The court City of Little Rock and the LRSD be today emphasizes testimony that “the coterminous, simply catalogs portion hardened],” ante boundaries findings court’s a footnote. the district keep pre- LRSD were “maintained ob- n. It must be ante at 435 See predomi- dominantly black and the PCSSD served, however, court, at least that white,” nantly these concludes respect to the with district court’s manipulations had interdis- substantial education, assignments, special on student segregative Admittedly effect. there trict faculty transportation, employment testimony expert support this con- administrators, simply has enumerated heaviliy The court on Dr. clusion. relies in- may require intradistrict violations that testimony beginning in Dentler’s remedies the PCSSD. tradistrict within modify of PCSSD refused to its board this court’s the district court’s Neither nor Ante the con- 420. To boundaries. any way indicates in these opinion trary, argued the United States an in- district manifested mira violations refused single has not deannexa- effect. ter petition allegedly tion since froze its brief, attempts In its boundaries. LRSD Similarly, opinion neither of this argument support the theo- refute court court nor the record from the district intentionally ry that the PCSSD froze its the conduct of the PCSSD reveals boundaries: in the income has resulted lack of low reveals, exception however,

housing only on PCSSD. The The record 4/13/65 Bryant public housing adjacent is the evi- the PCSSD notified the respect concerning and Cabot school districts that it would Mountain dence Granite credit, Judge squarely To Arnold’s he accept any more black students. PX minutes further reveal the coun- opin- 10. The faces the weaknesses of the court’s ty to meet with LRSD officials to refused sup- on the ion. His further observations 5/14/68, on and re- discuss consolidation port making the boundaries attempt to annex the fused NLRSD’s of Little Rock coterminous Further, Spring Hill area 4/8/69. further comment. deserve informal efforts of the LRSD discuss locat- From the decisions PCSSD (cid:127)cooperative agreements interdistrict ing in schools areas white suburban failed. expansion population from farthest black Appellee Brief for at 56. centers, Judge argues Arnold “I believe argument, specifically this court After having a these factors are substantial cur- inquired support for these as to the record Ante at 441. effect.” rent interdistrict that the first statements. LRSD answered argues He the movement of families support. no record As to the sentence had from outside the entire Pulaski sentence, second answered area to areas within the of Little Rock had, 14, 1968, May PCSSD board on voted also within the PCSSD has been substan- of consolidation with LRSD.1 On favor tially by influenced the unconstitutional sit- therefore, point, simply critical this decisions, causing phenomenon a la- argument its had was forced to admit that overflight.” beled It must be “white ob- collapsed. collapse only This removes Judge point served that Arnold does not underpinnings the factual from Dr. Dent- proving “substantial evidence” this directly contrary opinion, ler’s but makes it effect,” Milliken “significant segregative Judge to the evidence. Arnold is correct * * * I, at or S.Ct. as his conclusion that “it is true that no Lee, expressed proof “clear of cause and place deannexations taken since effect and a careful delineation of the ex- this on desire not to but to blame PCSSD’s tent of the effect.” 639 F.2d at 1256. percentage increase its student is not Rather, upon he relies belief. Such beliefs Ante at 440. On the record plausible.” not, judicial do within the limitations of our us, only I can conclude that before power, appropriate serve as an considera- finding district court’s that the in- reviewing tion in the order before us. tentionally “froze” or “hardened” its Judge Arnold no boundaries, makes effort to determine today accepts, which the court evidence, contrary whether there are of the district is to the and thus is clearly support erroneous. court which these conclusions. simply imprecise There are none. The na- only support other for the court’s departure ture of his and his conclusions post-Brown today pre- order is “the Milliken, principles from the are best and the other histori- transfers by evidenced his conclusion that the ten continuing cal violations with effect.” percent change makeup in racial which re- Ante specific n. 20. a more Absent realigning sults from the LRSD’s bound- continuing demonstration of the effects of approximation fair aries “seems a of what violations, (Ar- see ante at 436 historical percentages the racial would have been ab- nold, J., dissenting), concurring and I be- sent the influence of PCSSD’s violations.” foundation, evidentiary lieve that Thus, Ante at 441. vigorous his effort well as the entire stated basis for the support ultimately the court’s conclusion remedy, court’s fails to meet the standards belief, speculation, ap- I rests fair of Milliken clarifying interpreta- proximation, upon principles and not Lee Golds- those tion of standards Milliken I which must guide boro. us. filing 1. The informal efforts to in the last fore the of this action. referred period, shortly sentence be- occurred in later pri- students in number white Judge final observation conclu- Arnold’s tenuous sively nature vate schools in LRSD increased more demonstrates points “pro-white 1,000 He his conclusion. and 1980 than between 1970 and the given PCSSD has off emanations” that private number of white students period years as factor which over a more PCSSD increased into parents the PCSSD has attracted white 1,700 during period. time same It is City of Rock. There areas within the sharp evident increase enroll- to the record source of is no indication as private years, ment in schools in these ten ques- I have emanations. substantial these impact and the of these numbers on the subjectively perceived such tion whether population, private total student choice sufficiently palpable to emanations having segregative greater far effect I Millilcen showing required make the points to than those factors the court in its proof the clear of cause constitute factor, today.2 however, opinion This is a Lee Goldsboro cor- and effect which present, that at and in all likelihood in the rectly necessary. hold to be future, pose significant impediment will approach Judge particular Arnold’s any desegregation effort to achieve rely upon his find- must own these issues any within of the three school districts. contrary ings. Supreme This is great failings of the of the One court’s City in Anderson v. teaching Court’s of opinion, as well of the district as that court — -, City, Bessemer S.Ct. U.S. 105 order, is the failure to address in other 1504, (1985), 1510-11, 518 84 L.Ed.2d speculative way a most demographic play principal role judge the trial must factors, population such as movement and in the of facts. determination rate, major metropolitan birth common to in A is order. The final observation centers, impact significant on the have mightily to find a court stretches basis problems in and other this communi making City of the of Little the boundaries City ties. Pasadena Education re- Rock and the LRSD coterminous. This 436, Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, v. 96 S.Ct. percent will the LRSD 60 sult make (1976); see 2697, 2704, also 49 L.Ed.2d 599 However, percent 40 most white. one Bradley v. School Board Rich significant from factor has been omitted mond, (4th 1058, Cir.1972), 462 F.2d equation. 3,632 In 1980 there court, equally mem. an divided aff'd private white enrolled schools students 92, 1952, 36 L.Ed.2d U.S. 93 S.Ct. LRSD, 2,794 located in the white students (1973). PCSSD, private enrolled in schools I remand the case to the district would 1,086 private enrolled in white students only ap- consideration of court for further schools in the NLRSD. the LRSD propriate relief for intradistrict constitu- alone, private if the white tional violations and for further considera- schools, public the district schools attended segregative tion of the current effect re- percent rather approximately would be sulting from Mountain deanne- Another the Granite percent significant than 69 black. appropri- of an taken into is xation and for consideration factor which is not account pretext avoiding impact private problem be an seems to 2. observe, springs parties We do none of the has from other motives. untouchable issue that however, private may any addressing. interest in It that racial discrimination evidenced schools, religious including portion enroll- those with affil- well that a substantial iation, contrary public policy, religious parochial deeply is Bob ment schools. is States, par- University figures the court Jones v. United From furnished to publications & n. S.Ct. 76 L.Ed.2d upon of the state of 595 (1983), ties based Arkansas, however, 3,000 nearly and that schools which shown to there are stu- discriminatory employ practices will be private barred dents Little Rock area who attend in the governmental privileges enjoying seemingly having religious ac- no affil- nondiscriminatory counterparts. their simply us to corded iation. There is no record before Id. at 103 S.Ct. at 2030-31. of this enrollment determine whether some ate tailored to correct such

