Schooling and Civil Rights History is Central TAH Workshop Jack Dougherty Trinity College March 2008

NAACP attorneys Hayes, Marshall, & Nabrit, 1954 Rethinking how we teach Brown v Board

Uncritical use of popular civil rights images have “frozen the movement in time” Patricia Sullivan and Waldo Martin call upon educators to “Challenge the conventional or master narrative of civil rights history” NAACP attorneys Hayes, Marshall, & Nabrit, 1954 Rethinking how we teach Brown v Board

Comparing Historical Interpretations of Desegregation a jigsaw learning exercise

Legal and political background: After 1954 Brown decision banned legalized school segregation, lower federal courts followed Briggs dictum: US Constitution “does not require integration... It merely forbids the use of governmental power to enforce segregation” Comparing Historical Interpretations of Desegregation a jigsaw learning exercise

Legal and political background: White deseg resistance strategies: Alabama bans NAACP activity Southern Manifesto calls for reversal of Brown Close all public schools (Prince Edward County, Virginia) White mob protest (Little Rock) -“Grade-a-year” and “Freedom of choice”desegregation plans NAACP goes to court to demand more affirmative steps on deseg Comparing Historical Interpretations of Desegregation a jigsaw learning exercise

Guiding Question: How did two different Southern Black communities experience school desegregation? Comparing Historical Interpretations of Desegregation a jigsaw learning exercise

What challenges and opportunities do you face in teaching about the history of race and schooling?

Race and Education in Connecticut: A Brief Overview

1830s Whites Oppose Black Ed in Connecticut 1831 New Haven citizens vote against proposal to open first college for Black men 1833 White teacher Prudence Crandall opens private boarding school for African-American girls in Canterbury, but local whites respond violently and shut it down 1834 Additional controversies prompt CT legislature to pass “Black laws,” banning the teaching of out-of-state Black students (only state above Mason-Dixon line to do so at that time)

“Race Problem in City Schools” Evening Post (Hartford) Hartford school superintendent Thomas Weaver proposed segregated evening schools for older students to retain Blacks who were “slighted and ignored” by Whites; Black pastors form Ministerial Alliance to oppose segregation; Weaver drops plan 1917

Report identified “racial imbalance and poverty” as key problems facing Hartford and its schools 1965

Hartford total non-White Population, 1960 Hartford School Population, 1964 Grade % Non-White K-950% %

Recommended two-prong plan: HPS school construction for desegregation suburban districts should enroll some low-income Hartford children (perhaps two per classroom) 1965

1966Controversy over Project Concern voluntary city-to-suburb school deseg Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library Some suburban districts voted to accept city students, with state funding; others refused

1966Controversy over Project Concern voluntary city-to-suburb school deseg Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library Some suburban districts voted to accept city students, with state funding; others refused

1966 Controversy over Project Concern voluntary city-to-suburb school deseg Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library Some suburban districts voted to accept city students, with state funding; others refused Project Choice enrollment

1989 Sheff v O’Neill lawsuit filed Ten-year-old Milo Sheff and sixteen other plaintiffs filed suit against then-Governor O’Neill, charging that Hartford’s segregated school system deprived them of equal opportunity under Connecticut constitution Milo Sheff and mother, Elizabeth Horton Sheff, Hartford Courant Since 1974 Milliken v Bradley federal ruling in Detroit blocked mandatory city-suburban desegregation remedies, Sheff plaintiffs turned to Connecticut state courts instead Hartford 91% minority students ( )

11 week trial 1,000 pieces of evidence; 50 witnesses State defended its position by arguing that government action did not create segregated schools; individual decisions in housing market was to blame 1992 Sheff lawsuit finally goes to trial Hartford Courant

1996

What the court did (and did NOT) rule: racial segregation in schools violates state constitution, but no specific remedy for legislature to follow, and no deadline school boundary lines have caused unconstitutional segregation, but no mandate to change boundaries in Hartford or metro region Republican Gov. Rowland and Democratic legislative leaders agree not to force suburban districts to integrate; voluntary only

2003 The Settlement emphasizes: voluntary city-suburban enrollment through magnet schools voluntary city-suburban transfers through Project Choice (formerly Project Concern) raise Hartford minority student enrollment in voluntary deseg from 10 to 30 percent by 2007 Sheff attorney Horton, Atty Gen Blumenthal & Comm of Ed Sergi with Sheff plaintiffs, H Courant

Four questions to consider

Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%? voluntary city-suburb enrollment in 22 magnet schools

Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%? voluntary city-suburb enrollment in 22 magnet schools voluntary city-suburb transfers through Project Choice

Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%? The current Sheff settlement does NOT redraw city- suburban district boundaries, nor does it require suburban districts to participate in Project Choice or magnet school programs. Are mandatory measures the answer?

Even if the current Sheff settlement reached its goal, only 30% of Hartford minority students (about 7,000) would be enrolled in “reduced-isolation” magnet schools or suburban districts The remaining 70% would remain in Hartford neighborhood schools, which tend to be racially isolated and have low achievement levels. Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%?

