Busing for School Desegregation

The mandatory transportation of school children to desegregate public elementary and secondary schools is an issue of deep contention throughout our society. The House of Representatives has approved language for the Department of Justice FY82 authorization bill (H.R. 3462) restricting the Department's involvement in actions requiring school busing. On Mar. 2, 1962, t h e Senate approved the version of the Department of Justice F Y 8 2 authorization Bill (S. 951) with language restricting the Justice Department's involvement in busing actions as well as imposing limits on the busing plans Federal courts can impose. S. 551 was then sent to the House for consideration. Hearings on S. 951 before a house Judiciary subcommittee began on June 1'7, 1982.

BUSING F O R S C H 0 3 L GESEGREGATION ISSUE ERIEF NUMBER I 3 8 1 3 1 0 AUTHOR: S t e d m a n , J a m e s 9. EducatFon and Public Welfare Division T H E L I B R A R Y OF C O N G R E S S CONGXESSIOKAL RESEARCK SERVICE MAJOR I S S U E S S Y S T E M D A T E O R I G I N A T E D 01/28/81 D A T E UPDATED 07/08/82 F O R ADDITIONAL I N F O R M A T I O N C A L L 287-5700 0708 CRS- 1 T h e m a n d a t o r y .:ransportation of school children to desegregate public elementary and szcondary schools i s an issue of deep contention throughout our society. T h e H o u s e of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s h a s approved language for the (H.R. 3462) restricting the Department of Justice FY82 authorization bill 3epzrtment's involvement in actions requiring school busing. On Mar. 2, 1 9 6 2 , t h e S e n a t e approvec? ~ t v se r s i o n of the Depzrtnent of Justice FY82 (S. 9 5 1 ) \:ith l a n g ~ z ~ e restricting the Justice zuthorization Sill Department's involvement in busing actions as vell as imposing limits on the the House S. 551 w a s t h e n s e n t t o busing plans Federal courts can impose. f o r consi.deracion. H e a r i n q s o n S. 9 5 1 b e f o r e a 3 o u s e J u d i c i a r y snbcommi~tee b e g a n o n J u n e 1'7, 1 9 8 2 . The Supreme Court, o n J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 , issued two rulings concerning voter struck initiatives Limiting busing in two States. One wzs upheld; the other down. Mandatory busin2 of school children is a contrsversial tool used to elemectary and secondary schools. The debate over desegregate public mandatory Susing has raised questions about appropriate ways to achieve equal the educational opportunity in this country. This issue b r ~ e f explores controversy in four sections. T h e f.irst s e c t i o n r e v i e w s t h e a c t i o n to date cf the 97th Ccngress on busing legislation, a s well as the action of the The second section executive and judicial branches regarding busing. presents an overview of the busing issue, including references to relevant Suereme Court decisions. The third section considers Federal legislative accivity in this area. Finally, the fourth section provides some of the" major arguments made for and against the use of busing to r'emedy s c h o o l segregation. RECENT BUSIKG ACTIVITY 1. 97th Congress As has been the c a s e in a l l recent past Congresses, proposals t o l i m i t or t e r m i n a t e t h e u s e of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n r e m e d y i n g s c h o o l s e g r e g a t i o n h a v e b e e n Congress have passed made in the 97th Congress. I n d e e d , both H o u s e s wf anti-busing amendments. O n June 9 , 1981, the Eouse approved the "Collins" amendment (named for i t s sponsor, Representative James Collins) to t h e Department o f J u s t i c e A p p r o p r i a t i o n A u t h o r i z a t i o n A c t , F i s c a l Y e a r 1 9 8 2 (H.R. 3462), p r o h i b i t i n g t h e D e p a r t m e n t f r o m u s i n g a n y f u n d s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e Act 0 ' " bring any sort of action to require directly or indirectly the t r a n s p o r t a t i o ~of a n y student t o a school other than the school which is nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring special education physically handicapped." K.R. - 3 4 6 2 w a s a s a result of being mentally or p a s s e d b y t h e H o u s e cn J u n e 9 , a n d h a s n o t b e e n c o n s i d e r e d by t h e S e n a t e . O n M a r . 2 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e S e n a t e p a s s e d i t s v e r s i o n cf t h e F Y 6 2 D e p a r t m e z t of J u s t i c e a c t h o r i z a t i o n a c t (S. 9 5 1 ) w i t h tflree a n t i - b u s i n g a m e n d m e n t s . One of The s e c c n d c f t h e s e a P . e n d n e n ~ s , . r h e " J o h n s t c n l ' anendment (namee far its spons3r Senator Johnstor.), places time and distance ,.I ~. m i t s 0 ;I the t r a n s p o r t z t i o n tha? Federal courts can order f o r public school students. The a x e n d m e n t p r o v i d e s ':hat no F e d e r a l c o u r t c a n o r d e r t h e transportation of a one nearest the s t u d e r 1 t 1 s home skuden? t2 a p u b l i c school o t h e r t h a n t h e a particular school vo'untarily, or the u n l e s s t h e s t u d e n t IS a t t e n l t n g r e q u i r e m e n t i s " r e a ~ o ? a S l e . ~ ' T h e r e q u i r e m e n t w o c l ~ ??