페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small]

gation of the New Castle County public school system the

Federal District Court expressly said:

"We were urged throughout the hear-
ings in this case to be concerned with
the 'quality of education' offered by
the area schools. That is much more
properly the concern of local offi-
cials and the parents of children in
the schools. Our duty here is not to
impose quality education even if we
could define that term, though we must
be conscious that the implementation
of the remedy does not defeat the
ability of local agencies to fulfill
their duty to offer it. We do not
find in Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed.
873 (1954), a mandate for District
Courts to concern themselves with how
educative function is per-

well thei

formed.

So, while the Federal Courts go about their business of imposing public school remedial programs upon the state and local school authorities and systems, with their primary purpose being to eliminate what they have found to be racially identifiable schools or school districts, they do not permit the question of the quality of the educative function to interfere with their task. As the Court so frankly said in the above quotation, the United States Supreme Court in the landmark Brown decision2 did not Ban

date that the Federal District Courts had "to concern thenselves with how well the educative function is performed."

But the same Court in the same opinion also recognized that "The operation of public schools is traditionally 3 a matter of local concern, and rightly so;" and it recog

nized the duty of the local school agencies to provide "quality education."4

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

****** **** **sviras sorrection, the corrective sters which **** ***.12*d save simoet killed the patient. The

******* ******* inyored by the federal judiciary bas produced ***ion* *ide-effects which have drastically bad da adverse effect on the quality and extent of the educative

process in New Castle County for students of all races.

Moreover, the review of the litigation will show

at all of the critical litigation stages throughout the

[ocr errors]

the decisions have been by a one-vote majority -to-one, or four-to-three. A swing vote of one the other would have probably resulted in much different treatment : the problem.

My purpose is also not to "rant and rave" against e federal judiciary. I am a strong believer in the judial system of our country, although I do not believe it is sacred or perfect that it cannot be criticized or imoved. In this instance, the one-vote majorities have been ather. severely criticized by their own brethren on the each, 80 even if I were otherwise inclined, it is not ecessary for me to be critical.

-

Accordingly, I will try to be basically factual in ɔutlining this long and rather complicated history and I will limit my review only to the highlights, of which there have been many, as the review will show.

New Castle County is the largest of Delaware's three counties. It occupies 435 square miles. Its population according to the 1970 Census was approximately 386,000. The only municipality of any appreciable geographic or population size in New Castle County is the City of Wilmington, whick occupies about 15 square miles of the 435 in the entire county. In 1970, Wilmington's population was about 80,000. In 1970, 12.2% of New Castle County's population was black while 43.6% of Wilmington's population was black and 4.5% of suburban New Castle County was black.

Between 1950 and 1970, the suburban population had increased fivefold and the percentage of black residents in

PREPARED STATEMENT OF
HONORABLE JOHN H. ARNOLD
MINORITY WHIP

SENATE

STATE OF DELAWARE

JUNE 3, 1981

New Castle County, Delaware presents a unique

example of how pervasively disruptive, if not totally destructive, of an educational system a federal court intrusion can be when that intrusion includes imposed mandatory busing of public school children for the sole purpose of remedying what the Court has found to be a racially discriminatory and segregated public school system. In fact, the New Castle County experience also teaches us how unfortunate it is that the Federal Courts have to become involved at all in what even those Courts concede is primarily a matter of state and local interest and concern public school education.

[ocr errors]

namely,

In

In matters of litigation, the Courts can address themselves only to specific issues raised before them. public school segregation (or desegregation) cases, the issue is whether or not there is a racially discriminatory public school system. The issue is гасе. It is not quality of educational programs or of the actual teaching and learning which goes on in the public schools. Thus, the Courts in these cases decide the cases only on the basis of race. The question is whether or not the operation of the particular school system has actually and in fact resulted in a

racially identifiable school district, or racially identifiable schools within the same school district.

Indeed, in the litigation involving the desegre

gation of the New Castle County public school system the

Federal District Court expressly said:

"We were urged throughout the hear-
ings in this case to be concerned with
the 'quality of education' offered by
the area schools. That is much more
properly the concern of local offi-
cials and the parents of children in
the schools. Our duty here is not to
impose quality education even if we
could define that term, though we must
be conscious that the implementation
of the remedy does not defeat the
ability of local agencies to fulf111
their duty to offer it. We do not
find in Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed.
873 (1954), a mandate for District
Courts to concern themselves with how
educative function is per-

well thei

formed.

So, while the Federal Courts go about their business of imposing public school remedial programs upon the state and local school authorities and systems, with their primary purpose being to eliminate what they have found to be racially identifiable schools or school districts, they do not permit the question of the quality of the educative function to interfere with their task. As the Court so frankly said in the above quotation, the United States Supreme Court in the landmark Brown decision2 did not man

date that the Federal District Courts had "to concern themselves with how well the educative function is performed.'

"

But the same Court in the same opinion also recognized that "The operation of public schools is traditionally 3 a matter of local concern, and rightly so;" and it recog

nized the duty of the local school agencies to provide "quality education."4

« 이전계속 »