Desegregation Denied: ‘The Battle to Integrate Denver Public Schools“Integrated education is the only way quality education can be achieved. Itis not just for the poor Negro child or the poor Hispano child, but poor white children as well.” Jules Mondschein, co-chair of Citizens for One Community? “Most people in Denver don’t look at people on the basis of color of their skin. They look at people on the basis of what they can do in society. This classification by race is going to emphasize racism like we've never known it in Denver.” Nolan Winsett jr., president of Citizens Association for Neighborhood Schools? ‘The above quotes reflect the wide disparity of beliefs held by Denver citizens during the years in which public school integration was primary concern in the city. The implementation of a plan to desegregate Denver's public school system affected more than just the children attending the schools. The twenty-five year battle over school i tegration reached into the court systems, the state and city government, the guidelines for school administrators and teachers, and, most importantly, into the lives of Denver's parents and children of all races. Denver's desegregation conflict was not a direct result of racial prejudice; it was a result of the inequalities exhibited within its public schools and the plan to implement mandatory busing to correct the inequalities. Public response to the proposed plans aimed at achieving an integrated school system, and also provided equal educational opportunities was as diverse as the community itself. Numerous letters were written to the mayor and Denver School Board in support of or opposition to integration. A number of families sold their homes and moved out of Denver Public Schools’ boundaries to avoid mandatory busing. Those who were supportive of the integration plan created organizations reflecting such and did what they could to ensure a smooth transition. Similarly, a strong anti-busing faction remained in * Rocky Mountain News, August 16, 1968, p. 8 ? Straight Creek Journal, July 2-9, 1974, p. 6.Denver and protested what they felt was a violation of their constitutional rights. The grass-roots organizations on both sides of the desegregation issue organized protests, boycotts and letter-writing campaigns. By aligning themselves with associations on either side of the issue and identifying themselves as parents, voters, tax payers or property owners, citizens involved in the desegregation movement were able to express their frustration with the public school system in Denver. The actions of these organizations not only contributed to the final outcome of the desegregation of Denver's public schools, but also had long lasting effects on schools district-wide. ‘Two specific legal mandates brought the integration of public school systems to the national forefront. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, that “separate educational facilities are inherently equal.”3 Under this decision, individual states became responsible for establishing equal educational opportunities for children attending public schools. The second legal order was the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Title IV, Section 401 (b) of this Act stated that children should be assigned to public schools “without regard to their race, color, religion or national origin ... but [this] shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.”* Across the nation, states began looking at ways to achieve the required equal education within its public schools without using race as a determining factor. Denver's response to the desegregation of its public school system is representative of other national grass-roots movements responding to similar concerns. Examples of two 2 Kermit L, Hall, Paul Finkelman, James W. Ely, Jr, American Legal History: Cases and Materials, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 498. * Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV, Desegregation of Public Education. Accessed 4/27/2010 viacomparable responses can be found in Ronald P. Formisano's book, Boston Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s, and Suleiman Osman's chapter “The Decade of the Neighborhood”, contained in the book, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s.* The examinations provided in these writings illuminate the impact made by grass-root and neighborhood organizations on the movement to integrate public school systems. In Boston Against Busing, Formisano stipulates from the beginning that the anti- busing movement in Boston stemmed from more than just racial prejudices. The underlying racial tensions from years of political gerrymandering fed into fears of busing white children into predominately African American neighborhoods.” Through the creation of organizations like ROAR (Restore Our Alienated Rights) and NEVER (North End Voices for Equal Rights), many parents were able to mobilize protests and wage campaigns voicing their dismay regarding mandatory busing® Denver was very similar to Boston, in that 's citizens began to align themselves as either for or against mandatory busing, and established organizations reflecting such. Suleiman Osman’s writing in Rightward Bound, discusses the rise of neighborhood organizations that took place in the 1970s. The author's argument here is that neighborhood organizations grew from the rejection of the New Deal systems of big government which had been in place since the 1930s. Evidence to support this can be seen through citizens rallying together seeking to bring public policy making down to a more * Ronald P, Formisano, Boston Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1991). Suleiman Osman, “The Decade of the Neighborhood,” pp. 106-107 in Bruce J. Schulman and Julian E. Zelzier, ed. Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008). © Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 2. 