~l o t b e " r e a s o r ! a b l e " u n d e r s p e c i f i e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i n c l u d i n g i f t h e t i m e consc:!ed i n t r a v e l t o a n d f r o n distance school f c r a particu;ar s5uSer.t e x c e e d e d 30 r . i n u t e s a day c r i f e z r a v e l e c t o a z d f r o n s c h o o l e x c e s e e d i3 n i l e a a d a y . T k z s e t i n e c n d C!-stancs 1 i z i t s would n o t a p p l y t o a t t e n d a n c e a t the schocl neartst the stusent's r e s i d e n c e t h a t had t h e s t u d e r t ' s a e p r o p r i a t e g r a d e l e v e l . T h e a n e ~ d n e n ca:s3 p r o v i d e s t h a : u p o c r e c e i p t c f a " n e r i t o r i o u s l ' c o m p l & i n t ;3y a s t u d e c t or Flis the amendment, p a r e n t t h a t t h e s t u d e n t i s being t r a n s p o r t e e i n v i o l a t i c ; ? cf a n d a f t e r d e z e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e c c n p l a i n a n t i s ui- able to pursue litigatio~., t h e Aztorney General i s aathcrized zo initi?.te a civil action to obtain relief. Transportation i n violatioc or the amendmenz i s defined as that o c c u r r i n g u n d e r F e d e r a l c o ~ r co r d e r s e!-.reree b e f o r e o r a f t e r e n a c t m e n t o f tPLe i i s to be cited as the a x e x d ~ e n ~ .T h e a n e n C x e n t a 1 s o ~ r o v i d e s t h a z is sip,ilar to S. 528 i;it:odcceC >y " ) ; e i 9 p A 2 ' 3 ~ " 0 3 d ~ > ~ 3.kc;1 o f 1 9 8 2 . " S e n z t o r 2chns;cr a ~ t~o eK.3.. 2047 i c t r a d x c e d b y 3 e p r e s e n t a z i v e K 3 0 r e . + " F i n a l l y , a z a i r e a n t i - S u s i n g anendnent t o S . 251 2 s p a s s a e S y :he Senate ~ r o v i d e s= h a t n o n e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s c f S . 9 5 1 a r e to prevent the Zustice end or reduce busing -in 3 e p a r t ~ e n : from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n ~ r o c e e d i n g s t o existing court-crdere2 plans. S e n a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e " J o h n s t o ~ "a n d " H e : - n s " a m e n G m o n t s w a s l o n g anc? irtense. D e S a c e o n S . 9 5 1 b e g a n i K:he Senate or. June 16, 1901. After r.. . , c ~ l i n go n f o ~ ro c c : a s i o n s c o i n v o k e c l o t u r e o n a i F l i S u s ~ e r w a g e d a g c i n s t :he 15, 1 9 C l on an anti-busing language, the Senate irvoked c l o t u r e oc Sep:. a n e r ! c ? R e n t c o n t a j - n i n g b o t h t h e " 3 e l m s 1 ' a n d " J o h n s ? c n f i a n e ~ . d n e c t s . On D e c . 1 2 , filibuster agair-st 1 9 8 1 , c l o t u r e was c n c e a g a i n i n v o k e d , : h i s t i m e t o e n d a ; h e " I ; e l ~ . s ' a~m e n d m e n t . (The "Hei!nsV amendment w z c f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d a n d then n s d i f i e d b y t 3 e a d d i t i o n o f t h e 1 ' 2 0 h n s t c n 1 1a m e n d m e n t . Although the Senate also in turn had to approved t h e combined llJohnston-Helms" anendment, i t aprove the original amendment as modified.) The Senate approved the On F e b . 9 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e Senate o r i g i n a l amendment a s m o d i f i e d on F e b . 4 , 1 9 8 2 . i n v o k e d c l o t u r e on t h e e n t i r e b i l l , l i m i t i n g f u r t h e r C e b a t e t o n o t more than 100 hoars. On P e b . 2 4 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e S e n a t e r e j e c t e d an amendment to S. 951 establishing a right to racially neutral assignnent to public schools ( s i m i l a r t o S. 1 1 4 7 ) . On Mar. 2, 1982, the Senate approved the thire a n t i - b u s i n g amendnent p e r m i t t i n g t h e J u s t i c e Depart~.ent t o participate i n Froceedings t o l i m i t busing i n existing court orders. On X a r . 2 , 1982, che S e n a t e p a s s e d S. 9 5 1 a s a n e n d e d . S. 9 5 1 , f o l l o w i n g S e n a t e p a s s a g e , u a s s e n t t o t h e House f c r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , the house to resolve r e p o r t e d l y b e c a ~ s ee f f o r t s t o s e e k a c o n f e r e n c e w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n e a c h c h a m b e r ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e FY62 J u s ~ i c e a u t h o r i z a t i ~ ~ a c t would have been debatable on the Senate floor, 2nd the r e s ~ l t i n g conference might have been staleinated. Several members of the Eouse i n t r o d u c e d r e s o l u t i o n s t o h a v e t 3 e S i l l c o n s i d e r e d on t h e House floor (see L e g i s l a t i o n s e c t i o ~b e l o w ) i n r e s p o n s e t o r e p o r t s t h a t c h e b i l l w o