violation. Johnny GREENWOOD, Appellant, BOWMAN, Judge, concurring in Circuit ROSS, Happy Mahfouz, Dr. Robert Chan dissenting part. Director, respective cellor and Athletic ly, Arkansas; University Dr. agree expressed I with the views Raymond Miller; Nolan; P. Dr. Diane separate opinion Judge Gibson, John R. Jesson; Bradley Jacqueline D. Dr. with two reservations. Douglas; Pugh; Hugh Robert D. B. First, agree I do not that the Granite Chalmers; Williams; Jack Hall Mc provides proper Mountain transfer basis Adams, III; Jr.; Hodges, Kaneaster remedy. for an interdistrict This transfer Blass, II; Gus Board of Trustees of public occurred in when all facilities University Arkansas, Appellees. Arkansas, public public schools and No. 84-1498. alike, housing operating, still were with the blessing, segregated law’s on a basis. The Appeals, United States Court of living black children at that time in the Eighth Circuit. housing project Granite Mountain would Submitted March gone to all-black schools no matter Decided Nov. happened which district those schools to be in. Because it seems clear that the mainte- segregated

nance of education was not the transfer,

motive for this I would not treat predicate

it as a for interdistrict relief.

Second, agree I do not with the thrust of

footnote 2 Judge opinion, Gibson’s ante Specifically, I do agree

lawfully operated private schools are an parties

“issue” that to this law-

suit should have in addressing. an interest

Parents choose their children’s schools for

many different reasons. Sometimes the admirable,

reasons are sometimes not. So

long as this remains country, a free how-

ever, the parents motives of individual

opting to send their private children to public

school rather than school will remain

none of the law’s concern.

Case Details

Case Name: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 7, 1985

Citation: 778 F.2d 404

Docket Number: 85-1078, 85-1079 and 85-1081

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.