of Public Instruction, the plaintiffs, and other concerned
civic organizations in order to develop a more effective and
practical program for desegregation.
It is well settled that after a determination has been made
that a current condition of segregated schooling exists within
a school district, the state and the local school board
automatically have an affirmative duty to effectuate a
transition to a racially non-discriminatory school system.
Keyes et al. v. School District # 1, Denver, Colorado et al.,
413 U.S. 189, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (decided June 21,
1973); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct.
753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955). At this stage in the proceedings,
this Court has not yet determined that School District # 205
is de facto racially segregated. However, much of the evidence
which has been presented to this Court to date strongly
suggests a problem of minority isolation in the Rockford School
District. It is therefore important that the School Board of
School District # 205 be aware of its affirmative duty to
comply with the dictates of the United States Constitution and
the State of Illinois school desegregation policy.*fn18
Where residential segregation is reflected in school
enrollment figures, school officials have the burden of
showing that there are no educationally sound and
administratively feasible alternatives to overcome the
existence of segregated schools. United States v. School
District # 151, 404 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1969).
Where school officials, in locating new schools and
constructing additions to old schools, have failed to adjust
school enrollments to fit school capacities in such a way as
to lessen racial segregation, they have the affirmative duty
to seek means of eradicating the results of their
discriminatory acts. United States v. Board of Public
Instruction of Polk County, Florida, 395 F.2d 66 (5th Cir.
1968); Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458
Teachers and other professional staff members may not be
discriminatorily hired, assigned, dismissed, or demoted,
because of race or color. Green v. County School Board,
391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968); Rogers v.
Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 86 S.Ct. 358, 15 L.Ed.2d 265 (1965);
Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 382 U.S. 103, 86
S.Ct. 224, 15 L.Ed.2d 187 (1965); Stell v. Board of Education
for the City of Savannah, 387 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1967).
State laws and/or administrative policies, directed toward
the reduction and eventual elimination of de facto segregation
and racial imbalance in schools have been approved by state
courts. See e. g., Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm. v.
Chester School District, 427 Pa. 157, 233 A.2d 290 (1967);
Booker v. Board of Education of Plainfield, 45 N. J. 161,
212 A.2d 1 (1965); Addabbo v. Donovan, 16 N.Y.2d 619, 261 N.Y.S.2d
68, 209 N.E.2d 112 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 905, 86 S.Ct.
241, 15 L.Ed.2d 158; Vetere v. Allen, 15 N.Y.2d 259, 258
N YS.2d 77, 206 N.E.2d 174 (1965); Guida v. Board of Education
of the City of New Haven, 26 Conn. Sup. 121, 213 A.2d 843
Federal courts have similarly approved the use by local
school authorities of programs designed to alleviate
facto segregation and racial imbalance in the schools. Offerman
v. Nitkowski, 378 F.2d 22 (2nd Cir. 1967); Deal v. Cincinnati
Board of Education, 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied,
389 U.S. 847, 88 S.Ct. 39, 19 L.Ed.2d 114; Wanner v. County
School Board of Arlington County, 357 F.2d 452, 4 Cir.;
Springfield School Committee v. Barksdale, 348 F.2d 261 (1st
Cir. 1965); Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (D.D.C. 1967).
The problem with minority isolation at even one school is
that it infects all schools. To put it simply, in a system
which has two schools all blacks at one school means all or
almost all whites at the other. See United States v. Texas
Education Agency, 467 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1972). Both sides are
in agreement that there is a problem of minority isolation in
the Rockford School District. The point of controversy between
the parties is what method should be used to achieve a more
racially balanced school system.
After hearing and examining the testimony given by various
witnesses, this Court is impressed by the School Board's
sincere concern and good will in attempting to solve the
instant problem. However, this Court is not thoroughly
impressed by the School Board's plan for voluntary
desegregation. It appears to this Court after examining all
relevant data presented by the parties in support of their
respective positions, that the voluntary desegregation plan
adopted by the School Board on April 30, 1973 is not practical
and will not effectively solve the instant controversy.
Testimony at the hearing held by this Court on July 2 and 3,
1973 clearly demonstrated that there is very little enthusiasm
over the open enrollment program, and the School Board's
projections of enrollment for the school year of 1973-74
demonstrate little, if any, change in minority
From the facts set forth above there appears to be problems
of underachievers, a high number of drop-outs, poor facilities
and supplies in certain schools in the Rockford School
District. These problems might very well be related and to
some extent caused by minority isolation. The present School
Board's voluntary desegregation plan and its other programs do
not seem to be adequately meeting and solving these problems.
Further, School District # 205 presently fails to comply with
the state standards relating to minority integration.
The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for
the State of Illinois has represented that it is willing to
work with the School Board of School District # 205 to develop
a plan which would solve the problem of minority isolation and
enable the School District to comply with state standards on
integration. The School Board has expressed a willingness to
attempt to develop a program that will comply with the state
standards and solve its problem of minority isolation. Thus,
it is the opinion of this Court that at this time it would not
be appropriate for the Court to become an activist and
formulate a program of integration for the School District. It
appears to this Court that the wiser course of action lies in
permitting the School Board, aided by the State Department of
Public Instruction and various civic organizations, to
formulate and implement an acceptable program which would
practically and efficiently eliminate minority isolation and
its ill effects.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
1. the plaintiffs' petition for a temporary
injunction is denied at this time;
2. the School Board is given until the first of
February, 1974 to present an acceptable
program that will eliminate minority
isolation in its schools; and
3. if the defendant School Board fails to
develop an acceptable program
by February 1, 1974, this Court will
reconsider its ruling on the instant petition
for a temporary injunction.