u l d b e h e 1 2 2 t t h e Speaker's Labie. O n Mar. 2 2 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e b i l l was r e f e r r e d t o t h e House CRS- 3 '1581010 'J?DATX-07/08/52 A n ~ t i o nw a s p r e s e n t e d tc tP1e C l e r k of t h e E o u s e o n Y a y JuCiciary Coamiztee. further 25, 1982, co d i s c h a r ~ e the Youse Jndiciary Committee from c o r s i d e r a t i o n of 3 , G 5 1 . On June 1 7 , 1982, the House Jcdiciary Subcommittee s n C o u r t s , C i v i l L i b e r t i e s a n d t'?e A d m i z i s t r a t i o n c f J u s t i c e b e g a c a series ~ f h e a r i n g s o n t h e a n t i - b u s i n q p r o v i s i o n s o f S. 951. Debate in the Congress over the anti-busing language c f S. S 5 i h a s f o c u s e d particular;^ the llJohnscon" o n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e s e provisions, amendnent w9ich affects a remedy available to the Federal courts. Among the affecc points being debated a r e the authority under which the Congress could to, Federal courts, the the jurisdiction of, and rercedies a v a i l a b l e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e F i ~ o w n v. Board of Education de,:ision in 1954 (see C i s c u s s i o n in C v e r v i e w s e c t i o n b e l o w ) a n d whether busing is necessary to . d.,-,blny- i ccertain c o n s t i t u ~ i c n a l rights. In a letzer (Xay 5 , 1982) to 3 e p r e s e n t a z i v e F ? ~ d i n o ,c h a i r m a n sf t h e Ho12se j u d i c i a r y Committee, Attorney General William French Smith concluSed c h a z the anti-Susing provisions of S. 951 were constitutional. For an analysis of the Johnston and Helms a n e n d m e n t s s e e L e g a l A n a l y s i s o f t h e S e l m s A m e n d ~ ! e n t Xo. 9 5 t o S. 951, The 1982 Department of Justice Authorizations Act, Regarding the Enforcement A u t h o r i t y o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t i n S c h o o l D e s e g r e g a t i o z C a s e s S y C h a r l e s V. G a l e , C R S A a e r i c a n L a w D i v i s i o n , Aug. 3 1 , 1 9 8 1 ; a n d L e g a l Analysis of the Helms 1982 Department of Justice A m e n d m e n t No. 6 9 , a s m o e i f i e d , t o S. 9 5 1 , t h e A u t k o r i z a t i o n s A c t , R e g a r c i n g t h e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n of S t u d e n t s 2 y Z P ~ a r l e s 3 a i e , 2, IcEl. ,:visisn, 2u:y EF?S A m e r i c a n L a w '- 2. E x e c c t i v e ar.d J u Z i c ~ a l3 r a n c h e s 2ecent Justlce 3epartnent actlvlty on school d e s e g r e g a t ~ o n reflects A t t o r c e y G e n e r a l S n ~ t h ' sa n n o u n c e m e r c (ln a s p e e c h o n M a y 2 2 , 1 9 3 1 b e f o r e t h e A m e r l c a n L a w Institute) t h a t : Rather than continuing to insist i n court that the only and best remedy for unconstitutional segregatioc is pupil reassignment through bnsing, t h e Departmen: o f J u s t i c e w i l l h e n c e f o r w a r d p r o p o s e r e m e d i e s t h a t h a v e t h e b e s t c h a n c e of b o t h improving the quality cf education in the schools and promoting desegregation. The Department has proposed that a metropolitan-wide plan of voluntary busing S e i m p l e m e n t e d f o r St. L o u i s , K i s s o u r i . . T h e k e y f e a t u r e o f t h i s p r o p o s a l is the offering of free Stace public college attendance as an incentive for suburban Slack stueents who voluntarily transfer from city schools to white schools, and for white students who voluntarily transfer from suburban s c h o o l s t o black c i t y s c h o o l s . The Justice Department has also joined with t h e Caddo Parish (Louisiana) School Board in filing a consent decree in F e d e r a l c o u r t t o end a 1 6 - y e a r - o l d d e s e g r e g a t i o n sxit. The proposed plan includes establishment of magnet schools, a laboratory school operated with institutions of higher education, majority to minority transfer, attendance z o n e a n d g r a d e r e s t r u c t u r i n g , etc. The United States Supreme Court issued 30, 1982, two rulings on June concerning voter initiatives limiting Susing in two States. The Court struck in the State cf d o w n I n i ~ i a t i v e3 5 0 , a d o p t e d b y a m a j o r i t y o f t h e v o t e r s -. Washington, which wo2ld have limited the authority and ability of local s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s t o a s s i g n s t ~ d e n t so n t h e b a s i s of r a c e . Among the three I n 1 5 5 4 , cFle U.S. S c p r e m e C o u r t r e n d e r e d 2.2s ianfinark C e c i s i s n i n Browr, v. Soarc of Education 483) w h i c h found segregated educaticnal ( 3 4 7 U.S. .c - a c i l i t i e s t o d e p r i v e c h i l d r e n o f ;he e q u a l p r s c e z t i o n o f t:~e l a w s u n d e r tF.e -74:h amezdnent z o the constitution. D o e s s e g r e ~ a t i o nof c h i l d r e n i n p u S l i c s c h o c l s solely o n the basis of r a c e , even thongh the physical facilities