East of the major highway that divides the metropolitan area of
Mobile, Ala., live 94% of the area's Negro students, and the
schools there are 65% Negro and 35% white. West of the highway, the
schools are 12% Negro and 88% white. The Court of Appeals approved
a desegregation plan which, like the District Court's plan, insofar
as those areas were concerned, treated the western section as
isolated from the eastern, with unified geographic zones and
providing no transportation of students for desegregation purposes.
Though some reduction in the number of all-Negro schools was
achieved for the 1970-1971 school year, nine elementary schools in
the eastern section (attended by 64% of all Negro elementary school
pupils in the metropolitan area) were over 90% Negro, and over half
of the Negro junior and senior high school students went to
all-Negro or nearly all-Negro schools. With regard to the faculty
and staff ratio in each of Mobile County's schools, the Court of
Appeals directed the District Court to require the school board to
establish "substantially the same" ratio as that, for the whole
district.
Held:
1. The Court of Appeals decision dealing with the faculty and
staff ratio is affirmed.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board
of Education, ante, p.
402 U. S. 1, at
402 U. S. 19-20.
P.
402 U. S.
35.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in treating the eastern part of
metropolitan Mobile in isolation from the rest of the school
system, and in not adequately considering the possible use of all
available techniques to achieve the maximum amount of practicable
desegregation. P.
402 U. S.
38.
430 F.2d 883 and 889, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded
in part.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Page 402 U. S. 34
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners in this case challenge as inadequate a school
desegregation plan for Mobile County, Alabama. The county is large
and populous, embracing 1,248 square miles and the city of Mobile.
The school system had 73,500 pupils in 91 schools at the beginning
of the 1969 academic year; approximately 58% of the pupils were
white and 42% Negro. During the 1967-1968 school year, the system
transported 22,000 pupils daily in over
Page 402 U. S. 35
200 school buses, both in the rural areas of the county and in
the outlying areas of metropolitan Mobile.
The present desegregation plan evolved from one developed by the
District Court in response to the decision of the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit in
Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs,
414 F.2d 609 (CA5 1969), that an earlier desegregation plan
formulated by the District Court on the basis of unified geographic
zones was "constitutionally insufficient and unacceptable, and such
zones must be redrawn." The Court of Appeals held that that earlier
plan had "ignored the unequivocal directive to make a conscious
effort in locating attendance zones to desegregate and eliminate
past segregation."
Id. at 610.
The District Court responded with a new zoning plan which left
18,623, or 60%, of the system's 30,800 Negro children in 19
all-Negro or nearly all-Negro schools. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reviewed all aspects of desegregation in Mobile County.
Additional information was requested regarding earlier
desegregation plans for the rural parts of the county, and those
plans were approved. They are not before us now. The Court of
Appeals concluded that with respect to faculty and staff
desegregation the board had "almost totally failed to comply" with
earlier orders, and directed the District Court to require the
board to establish a faculty and staff ratio in each school
"substantially the same" as that, for the entire district. 430 F.2d
883, 886. We affirm that part of the Court of Appeals' opinion for
the reasons given in
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education, ante, p.
402 U. S. 1, at
402 U. S.
19-20.
Regarding junior and senior high schools, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court and directed implementation of a plan
that was intended to eliminate the seven all-Negro schools
remaining under the District
Page 402 U. S. 36
Court's scheme. This was to be achieved through pairing and
adjusting grade structures within metropolitan Mobile, without bus
transportation or split zoning. The Court of Appeals then turned to
the difficult problem of desegregating the elementary schools of
metropolitan Mobile. The metropolitan area is divided by a major
north-south highway. About 94% of the Negro students in the
metropolitan area live on the east side of the highway between it
and the Mobile River. The schools on that side of the highway are
65% Negro and 35% white. On the west side of the highway, however,
the schools are 12% Negro and 88% white. Under the District Court's
elementary school plan for the metropolitan area, the eastern and
western sections were treated as distinct, without either
interlocking zones or transportation across the highway. Not
surprisingly, it was easy to desegregate the western section, but
in the east, the District Court left 12 all-Negro or nearly
all-Negro elementary schools, serving over 90% of all the Negro
elementary students in the metropolitan area.
The Court of Appeals rejected this solution in favor of a
modified version of a plan submitted by the Department of Justice.
As further modified after a second appeal, this plan reduced the
number of all-Negro or nearly all-Negro elementary schools from 12
to six schools, projected to serve 5,310 students, or about 50% of
the Negro elementary students in the metropolitan area. Like the
District Court's plan, the Court of Appeals' plan was based on
treating the western section in isolation from the eastern. There
were unified geographic zones, and no transportation of students
for purposes of desegregation. The reduction in the number of
all-Negro schools was achieved through pairing, rezoning, and
adjusting grade structures within the eastern section. With yet
further modifications not material
Page 402 U. S. 37
here, this plan went into effect at the beginning of the
1970-1971 school year.
The enrollment figures for the 1970-1971 school year show that
the projections on which the Court of Appeals based its plan for
metropolitan Mobile were inaccurate. Under the Court of Appeals'
plan as actually implemented, nine elementary schools in the
eastern section of metropolitan Mobile were over 90% Negro as of
September 21, 1970 (instead of six as projected), and they housed
7,651 students, or 64% of all the Negro elementary school pupils in
the metropolitan area. Moreover, the enrollment figures indicate
that 6,746 Negro junior and senior high school students in
metropolitan Mobile, or over half, were then attending all-Negro or
nearly all-Negro schools, rather than none, as projected by the
Court of Appeals. These figures are derived from a report of the
school board to the District Court; they were brought to our
attention in a supplemental brief for petitioners filed on October
10, 1970, and have not been challenged by respondents.
As we have held, "neighborhood school zoning," whether based
strictly on home-to-school distance or on "unified geographic
zones," is not the only constitutionally permissible remedy; nor is
it
per se adequate to meet the remedial responsibilities
of local boards. Having once found a violation, the district judge
or school authorities should make every effort to achieve the
greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into
account the practicalities of the situation. A district court may
and should consider the use of all available techniques, including
restructuring of attendance zones and both contiguous and
noncontiguous attendance zones.
See Swann, supra, at
402 U. S. 22-31.
The measure of any desegregation plan is its effectiveness.
Page 402 U. S. 38
On the record before us, it is clear that the Court of Appeals
felt constrained to treat the eastern part of metropolitan Mobile
in isolation from the rest of the school system, and that
inadequate consideration was given to the possible use of bus
transportation and split zoning. For these reasons, we reverse the
judgment of the Court of Appeals as to the parts dealing with
student assignment, and remand the case for the development of a
decree "that promises realistically to work, and promises
realistically to work now."
Green v. County School Board,
391 U. S. 430,
391 U. S. 439
(1968).
It is so ordered.