1. Racial Discrimination Morgan v. Kerrigan Gautreaux cases

2. Morgan v. Kerrigan: Background Total Population: 600,000 White: 320,944 (54.48%) Black or African American: 149,202 (25.33%) Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 85,089 (14.44%) Asian: 44,284 (7.52%)

3. Morgan: Background Boston has racially segregated neighborhoods –There are studies connecting land use with school segregation –The court finds that factors contributed unequal educational opportunities Ethnic segregation Cultural isolation Overcrowding in some and extreme underutilization in others Discriminatory assignments and school admissions procedures

4. Morgan: Background On June 21, 1974, the court found that because segregation is traceable to past governmental discrimination, it is proper under Brown for the Court to order local officials to desegregate the schools to fit constitutional standards –Past actions include Districting Feeder patterns Open enrollment policies Intentionally brought about and maintained dual system On appeal the decision was affirmed

5. School Composition Boston school population: 85, 000 –52% White –36% Black –12% Other minority Only 5 of 140 elementary schools came within 10% of citywide percentage 84% of Whites attend schools more than 80% White 62% of Blacks attend schools more than 70% Black

6. The Original State Plan The state plan was only a partial plan that left large portions of the City unaffected and allowed the continuation of all Black middle and elementary schools The opening of schools in 1974 lead to violence –School buses stoned –Crowds protesting students at the entry –Student boycotts –Students staying home –Cyclical pattern of recurring violence –166 state and local police officers are stationed in the halls of South Boston High –134 are stationed in the vicinity during school hours

7. School Committee Plan The school committee is adamant in its opposition against busing of students defined as assignments to schools beyond walking distance –They don’t want forced busing even if the schools don’t get desegregated –Courts suggests that this is a political move by the Chairman of the school committee

8. Committee Plan Cont’d The court found that the plan was constitutionally insufficient It was based on a freedom of choice plan where at first the student could choose to stay in his original school and then a choice between a citywide,magnet school, zonal, a school in which his race was a minority and finally any school in the zone Cannot simply rely on parent’s choice And the plan to have desegregated third site Resource center for schools still 15% beyond the racial ratio of the zone is not enough

9. Masters’ Plan Because of the complexity and multiciplity of desegregation, the court decided to use a panel of masters to come up with recommendations –Two experts: Dr. Robert A. Dentler, Dean of the Boston University School of Education Marvin B. Scott, Associate Dean

10. Masters’ Plan Cont’d The panel consisted of –Supreme Judicial Court Justice Jacob Spiegel –United States Commissioner of Education: Francis Keppel –State Attorney general: General Edward McCormack –Professor of Education at Harvard University: Dr. Charles Willie

11. Masters’ Plan Basically the court adopts this plan with modifications with the understanding that it is the local authorities responsibility to eliminate government-imposed discrimination but if it can not do so, then the court will create a desegregation plan.

12. Background Law In Swan, the Supreme Court recognized that school desegregation plans will sometimes not lead to 100% desegregation in every school in a town or city. If the desegregation plans leaves some school segregated this is ok because a desegregation plan is to be judged by its effectiveness

13. Background Law First and foremost, the desegregation plans must eliminate racial identifiablity of school But there is no standard of racial mixing. This is a flexible standard. The test of identifiability is substantial disproportion in composition compared to the racial compensation of the school system

14. The Plan Create 8 Community Districts with subunits of geocodes A 9 th District that would consist of citywide schools College and business pairing to aid certain schools Magnet schools to facilitate choice

15. School District District Map

16. A Sample Community District Brighton-Mission Hill

17. School Breakdown Data for schools in the district

18. Sample Racial Breakdown Racial Composite by Grade

19. Busing The court concedes that busing is a problem. The court does not want to burden children excessive commuting time

20. Busing The Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 calls for busing not to be implemented unnecessarily beyond what is required constitutionally. –The master’s plan required 6100 less students bused than the court’s plan –New stats were furnished after the masters submitted their plan; so the court had to revise the numbers However, because of the nature of the residential segregation in Boston, busing has to be a component of any effective desegregation plan

21. White Flight White flight is not a legitimate pacticality that the should be weighed against the rights of the plaintiffs Also studies have shown white flight is very complex and may depend on factors such as –Employment location changes –Increasing prosperity –Desire for better schools

22. Today There is evidence that this plan did not work and that Boston schools are still as segregated The busing program cost Boston an estimated $20 million Alternative, would be continued neighborhood schooling with neighborhood integration

23. Gautreaux Cases: Background Plaintiffs were Black families seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

24. Background Cont’d With the exception of the 4 White housing projects, 99% of CHA’s tenants are Black 90% of CHA’s tenants are Black 90% of people on waiting list are Black 99.5% of Blacks living in CHA housing live in a location that is between 50% and 100% Black

25. Background Cont’d The 4 White Housing Projects are severely racial segregated –Trumbull: 7% Black –Lathrop: 4% –Lawndale: 6% –Bridgeport: 1%