and other lltangibiell f a c t o r s nay b e e q u a l , d e p r i v e t h e c h i l d r e n of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that i t does. in education bjas thus found to be unconstituticnal. As d e v e l o p e d i n s c b s 3 q u e n t S u p r e m e C o u r t decisions, de j2re segregation is not limited to s e g r e g a t i o n resulting from specific officials1 acticr~s statutes, but includes segregation resulting fron school t h a t have segregative intentions behind then. S i n c e 1 9 5 4 , e f f o r t s t o end ce school segregation have been undertaken with varying degrees of --j u r e intensity and success. D e j u r e (by l a w ) s e g r e g a t i o n 3 y r a c e - T h e r o l e of s c h o o l b u s i n g i n a d d r e s s i n g d e j u r e s e q r e y a t i ~ n i s d e c i d e d l y night achieve d e s ~ g r e g a t e d school controversiai. On t h e o n e h a n d , b u s i c g a t t e n d a x c e p a t t e r n s promptly and thus aSSisc loca' school officials in r.eecing t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o 3 l i q a t i o n s . On the other hand, the extent and senerared ccncern over the s t a t e of d e p t h of t h e o ~ p o s i t i o n t o b c s i n g h ~ q r 2 c e r e l a t i e r s i n t h i s cou3tr;i, r a i s e d d o u S t s a S ~ 1 u t t3.e p o s s i 2 i l i t y o f trzly C e s e g r e g a t i n g sc3oo:s a n d cF.zllenged t h e ?rLnci?le that equal educational o3portunity desands sz3ocl deseqregation, I P 1971, the Supreme Conrt a d d r e s s e e student t r a n s p o r ~ a t i o n in the Charlotre-Mecklenbur';, 402 d e s e q r e g a t i o n of a d u a l s c h o o l syste;;?.((Swar?? v . u.S. 1). The Court held out as the constitutional requirement for such districts the elimination of !'all v e s t i g e s of state-imposed segregation" ?resect in the pcblic sehools. TI All t h i n q s S e i n g e q u a l , w i t h n o h i s t o r y of Csscrimination, it might well be desiraS1e t o assign 2upiLs to schosls nearest t > e i r t1 i ~ .a s y s t e a homes. 3 u t t h i n g s ern .-. , ~ erldal that h a s b e e n Ce2.iberztely c o n s t r u c z e d 2F.d maintained to enforce racial segrccaticn,. .* I? t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , "desegregation p l a n s canno: S e l i m i t e d t o t h e w a l k - i n of students 3,s school." The Cacrt foxnC no basis for rejecting the businq p a r t of t?,e d e s e g r e q a t i o n plan. Sut, "an objection to transportation of s ~ u d e n t smay h a v e v a l i d i t y w h e n t h e t i m e o r d i s t a n c e c f t r a v e l i s s o g r e a t a s z c risk either the health of the c5ilCren or significantly impinge on the ,sL~a~al 3 r o c e s s . !I ed;in-' ' L a t e r S;:prene C 3 x r t 5 e z i s i c c s ;?ave a Z d r 2 s s s C i s s s e s r e l e v a n t t o t h e c:eSate s v e r s c 3 o o l k u s i z c ~ . I n K e v e s v. S - h o o l 3 i s t r i c t K O . 1 ( 4 1 3 U.S. 1 8 9 , 1 9 7 3 ) , k - ~C c s r ~C e f i n e d G e j c r e s e g r e g a t i c n a s i n c l x d i n c r h a t s e g r e g a z i o n r e s u l t i n g this case involvin~ from intectiopzl school Soare pclicies, even i f , a s in ZIenver, C o l o r a d s , t h e d i s t r i c t h a d n e v e r s e g r e g a t e d b y s t a t u t e . Keyes helpee move the Susing controversy o u t of the South a n d i n t o t h e r e s t of t h e Nation. T h e q u e s t i o n o f a s e g r e g a t i o ~ .r e m e d y i n v o l v i n g n o r e t h a n o n e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t h a s j e e n a d d r e s s e 3 by t h e C o u r t , p r i n c i p a l l y i n blilliken v. B r a d l e y ( 4 1 8 U.S. -,, - 7 , 1974). W h i l e r e 2 e c t i n g a nulti-distric: or metropolitan remedy for D a t r c i t , l!ichigan, t h e C o u r t e s t a S l i s h e d t h a t s u c h r e m e d i e s a r e v a l i d o n l y i f t2e Stace or school districts involved helped cause interdistrict segregaticn. This decision is relevanz t o the busing controversy because it h a s S e e n a r g u e d t h a ~i n t e r d i s t r i c t r e m e d i e s c o u l d i n v o l v e a g r e a r e r a m o u n t o f b u s i n g , i n p a r t S e c a u s e t 9 e t o t a l 3.rea t o S e d e s e g r e g a t e d ~ c u l d be larger. In some instances, t h o u g h , l e s s busing might be required b e c a u s e , by crossinq district lines, grouped or paired schools might be closer together. L a . 