7 Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p.24 * Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 2 and 128.local, grassroots level? These movements established persuasive actions to confront some of the city’s local issues regarding public school integration, equal housing and urban renewal.!0 ‘The beginning of Denver's desegregation issue stems from a conflict between the actions of the Denver School Board (DSB) and the language regarding public school assignment contained in the state constitution. The Colorado state Constitution, Article IX, Section 8, states: “nor shall any distinction or classification of pupils be made on account of race or color." Predominately African American neighborhoods, however, had been established through the efforts of Denver realtors. 12 As these neighborhoods grew and shifted, the DSB followed suit and changed school boundaries to continually encompass those children within the attendance areas of the predominately African American attended schools. The DSB saw this as encouraging neighborhood schools, not segregating schools or being in violation of the state constitution.13 ‘Asa result of the DSB periodic boundary changes, North Denver schools had become overcrowded and increasingly racially segregated. Figures presented by the Denver Public Schools (DPS) in September 1963, stated that the number of children attending its schools in the 1961-1962 school year was 93,555, followed by 95,230 for the subsequent year, resulting in an increase of approximately 1,650 students.14 One of the neighborhoods most affected by the population increase was the Park Hill neighborhood. The boundaries for * Osman, “The Decade of the Neighborhood,” p. 114. "° Osman, “The Decade of the Neighborhood,” p. 115. Colorado State Constitution, Article IX, Section 8. "2 League of Women Voters of Denver, “Court Ordered Desegregation of the Denver Publie Schools”, December 1994. p.2. © Mary Jean Taylor, Leadership Responses to Desegregation in the Denver Public Schools: A Historical Study, 1959-1977 (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Denver, 1990), p. 55. 4 Denver Public Schools, “Facts & Figures”, September, 1963. Thomas G. Currigan (hereafter Currigan) Papers, WH 929, Westem History Collection, The Denver Public Library, (hereafter WH929), Box 40, Folder 12.this area were as follows: Colorado Boulevard as the western border, Quebec Street as the eastern border, 38% Avenue for the northern border and Colfax Avenue for the southern border:'5 A report prepared about the Park Hill neighborhood stated that from 1960 to 1966 the African American population had increased approximately sixty-seven percent.!* It would stand to reason then, that of the 1,650 new students some of them would have been African American and contributed to the overcrowding in North Denver schools. In order to alleviate some of the crowding in the schools, the DSB proposed building anew school, Barrett Elementary. Parents in the area became concerned when they learned that this new school would open with approximately ninety percent African ‘American student population. 17 Their apprehension was a based on the fact that the eastern boundary line for Barrett Elementary would be Colorado Boulevard. Colorado Boulevard also happened to be the current dividing line between the African American and white communities. This boundary line inadvertently promoted school segregation.1® Along with the growing concern over segregated schools, was the realization by parents that schools attended by predominately African American students and schools attended by predominately white students had obvious achievement disparities."® One of the earliest recognitions of school inequalities occurred in 1956. Parents of Manual High School students learned that the differences between East High School and Manual, although close in proximity, had diverse racial proportions as well as different core curriculums. East High students had available to them college prep courses, modern °S George E. Bardwell, Ph.D., “Park Hill Areas of Denver 1950-1966,” Commission on Community Relations, (City and County of Denver, 1966), p. 3. "© George E. Bardwell, Ph.D., “Park Hill Areas of Denver 1950-1966,” p. 6 " League of Women Voters of Denver, “Court Ordered Desegregation of the Denver Public Schools”, p. 3. "* Frederick D. Watson, Removing the Barricades from the Northern Schoolhouse Door: School Desegregation in Denver (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1993), p. 30 "League of Women Voters of Denver, “Court Ordered Desegregation of the Denver Public Schools”, p. 4.history and Shakespeare. Students at Manual attended primarily remedial classes like home economics and business math2° Leery of another inadequate school being built in their neighborhood, parents voiced their dismay over not only the Barrett Elementary proposed location, but the DSB boundary policies as well.? ‘To address parental concerns, the DSB established the Special Study Committee on Equality of Education. This committee’s main purpose was to “study and report on the present status of educational opportunity in the Denver Public Schools.”2? ‘The committee was comprised of 32 Denver citizens, “representing every geographic section of the city.” In the spring of 1964, the committee issued a report to the DSB stating their findings and recommendations. One determination made by the committee stated that because the school board did not have a written policy in place for determining their boundary line decisions, de facto segregation had resulted in some public schools. @* De facto segregation had been defined as racial segregation resulting from housing and economic patterns, but not from enforced statutes or government policies. The committee urged the DSB to review its policies regarding the determinat nn of school boundaries and suggested new boundaries be drawn to facilitate school equality and integration.2° One of the first waves of public protest regarding public school desegregation occurred in the spring of 1964. The DSB decided to hold public meetings regarding their proposal to change the attendance boundary lines for a few chosen secondary schools 2 Frederick D. Watson, Removing the Barricades from the Northern Schoolhouse Door, p. 20. 