Becoming Less Separate? School Desegregation, Justice Department Enforcement, and the Pursuit of Unitary Status, Pursuant to Public Law 103-419
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BECOMING SEPARATELESS SEPARATE? School Desegregation, Justice Department Enforcement, and the Pursuit of Unitary Status UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS september 2007 UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS LESS SEPARATE? The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress. • Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. Members of the Commission Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chair Jennifer C. Braceras Gail Heriot Peter N. Kirsanow Arlan D. Melendez Ashley L. Taylor, Jr. Michael Yaki Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 624 Ninth Street, NW Washington, DC 20425 (202) 376-8128 voice (202) 376-8116 TTY www.usccr.gov This report is available on disk in ASCII Text and Microsoft Word 2003 for persons with visual impairments. Please call (202) 376-8110. Cover Photos: Little Rock, Arkansas, September 1958. African American students arriving without incident at Van Buren High School, Little Rock, Arkansas. Photo courtesy of Library of Congress: U.S. News & World Report Magazine Photograph Collection. Washington, DC, September 1954. H.B. Sanders, right, gives instructions to members of a 10th grade class at McKinley Technical High School as the new District of Columbia public school term opens Sept. 13. Photo courtesy of Library of Congress: New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection. Kids in a classroom responding to the teacher’s question. Nancy Louie, 2004. Photo: istockphoto. Letter of Transmittal The President The President of the Senate The Speaker of the House Sirs and Madam: The United States Commission on Civil Rights transmits this report, Becoming Less Separate? School Desegregation, Justice Department Enforcement, and the Pursuit of Unitary Status, pursuant to Public Law 103-419. The purpose of the report is to examine what effect the increase in the number of schools obtaining unitary status has had on the racial balance of schools that were previously under court order. Specifically, the report examines whether levels of integration tend to erode as consent decrees are lifted. To that end, the Commission collected data as to the legal status of school districts in seven states: Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The Commission then analyzed this data to determine if obtaining unitary status was associated with greater levels of racial clustering or reduced integration within districts. In addition, the Commission examined the Educational Opportunities Section (EOS) of the Department of Justice, which is charged with the primary enforcement role in this area to determine what effect its policies and actions have had on the racial balance of school districts. The findings indicate that the increase in the number of jurisdictions obtaining unitary status has not had a negative effect on levels of integration. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the substantial number of districts that have obtained unitary status since 2000, at least partly through the actions of EOS, exhibit higher levels of integration than those districts that obtained such status in prior decades. The report also indicates that certain factors, unrelated to the legal status of a school district, have a more significant effect on levels of racial balance. Among these are the size of a district’s student population, the percentage of white student enrollment, and the state in which the district is located. The Commission urges that these factors be further examined and that school districts and the communities of which they are a part take the steps necessary to address the vestiges of state based discrimination. On August 2, 2007, the Commission approved this report. The vote was as follows: Chapters 1–5 and the appendices were approved by Commissioners Braceras, Heriot, Kirsanow, Reynolds, Taylor, Thernstrom, and Yaki, with Commissioner Melendez not present. Chapter 6 was approved by Commissioners Braceras, Heriot, Kirsanow, Reynolds, Taylor, and Thernstrom; and objected to by Commissioners Melendez and Yaki. The report includes a separate statement submitted by Commissioners Melendez and Yaki. For the Commissioners, Gerald A. Reynolds Chairman Table of Contents v TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 3 Race Relations in the United States.........................................................................................................................................3 Brown and Brown II.................................................................................................................................................................3 Opposition to Desegregation ...................................................................................................................................................4 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 .....................................................5 Green and its Progeny .............................................................................................................................................................7 The Supreme Court Desegregation Cases of the 1990s – Dowell, Freeman, and Jenkins.....................................................10 Current Practice .....................................................................................................................................................................12 Active Court Orders...........................................................................................................................................................12 Extrajudicial Reasons ........................................................................................................................................................13 Recent Developments ........................................................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 3: THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS............................ 15 Organizational Strengths, Weaknesses, and Resources .........................................................................................................16 Structural Placement of the Educational Opportunities Section ........................................................................................16 Budget and Staffing of the Educational Opportunities Section .........................................................................................17 Broad Educational Opportunity Missions and Functions ..................................................................................................20 Department of Justice Policy Directions................................................................................................................................21 Strategies for Desegregating..............................................................................................................................................21 Broadening Analysis to Apply to Quality of Education ....................................................................................................21 The Educational Opportunities Section’s Desegregation Enforcement Activities.................................................................22 The Department of Justice’s List of Schools Under Court Order Today...........................................................................23 Workload and Accomplishments.......................................................................................................................................23 Complaint Receipts and Processing...............................................................................................................................23 Case Initiation and Case Intervention............................................................................................................................24 Investigations and Compliance Reports.........................................................................................................................25 Case