7 In summary, the Court has since the 1 9 5 4 arown decision identified m a n d a t o r y s c h o o l b u s i n g a s a n a c c e ~ t a b l et o o l t o r e m e d y d e j u r e segregation. Desegregation techniques have come t o be approved only when they actually woule and could dzsegregate, rather than simply o f f e r i n g the opportunity for desegregation to take place voluntarily (such a s w i t h freedom of choice plans). Although the use of busing has limits in the eyes of the Court, rhese limits have not been precisely defined. Reliable national statistics c n the extent to which public school children are bused for desegregation purposes a r e not available. The total number 05 costs, etc., are miles traveled, the time spent o n the buses, the incurred not known. Rational fignres on the total number of students riding buses to school, whether or not such transportation i s required z n d e r a d e s e g r egation o r d e r o r p l a n , s h o w t 3 a t of t h e 3 8 m i l l i o n p u b l i c school stc.dents ( a v e r a g e transported in 1979-80 a t d a i l y a t t e n d a n c e ) o v e r 22 m i l l i o n , c r 5 8 % , w e r e p u b l i c expense. T h e estinated a v e r a g e anncal c o s t per s t u d e n t i n 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 w a s $ 1 4 7 . T h e p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d ~ n t sb e i n g t r a n s p o r t e d 2 n d t h e c o s t s p e r s t u d e n t "sing o f students I s n o t t h e c c l y t s o l z h a ? h a s b e e n s s e d i c a t t e m p t s to c e s e g r e g a t o s c 9 o c ; s y s t e r ~ s . C t h e r z e c 2 ~ . i q n e sz a ? S e ,qrou;ed ty w h c t h e r they - . _ y or. v a l u x t a r y r-soo~.ses f r c : ] s t x Z s r t s a x e 2 s r e ~ : s cr r:;?~ezp.or thev.7 a r e , i!clu:.tary -:- e s c s n 3 2 p a r : cf n a n ' < a ~ e cd e s e ; r z g a t i c n p1ar.s. , A l s o , b u s i n g I s a c e c e s s a r y c o m 2 c n e r z o f s o r r ~ e c ;che tec?.niqces described belcv. - 7 n;m-L - - n a j o r i ~ y= z m i r . c r i t y t r a ~ s f e r s stud en-,^ o f i r , a ~ o r i c yr a c e a t c n e s c t 3 o l a r e p e r a i t t e d le i n t o t r a n s f e r z o s c h o o l s s h e r e tY.ey , : ~ i i S the minority) ; -- m a g n e t s c h o o l s ( s c ? ~ ~ oa ~r es e s t a S l i s h e C x i t h s p e c i a l programs acd c u r r i c u l z designed t o a c t r a c t s z c d e n z s of a l l r a c e s f r o n t h r o u g h o u t a school system!. -- neighSorhood attendance p c l i c l e s (srcdects a t t e n d t h e s c h o o l s i n t h e i r neighborF.oods o r t h o s e c l o s e s t t o t h e i r homes, r a t h e r t h a n b e i E g r e q u i r e d t o a t t e n d inore d i s t a n t segregated schools); -- redrawn a t t e n d a n c e z o n e s (schools' grade s t r u c t u r e s r e m a i n ~ n z a c tb u t t h e z o n e s f r o m w h ~ c ht h e y d r a w s t u d e n t s a r e a d j u s t e d ) ; -- p a i r e d o r g r c u p e e s c h o o l s (schools s e r v ~ n gd i f f e r e n t r a c e s a r e a s s i g n e d t h e same a t t e n d a n c e z o n e s b u t e a c h school s e r v e s a d i f f e r e n t c l u s t e r of grade l e v e l s ) -; predominantly -- m o d i f i e d f e e d e r p a t t e r n s (lo$,-er s c h o c l s o f predominantly d i f f e r e n t races serve a s f e e d e r s c h o o l s tc t h e s a % e u p p e r l e v e l schooi.) ; *[NOTE: If, for example, two elenentary schools had student bodies of predominantly different races and served different attendance z o n e s , these zone schaols could be paired and desegregated by creating a single e n c D m p a S S l n g t h e p r e v i o d s z o n e s serve<? by the schools, and by assigning C l - ~ s t e r i n gof schools g r a 5 e s 1 - 3 t o c n e schoo:<. a n d g r a d e s 4-6 t c t h e o t h e r . 1 Is 2 n e x t e n s i o n of t h i s t e c h x i c u e t o m o r e c 2 a c t w o s c h o 0 1 s . ~ X s t a l l o f :he ~ e c h n i q u e ; l i s t e d ~ S o v eh a v e fare" e q u a l l y w e l l u?Ser j u d i c i a l scrutiny. Presently, d c s e g r e g a ~ i o n2lans for districts practicing 6e j~ r e s e g r e g a r i o c or ~ ~ i l e vl incing ~ h v ee s t i g e s o f snch s c h o c l s e g r e g a t i o n a r e n o t 1 . 1 l ~ e l yt o s u r v i v e ju"iciz.1 c h a l l e n q e if t h e y a r e b a s e 5 oc f r e e d o n of choice 1 ,,,ans or n e i q h S c r h o c d atJ:.endarLce 2 o l i c i e s . m F e d e r a l 1ah-s a d d r e s s :he b u s i n g cf s c h o o l c:?ilCren for dese~reqa:i?n I z -- ,.b -r e e ways. F i r ,- L the Clvii 3ighzs Act of 1964 prcviCes legislazive a - t h o r i t y u 2 o n whic?, i n p a r t , m a n y b'dsing o r 6 e r s a n d p l a n s h a v e S e e n based. S e c o n d , s o ~ el e g i s l a t l o ~p r o v i d e s f i s a n c i a l s u p p o r t f o r d e s e g r e g a t i n g schocl Ziscricts. TP.ird, l e g i s l a t i o n h a s b e e n e n a c t e d z o l i m i t ;he use of school Snsing a s a remedy for segregation. A decade after the Brown decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 69-352) w a s e n a c t e 6 . S e c t i o n 5 0 1 o f t;tle V I of t h e A c t p r o v i d e s : (P.L. N o p e r s o n in t h e U n i t e d S z a t e s sl-1211, o n t h e g r o x n d of r a c e , c o l o r , o r n a t i c n a l o r i g i n , be exclude6 from parricipaeisn i n , be denied the benefits cf, or be subjected to discrimination under any prograx or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. S