2 Mary Jean Taylor, Leadership Responses 1o Desegregation in the Denver Public Schools, p. 56. 2 Denver Public Schools, Special Study Committee on Equality of Educational Opportunity, “Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education, Schoo! District Number One, Denver, Colorado,” March 1, 1964. p. 1 ® Denver Post, March 1, 1964, p. 7D. ™ Denver Public Schools, “Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education,” p. E-2 * West's Encyclopedia of American Law. De facto definition. Accessed 4/27/2010 via ® Denver Publi Schools, “Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education,” p. A-6,located in the north and central areas of Denver. For many citizens, the primary concern was not the boundary modifications, but the acknowledgement by the current superintendent of the schools, Dr. Kenneth Oberholtzer, that the changes would be based n “racial and ethnic distribution of pupils in the city’s schools.”2” The root of commu protest stemmed from the state Constitution directive which stipulated that race should not be a deciding factor for public school education.2® The Denver Post reported that statements made at the public meetings ranged from calling the proposal unconstitutional to declaring it a “courageous attempt on the part of the administration to break down racial barriers in the city." As reported by the Denver Post, one of the meetings’ attendees was City Councilman Joe Ciancio, who represented a group of concerned citizens from northwest Denver. Ciancio opposed the new boundary line proposal and declared it, integration in reverse.”:° So, even with an attempt from the DSB to correct its de facto segregated schools, using race as a determination for establishing new boundary lines became a contentious issue within Denver's community. ‘The DSB continued to examine ways to correct its de facto segregation and crowding problems in North Denver schools. One plan that was implemented was an open enrollment policy involving overcrowded schools and selected schools with lower enrollment rates. The DSB hoped that children from overcrowded schools would transfer and enroll in the underutilized schools. The main difficulty with this plan, for most families, was transportation. The school district was not going to provide transportation to 2" Denver Post, April 23, 1964, p. 69. Colorado State Constitution, Article IX, Section 8. ” Denver Post, April 23, 1964, p.1 ™ Denver Post, April 23, 1964, p. 69.and from the schools for the children who lived out of walking distance.3! The open enrollment option was not realistic for many families without district provided transportation. Thus, the overcrowding increased in North Denver schools. Evidence of this can be seen in the use of mobile classroom trailers at the congested schools. For example, by 1966 Smiley Junior High, with a building capacity of 700, had approximately 1,600 students enrolled. Likewise, Smith Elementary had installed twelve mobile classrooms to accommodate its 1,400 students in a building built for 400.2 Even as the student enrollment grew, the DSB continued its open enrollment plan. In the spring of 1968, the first African American to sit on the DSB, Rachel B. Noel, proposed a significant resolution regarding the integration of Denver's public schools.33 Resolution 1490, eventually known as the Noel Resolution, was a call to action from the school board. The language contained in the resolution simply requested that the Superintendent prepare a “comprehensive plan for the integration of the Denver Public Schools.”#4 While the Noel Resolution was not a plan for integration, it can be considered the beginning of Denver's public school desegregation process. While the DSB contemplated the ramifications of passing the Noel Resolution, citizen protest grew. The objection was not aimed at the portion of the proposal requesting the Superintendent to draft an integration plan; it was directed at the fifteen word sentence contained in the Part II, B of the resolution. This clause stated, “The use of transportation and the degree to which transportation should be mandatory or voluntary.”5 The unclear * Denver Post, March 1, 1964, p. 7D. * League of Women Voters of Denver, “Court Ordered Desegregation of the Denver Public Schools”, p. 3. ® Cervis Journal, May 8, 1974, p.23. ™ Denver School Board Resolution Number 1490, p. 1 * Denver School Board Resolution Number 1490, p. 3.language concerning mandatory transportation was interpreted by many people to mean mandatory busing and became the focal point of opposition in letters written to Denver's, mayor, Thomas G. Currigan. Letters received by Mayor Currigan reflect the wide range of sentiments held on the issue of public school integration by Denver's citizens, The authors of these letters represent themselves not only as parents, but also citizens, tax payers and property owners. One letter to Mayor Currigan, dated May 6, 1968, stated, “[W]e protest the proposed motion of busing the school children from their neighborhood schools. | don't want my children bused anywhere.” This same letter went on to say that any obligatory busing would be a violation of “[OJur rights as a Property Owner, Parent and Citizen."