26. Site Selection The Court finds it hard to believe that it is mere coincidence that most (99.5%) Black tenants live in predominantly Black neighborhoods The site developments areas initially picked in White areas are rejected Informal policy of consulting the City Council is problematic

27. Court Structured Relief The court created Limited and General Public Housing Areas –Limited Public Housing areas are areas that are 30% or more non white population –General Public Housing areas are the rest

28. Relief Cont’d CHA can not get any money or implement any projects unless it essentially developed public housing in the General area as well as in the Limited areas The CHA can not continue its policy of concentrating housing in one area

29. Case Against HUD Although HUD pleaded with CHA not to continue with their discriminatory policies, it continued to provide funding to the organization Therefore it violated the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process by implicitly discriminating against them in the housing market

30. Social Science Studies have tried to show a correlation between the quality of life in a neighborhood and the well being of families

31. Quick Stats Between 1970 and 1990, people living in high poverty urban census tracts doubled from 4.1 to 8.0 million People living in poverty areas correspond to race –White: 3.5% –Hispanics: 18.4% –Blacks: 25.1%

32. Section 8 Section 8 is a government funded program that provides financial subsidies to low income families that want to move to a private-market apt or house that meets certain program requirements Right now 1.6 million use Section 8

33. Is it a problem of Neighborhoods? There is a debate in the literature whether developmental outcomes of poor children is effected by the neighborhood they reside or personal family environment. “Whether living in a disadvantaged neighborhood lowers one’s life chances in some causal way, or whether the observed correlation between concentrated poverty and low socioeconomic status simply reflects patterns of in- and out-migration or other class-selective processes” The Gautreaux families provide an excellent opportunity to answer the debate –See Sample Sampson et. al. on Patterns of Violence in Chicago Neighborhood in 2000: Sixty percent of the variance is explained by neighborhood demographics (AJPH)

34. The Study James Rosenbaum followed the Gautreaux plaintiffs Assisted 7,100 families relocate to suburbs and other parts of Chicago The plaintiffs had little choice over where they moved: families who did not accept the first available unite where moved to the bottom of the list. Most took the first apt. then

35. The Study Cont’d The program generated a sample of Chicago public housing tenants randomly assigned to both city and suburban neighborhoods Similar family background (this is questionable though)

36. Results Dropout Rates Attend College Suburban Residents 5%54% City Residents 20%21%

37. Results Cont’d Rosenbaum’s research team found significantly more suburban movers had jobs, and significantly more youth were enrolled in college tracks and went on to college. Furthermore, a higher proportion of youth who went into the labor market had full-time jobs at higher wages and better benefits than those who remained in the city.

38. Problems Is it a valid assumption that because the tenants all qualify as low income that they have similar family background What are the other parts of Chicago? Selection bias of respondents

39. Moving to Opportunity Program Launched in 1994 in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York 600 families randomly assigned to three groups: experimental, section 8-only comparison, and control group

40. The Groups The experimental group was given subsidies that were only redeemable in very low poverty neighborhoods The section 8 group could relocate to private market housing with no restrictions. But no counseling or relocation help The control group did not receive any subsidies but did not lose access to services they had previously been entitled to

41. Results Problem behavior among boys are 1/3 lower in the experimental and the section 8 groups than the control group Arrest rate for violent crime is 1/3 less in experimental group than control group

42. What Does This Mean? There were not many statistically significant effects from the program The actual impact may be larger because not all the families given the subsidy choose to move

43. Potential Problems Because participation is voluntary, the sample might not be representative Selection bias of those who are most likely to benefit

44. Problems Cont’d Political considerations such as public opposition to the program depending on the number of families choosing to move Some children might not be sensitive to their environment Social costs to non-participants To ensure success, the program should be voluntary and limited in scope

45. Clampet-Lundquist and Massey Study After controlling for selection bias, they chose that living in low poverty neighborhoods, especially those that are racially integrated, is positively associated over the long term with higher levels of employment, greater earnings, and lower levels of public service dependency.

46. Distinction B/W the Two Programs Gautreaux program required people to move to low minority neighborhoods and MTO only required to move to low poverty regions. MTO was more a focus on class than race –72% of experiment group moved to non minority areas

47. Selection Bias Younger people already living in integrated neighborhoods were the ones to selectively accept and use subsidy vouchers. These people were still in school, living in smaller households, dissatisfied with their current neighborhood and were willing to move farther away to achieve integration; they were also more open to the possibility of attending predominantly white schools. After going through this selection process, those who moved to an integrated versus a segregated neighborhood were older, better educated non-African Americans who lacked friends in the baseline neighborhood and were not so confident about finding a new apartment. Mobility subsequent to initial relocation was likewise selective and evidently quite path dependent

48. Suggestion Look at the total amount of time accumulated in different kinds of neighborhoods: segregated high poverty, integrated high poverty, segregated low poverty, and integrated low poverty –The influence of neighborhood conditions would be captured by the cumulative experience in different types of neighborhoods.

49. Suggestions Look at the characteristics of the individual neighborhoods that the people move into