e c t i o n 6 0 2 s p e c i f i e s t h e s t e p s t h a t F e d e r a l e x e c u t i v e a g e n c i e s may take to IV of t.he A c t authorizes secure compliance with sectLon 601. Title assistance to desegrecating districts. S u c h a s s i s t a n c e n a y be i n t h e f o r n of (1) t e c h n i c a l a s s i s z a ~ c e in the development and implementation of 6 e s e g r e g a t i o n p l a ~ s , (2) t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t e s for elementary and secondary school personnel to help them "deal effectively with special educaticn school boarCs for p r o S l e m s o c c a s i o n e d S y d e s e g r e g a t i o n , " a n d (3) g r a n t s t o the provision of in-service training for school personnel to address desegregation problems and for employing specialists to provide advice on desegregation problems. The funding ievel for this program for the 1982-E3 p e r i o d i s $ 2 4 n i i l i o n ( d o w n f r o m $ 3 7 m i l l i o n i n FP61). In a d d i t i o n , s e c t i o n 1 0 7 o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s A c t a u t h o r i z e s the Attorney G e n e r a l , u n d e r s p e c i f i c c i r c u ~ , s t a n c e st~o init-iate a civil action against s c h o o l b o a r d s a c c u s e d cf d e p r i v i n g i : ~ d i v i d u a l s c f t h e e q u a l F r o t s c t i o n o f t h e section is to empcwer any law. Acccreing to t h ? statute, nothinq i n the o f f i c i a l or c o u r t of the Unitee States to order the transportation of T h e Z e u c a z i o n 'rnendmef,zs cf 1974 . 93-380) adaeC ;he prohibitior against the use of Federal eCucation Fui-iCs f o r busing 'to 't3e G e n e r a l - i u c a t i o n P r o v i s i o n s A c t a s s e c t i o n 420. T h e exce?tion f o r voluntary r r s q z e s t o by l o c a l schc:,: officials was Celeted. addition, ~ h eqeneral ,inpact AiC Progrs!? ?ro?.iZit:.on x a s n o t t 3 ac3l.y to c e r t z i n f ? r ~ d s a n d e r t h e L 81-874). iSctcol .A-ssistazce 'ir 'ederally Affecte?, A r e a s , I.L. 8 . 5 2 N o c o u r t , d e p a r t ~ e ~ to,r a g e n c y of t h e U n i r e d States shall, , order the implementation of a p l a n t h a t w o u l d r e q u l r e t h e t r a n s p o r t a z i o n of any student to a school other than the school closest or cest closest to his place of residerce which provlees the cppropriate grade l e v e l arid t y p e of e d a c a t i c n f o r s ~ c hs t u d e n k . (Seccion 215) ... T h i s provision Sld little to limit the activicy of courts becanse section 2C14(b) s t a t e d t h a t n o provision of t h e t i t l e w a s t o a f f e c t t h e authority or' F e d ~ r a l c o u r t s t o e ~ f o r c et h e 5 t h a n C 1 4 t h a m e n d x e n t s to the constitution. I n a d d i t i o c , t h e t e r z s na7r- Yp -r o p r i a t e q r a d e l e v e l a n d t y p e o f e d u c a t i c n v c o u l d be defined e s pernittinq Sl~sing beyone the nearest schools. Thus, DHEW continued to use the authority of title VI of the Civil Z i g h t s Act ~o c o n d i x i c c c o n t i n u a t i o n o-edderal f u n d i n g o n c o r . ~ l i a n c e%ith t h e title even - - t h a t r e q n i r e e trar,sports.ticn S e y o c d stu3e?.ts1 n e z r e s t s c h 9 o l s . : F Other provisions of t3is title establisked a prioricy list of I n t h e n i d - 1 9 7 0 s , C o n g r e s s b e g a n t o li7.i: t h e a u t h o r i t y o f the DE3W and x h e n e w D e p a r t ~ ~ e no tf Z e u c a t i o n t o r s q u i r e d e s e g r e g a t i o n p l a n s that include Title V I of Susing a s a c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n of Federal funding. t h e C i v i l R i g k t s Act autharizee :he terninario:! of Federal fanding for f z i i l u r e t o comply w i t h i t s requireaents (see earlisr discussior. of :his , .-:tie) . . N o n e o f t h e furies c o n z z i n e d i n t F . l s A c t s h a l l 5 e l ~ s e dt o r a q x i r e , d i r e c e l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of axy s t u d e n t t o a s c h o z l o r h e r t h a n t h e s c h o o l ~j7hich i s n e a r e s t t h e s t u d e n t ' s home, e x c e p t f o r a s t u d e n t r e q c i r i r ~ qs p e c i a l e d u z a t i s n , t o t h e s c h o o l o f f e r- ,' n g s u c h s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , i n o r d e r t o c o m p l y x i t h t F t l e V I o f t h e Civil R i g h t s Ac: c i 1 9 6 4 . F o r t h e p u r p c s e of t h i s s e c t i o n a n i n d i r e c t r e q u i r e n e n c of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of s t u d e n z s i n c l u d e s t h e t r a n s p o r t z t i o n of s t u d e n t s t o carry out a plan involving the reorganizztion of t h e g r a d e s t r u c t u r e of s c h o o l s , t h e p a i r i n g of s c h o o l s , o r t h e c l u s t e r i n g of s c h o o l s , o r any pairing, or c o m b i n a t i o n o f g r a d e r e s t r u c t u r i r.I?, clustering. The p r o h i b i t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s s e c t i o ~d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e e s t a b 1 i s h r n e r : t o f magnet s c h o o l s . T h e 9 6 t h C o n g r e s s c o n s i d e r e d t w o ~ . a j o rl e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l s : (1) H . J . R e s . 