Even if the current Sheff settlement reached its goal, only 30% of Hartford minority students (about 7,000) would be enrolled in “reduced-isolation” magnet schools or suburban districts The remaining 70% would remain in Hartford neighborhood schools, which tend to be racially isolated and have low achievement levels. “Is it the vision we started with 14 years ago? No. It is a giant step forward? Yes.” “It’s a good thing... This isn’t the end of it. We’ll come back and see where we are in four years.” - Elizabeth Horton Sheff Hartford Courant January 23, 2003 Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%?

Q2: Do Hartford parents experience “freedom of choice” or “forced choice”? 2) Project Concern alumni oral history interview: "If you are stuck, as a parent... and you can’t put yourself in the neighborhood that you want your kids to go to school in, then you have no choice but to be in the city-to-suburb desegregation program.” (Banks & Dougherty, 2004) See: 1) Proj Choice Campaign DVD

Q3: What do specific cases of high- achieving minority schools mean for Sheff? Jumoke Academy, public K-8 charter school located in Hartford’s North End On CT “failing school” list , but now on top-10 list of high-achieving elem schools for Af-Am and low-income students

Q4: What do changing suburban demographics mean for Sheff?

Four questions to consider Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And what about other 70%? Q2: Do Hartford parents experience “freedom of choice” or “forced choice”? Q3: What do specific cases of high-achieving minority schools mean for Sheff? Q4: What do changing suburban demographics mean for Sheff?

What’s the current status of Sheff? Proposed Legal Settlement (aka Sheff II), spring 2007: - Increase state support for Project Choice and interdistrict magnet schools -Add charter schools and vocational-technical schools -5-year goal to raise Hartford minority student enrollment in desegregated settings from 22% (08-09) to 41% (by 2012) July 2007: Sheff II agreed to by CT Atty General and Sheff plaintiffs But Hartford officials object, and CT legislators do not act on bill Nov 2007: Plaintiffs to back to court; Jan 2008: Judge calls for Legislature to respond Feb 2008: Sheff II bill introduced March 2008: CT Atty Gen withdraws Sheff II agreement; more negotiations continue...

Reassessing Brown: A Century of Race & Ed Reform How do we make sense of school desegregation struggles, particularly from our perspective in the post-Brown era?

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles 1896 Plessy v Ferguson - Court upholds “separate but equal”

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles 1896 Plessy v Ferguson - Court upholds “separate but equal” 1930s toNAACP shifts Court opinion, from focusing on lack of equal 1954 facilities, to attacking the principle of racial separation

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles 1896 Plessy v Ferguson - Court upholds “separate but equal” 1930s toNAACP shifts Court opinion, from focusing on lack of equal 1954 facilities, to attacking the principle of racial separation 1955 toNAACP persuades Court to require more affirmative deseg 1974actions, in an effort to halt white resistance to Brown

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles 1896 Plessy v Ferguson - Court upholds “separate but equal” 1930s toNAACP shifts Court opinion, from focusing on lack of equal 1954 facilities, to attacking the principle of racial separation 1955 toNAACP persuades Court to require more affirmative deseg 1974actions, in an effort to halt white resistance to Brown Third period of change: 1974Milliken v Bradley 1991Oklahoma City 1995Missouri v Jenkins 2003U Michigan cases 2007Seattle & Louisvillle

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles 1896 Plessy v Ferguson - Court upholds “separate but equal” 1930s toNAACP shifts Court opinion, from focusing on lack of equal 1954 facilities, to attacking the principle of racial separation 1955 toNAACP persuades Court to require more affirmative deseg 1974actions, in an effort to halt white resistance to Brown Third period of change: 1974Milliken v Bradley - bans city-suburb deseg if no intentional seg 1991Oklahoma City - deseg plans removed if good faith (not results) 1995Missouri v Jenkins - voluntary city-suburb magnet plan cut back 2003U Michigan cases - no race points in adm, but diversity goal OK 2007Seattle & Louisville - are voluntary race deseg plans allowed?

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles 2007 Seattle & Louisville cases Facts: Seattle Public Schools, about 40% white, 60% non-white Students assigned to neighborhood schools District voluntarily adopted a racial integration goal that each school would be ± 10% of the citywide minority average Rising 9th graders may choose high schools About 97 percent of students received 1st or 2nd choice About 3 percent (300 students) affected by district use of race Question: Does the US constitution prohibit school boards from using race-conscious criteria in a limited way to achieve racial diversity and integration in K-12 schools?

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles 2007 Seattle & Louisville cases Question: Does the US constitution prohibit school boards from using race-conscious criteria in a limited way to achieve racial diversity and integration in K-12 schools? US Supreme Court divided in a decision Breyer, Stevens KennedyRoberts, Scalia Ginsburg, SouterThomas, Alito School districts may<--- consider race --->Seattle and Louisville deseg plans violate the constitution because they act in “non-individualized, mechanical way” on race