7 4 , p r o p o s i n g a c ~ n s t i t ? ~ t i o n aar lc e n d n e n t t o p r o h i b i t m a n d a t o r y s c h o o l busing (which f a i l e d t o r e c e i v e t h e r e q u i s i t e t v i o - t h i r d s v o t e i n t h e House on July 2 4 , 1 3 7 9 1 , a n d ( 2 ) a r i d e r t o t h e D e p a r t r n e x t s o f S t a t e , j u s t i c e a n d Commerce, t h e J u d i c i a r y , and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1981 ( 3 . . 7564) p r o h i b i t i ~ gt h e 3 e p a r t m e n z of Justice from Sripging action t o require, P u 1~ r e c t l vc r i n d i r e c t l y , t h e b u s i n g o f a n y s t u d e n t t o a s c h o o l o t h e r t h a n the one n e a r e s t 13, 1980). the s t c d e r . t l s Pome (w?.ich % a s v e t o e d b y ? r e s i d e n t C a r t e r on Gec. (5) A t i t s heart, t 9 e o p p a s i c i c n t o S u s i n g i s l a r g e l y racist i n nature and r e f l e c t s c p p o s i t i o n t o Cesegreqakion of t h i s c o u c t r y l s s c h o o l s . Attacks o n s c h o o l b u s i n g r ~ e s e l ym a s k this more fundanentaL position. -co Busing o a i n r a i n s e ~ r e q a t e ds c h z o l s e l i c l t e d n o public outcry t h a t the bus ride itself r i g h t FP. s o m e way b e P . a r s f u l t o t h e c h i l d r e n . C r . i y when t 5 e b u s ride ended a t e e s e g r e q a c e e s c h o c l s h z s t h e r e Seen cpposi;ion t o > u s i n g p e r s e. (1) T h e p o l a r i ~ i n g e f f e c t s o f S u s i n g p l a n s 2 n d ~ h e i r requisite expenss to d e f l e c t 3 - t t e n t i o n , e n e r q y z n C r e s o c r c ~ si r o n c r i t i c a l l y I m p o r t z n t e r ' f o r k s i m p r o v e t h e e d u c a ~ i o n a lq u a l i t y o f t h e s c h o o l s . By f r a g m e n t i n ? com~unities, S y d e s t r o y i n g n e i g k b o ~ - 3 . o o d s c h c o l s , b y a l i e n a t i n g p a r e n t s k7ho ~ i g h th a v e b e e r some o f the r.at~rz.1 involve& i n the schools, E ~ c . , busing plans at-kack elenents necessary for c r e a t L ~ ~ g6 n d naintalning cnality schools. I r. a d d i k i o n , many p a r e ~ ~o ps p c s s b Y d s i n g Secll:.se tF.sir cP,ilSren a r e forced i ~ t o s c k o o l s th2: a r e u c a S l e ~ . 3r , e e t t e e i r a c ? . C e : , i c a ~ dc c l k u r a l needs. F -quzl AmecCs t n e C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v L C L n 2 t h a t ?.o p u b l i c school s t u d e n t could Sc , . P r o ~ o s e s a n a f i . e n d m e n = tc , ~ , ? eC o n s z i ~ ~ t i o? nr o ? - i j i t i n g c o u r : s of =he ZRited S c a t e s f r o 3 r e q u i r i n g a p e r s o n ' s a s s i g n c e n c t o , o r e x c l u s i o n f r o m , a n y scP.ool 19al; o n z'e > a s i s of r a c e , r e l i g i o n c r z a t i o n z l o r i q i n . Intrcdnced Jan. 5, r e f e r r e " to C 3 : a r n i t z e e o n J u d i z i a r y . P r o v i d e s f o r t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o r , of S . 9 5 1 , s p e c i f y i n g t h a t n ? o n ad optic^ o f b i l l from the Speaker's t9e r e s o l u t i o ~ . ,it s h a l l Se i n oreer t o ~ a k e the : a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o ? : Sy t h e E o u s e . I n t r o d > d c e C Y a r . 11, 1 9 5 2 ; r e f e r r e < to CornT.it;oe o ~ ..-. n ~ l e s . S e i g h S e r h o o 2 Sc?.csl h c t cf 1381. zstaS.:Fshes c e r t a i n 1 i a i t s or. : h e exte:.: which students can be transsorzed beyond the school nearest their _ -~ s i d e n c eu n d e r o r d e r s o f a court o f t h e U n i t e d S t a z e s . Szhsoi bus travel S e y o n d t h e n e a r e s t s c h o o l c o u l P n o t adC more t h a n 3 3 n i n c t e s (roundtrlp) to t h e z i m e t h e s t u d e n t s p e n t on t h e b u s , n o r a d e m o r e t h a P 3 0 m i l e s ( r o u n d t r i p ) EO t h e d i s t a n c e t r a v e l e d by t h e s t u d e n t . TI-ansportaticn or assignnent for a t t e n d a n c e a t a magnet or other specialized sc2oo1, for an educational p u r p o s e o r f o r v ~ l u Ln c' -- ~ ~ a t ~t e r . S a n e e a t a particular school would not be Btrorney General T:jould b e c o v 2 r e C by t h e s e l i ~ , i t a t i o n s . I n a d d L c i o n , t h e zcthorized, under certain circumstasces, to icitiate civil dction upo:: r e c e i p t , o f a c o m p l a i n t f r o 3 2. s t u d e n t o r parect that a violati93 of the SeighSorhooC. S c h o o l Act h a s o c c u r r e d . Introduced Feb. 2 4 , 1981; r e f e r r e e to Cornnittee oc Z n d i c i a r y . Hearing held on Xay 22, 1981 (see Chronoloqy). I d e n t i c a l t o *n.R. 2047 ( X o o r e j , - -L A u S. 951 (Thurnond) D e p a r t n e ~ t0 5 J u s t i c e A p p r c ? r i a t i c n R u t > . o r i z a t i c n A c t , F i s c a l Year 1982. is an A 7 ~ t h c r i z e sa ? F r o p r i a c i s ~ . s f o r J u s t i c e D e p a r t 3 e n t a c s i v i t i e s . Pending zzendsent 1ixi:ing t h e Departmer!t's involvement i n businq s u i t s anC irnposir-q A . 8, 1981; L i m i t s on F e d e r a l c o u r t o r d e r s i n v o l v i n g L n s i n g . Introdaced - . . ?x;2;ic 3 ~ 3 , c o l" k i l?icpL"s -2>c; ,pf 1911. rrcc;sizs lo~,.,jer r e e e r a l c-zrts f r c n t a v i n q jurlsdic:icn to i s s x e z n y order rec?~iring -he assig;ne-: or t r a n s ~ o r t s c i o n of p u > l i c e l e n o n t a r y a n d s e c o c d a r y s z u d e ~ . c s or. t h e Sasis of -,-c n, o- , c o l o r o r n a t i o n z l o r i g i n , o r t o i s s u e a n y o r d e r e x c l u d l n q s t u d e n t s fro:?. atte?d;ng a p.2SlFc s c h o o l z n :he s a n e S a s e s . I n C i v i Z u a l s , scFlcsl S 3 a r d s and to o t h e r s c h o s l a u t P - o r i t i e s a f f e c t e d S y c o c r t o r d e r s t h a t yj~eree p t e r e e p r i o r t h e d a c e c f t h i s A c t a n d t?.a~ wo?,ld n 3 t h a v e b e e n p e r n i t t e d u n d e r tP.e terms . o f z?.is A c t a r e e?;.:leS t o r e l i e f f r o m suer. o r d e r s , ~ n l e s s f o u r spec:-fi: tl0.E z z t s :tnBi:?cs are RE.,?$?. -2 -4 -7 c- "-r -,.,A --?c ~ 3 2 cr-qina1 "m- F-,.2. -0 F-2 ~c:?r-;i=:~a:l-: 2 ~ 6 speeifF,&7;-: ;z.;sc" 1 - * - -- "- ; n - .o.-, 2 &, - - ., - -- :7 -..ca3Lse, sz'Jf.e~,ks= c 5 s &ssiq:-Laf ~ 3 c , r e>:c;zced f r a y , s c p . ~ ~ c? : ~ ,:-!? 52,;s cf r a c e , 2 ~ 1 3" 3 ~ rAzti::.al orin:? Seccr-d, :pLe "t-rz1;ty c f circyr,s~an,--sf! -4 :he s z h c c l syscer,s r e x a i n s i~nch.cq.z,$, ;\;z---~ _ s Z t i 9 q n o rec~;-isi3srs;:on cf tp.e c r s 3 ~ - T h i y c , 7.2 the^ r s n e < v - 3 z -- z - ---i; ,u l . - a ~ tP.e ixtertiona:. and s~eciiiz seqregaticr;. i ocr:;m., z h e b e n e f i t s c f tpAe o r d e r s o ~ ,..~eFg?~ > + - - . t h ~ i r COSZS. The 2 List o f " :he remedie; availakle :or aEdressinq bil; also provFZes b n c o n s z i t u ~ i 3 n a l segregation of stcden-1-s. These are: legal injucctions any segregzzive law o r gover~nen;a: action, against im?leaentatio2 of not ojeyed, voluntary C C n c e n F t o f tour; ? r o c e e d i n g s if t p e ;njunczions a r e Lransfer ?rcgracs, ddvance ~ l a c n i ~ gi n the c o n s z r ~ c t i o x of new school -:an; . - . - -1A:LtL ; e s , a r d l o c a l i:2itiazlves z.nd plan; tc improve e dU,atior ~-wit?out r-flrrec recard to race, ccior cr naeional origin. I n t r o d u c e d Gc;. 2 1 , 195:; t o CuCiiciary Cornr.iztse. A 3 p r o v e C S y r h e S e n a c e L l e i a r y Sukcs:::nizcee 3 - t:-~e Z o n s z i t u ~ i o c~ o v .3 , 1 ~ 8 ~ . , - , -- n Ad- r n m 3 L ' I L.".... 2. 2 ---- LLCL - A. " ' u - L A 7 ; - n 7 U.S. Congress. Souse. Connittee on the Judiciary. Schcol desegregation. Hearicgs, 97th C o n g r e s s , 1 s t sessic~.. 7 , 1 4 , 19, 2 1 , 2 9 , Kov. 4 a n d 1 9 , 1 9 8 1 . S e p t . 1 7 , 21., 2 3 , Oc:. S e r i a l no. 25. W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i ~ t .C f f . , 1 3 9 2 . 1048 p. U.S. Congress. Eouse. Committee on t3e Judiciary. School d e s e g r e g a t i o n ; r e p o r t o f t h e S u b c o n n i t t e e o n C i v i l a?.d Constitutional Rights. Karch 19S2. W a s k i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . Gff., 1 9 8 2 . 3 2 p. A t h e a d of t i t l e : 97th Congress, 2d sessio?. Committee p r i ~ tno. 12. 05/22/51 -- S f r a z e d u e i c i a r y S 1 2 b c o a c i t t e e cn S e p a r z t i o n of Fowers h e l d a h e a r i n g on " F o r z e C S c 2 o c l S ~ s i n g . ~ ' test is on:^ a;? S . 5 2 5 a n d S . 1147 w a s P e a r C . i2/i3/80 -- P r e s i d e n t C a r t e r v e c o e d ihe D e p a r t m e n t s of S t a t e , J u s t i c e and Z o x n e r c e , t h e J u d i c i a r y , 2 n d R e l a t e e A g e n c i e s A p p r o p r i a t i o n A c t , 1 9 8 1 ( H . R . 7584) w h i c h p r o h i b i t e d t 3 e Department 05 J u s t i c e from c s i n s i t s f u n d i n 2 t o i n i t i a t e l i t i g a ~ i o nt o r e q u i r e b u s i n g a n y stu6er.t t o a school other- t h a n t h e one neares: his ho~,e. 07/24/7G -- E.J.Res. 07/02/70 - - C o i u m b u s 3 o a r d cf Z 5 u c z t i o n v . PenicX d e c i s i o n 7 4 , prozosinq a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amenesent t c p r o h i b i t mancatcry schocl bnsing, f a i l e d t o receive t h e r e q u i s i t e t x o - t h i r d s v o t e i n t h e :Gouse. ( 4 4 3 U.S. 449) a n d C a y t o n -.B o a Brinkmar: (T)aytor, II) C i e c i s i o n by t 2 e S u p r e z ~ eC o c r c . Impact D a y t o n ; d e c i s i c i - : \:as l i m i t e d u p h o l d i n q d i s t r i z t x i d e bunin: r l of E d u c atior: v. 526) r e n e e r e 6 of e 2 r l i e r 5 y t h e s e 1979 C e c i s i o r . ~ slans. (443 U.S.