*6 The posture taken in this letter reflects that its writer believes that there are certain rights attached to the identity of “Property Owner, Parent and Citizen”.2” To this person, a mandate to bus their children to a school other than their neighborhood school would be a violation of those rights. Another letter calls Mayor Currigan and the DSB “Communistic” and went on to state, “I realize I'm not one of the minority groups, I'm just a tax payer."9 By comparing Mayor Currigan to a communist and identifying as a tax payer, this reflects the idea that the DSB is taking away the rights of tax payers through mandatory busing, just as a communist state would The possibility of busing children to a school other than their neighborhood school is another prevalent theme in several letters to Mayor Currigan. A letter from Beverly West, dated May 7, 1968, stated that the passage of the Noel Resolution would “[do] away °© Letter from Huber Rahmoeller to Mayor Currigan, May 6, 1968, Currigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18 5 Letter from Huber Rakmoeller to Mayor Currigan, May 6, 1968, Currigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18 8 Letter from Shirley McConnell to Mayor Currigan, May 17, 1968, Currigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18,Denver Public Schools and the Denver School Board endured a heavy burden during the battle to desegregate its schools. At the outset, the DSB sought to rectify its boundary line transgressions by restructuring some school attendance areas which would result in the schools being more racially inclusive. Parents rallied against this proposal claiming violation of the state Constitution. Next, in trying to implement a plan to provide district- wide integration, protest arose around the proposed mandatory busing component. Supporters of school desegregation worked quietly in the background to alleviate the concerns of the community, While at the same time, support of the neighborhood school concept grew to the point where attendance at any school other than one’s neighborhood school was considered to be an infringement of a Constitutional right. In the end, the infringement of a parent's, tax payer's or property owner's rights was the one consistent premise on which the anti-busing proponents based their protest. ‘The desegregation of Denver's public schools cannot be looked at as ultimately successful, but it can be seen as a time of heightened community involvement. Parents, teachers, community members and city politicians came together during this time to promote their beliefs and work toward equal educational opportunities for Denver's children. The anti-busing organizations, who fought tirelessly against mandatory busing, received their victory with the legal confirmation of Amendment 8. The supporters of public school integration via mandatory busing had their victory because busing had been maintained during the twenty-one years between Amendment 8's passage and when it became enforceable. In the end, Denver's public school desegregation reflects the ability of individuals and grass-roots organizations working together to influence the final outcome. 27with neighborhood schools."°_ John McKeon wrote in his letter, “I will under no circumstance allow my children to be forcibly bussed from their neighborhood school."*0 Another example of the growing idea of neighborhood schools is shown in a letter from Betty Arterburn, who expressed, “[I]t takes only common sense to see that it is wrong to forcibly bus children across town when schools are within walking distance from home.” A further similarity contained in these letters is their request for Mayor Currigan to step in and prevent the implementation of mandatory busing. Mayor Currigan, during May of 1968, straddled the line between supporting the Noel Resolution and acknowledging his office’s limited authority regarding public school issues. Currigan's standard response to letters he received opposing the resolution stated, “[T]he Noel Resolution is a start towards finding a solution to the problem of de facto segregation.”#2 As Currigan understood his inability to interfere with the school board's actions, he also included in his responses the following statement, “{T]his office has no jurisdi nin school matters."*# For reasons that remain unclear Mayor Currigan voiced his support for Resolution 1490, on May 6, 1968, when he issued a letter to the DSB. The letter began with an acknowledgment that the actions of the school board were “[Clompletely outside the jurisdiction of the City Administration."** Currigan then pledged his “[FJull and complete cooperation and that of {his] administration in achieving the laudable and necessary goals of equality and quality educational opportunity for all of our » Letter from Beverly West to Mayor Currigan, May 7, 1968, Currigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18. ® Letter from John MeKeon to Mayor Currigan, May 17, 1968, Curtigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18. “" Letter from Betty Arterburn to Mayor Currigan, May 20, 1968, Currigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18. Mayor Currigan, various responses to aforementioned letters, Currigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18. © Mayor Currigan, various responses to aforementioned letters, Currigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18. Letter from Mayor Currigan to members of Denver School Board, May 6, 1968, Currigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18. 10school-age children.”*® Currigan’s declaration of support for the Noel Resolution shows that the growing sentiment was that Denver needed to take a step toward public school integration. At the same time that Mayor Currigan was pledging his support of the Noel Resolution, parents started to discuss how they should react. The Parent Teacher Association (PTA) at Slavens School, under the recommendation from the Denver Council for Parent Teacher Associations, distributed a flyer to their school's parents asking for their input regarding the proposed Noel Resolution. This handout gave a brief synopsis of the matter. At the same time, however, the flyer quoted only the first portion of the resolution itself, which stated the determination of the need for integrated schools and the call to action from the Superintendent. The flyer indicated that this information was being provided so “[A]II parents should have an opportunity to express their feelings concerning the matter.” The handout then asked for parents to make a determination whether or not they support the proposed resolution by simply checking a box and returning the bottom portion of the flyer to the school.** By the Slavens PTA not proving the whole resolution for its parents to review, it reflects the PTA’s opposition to the resolution. Not all responses to the Noel Resolution were negative. The Noel Resolution was passed by the DSB, 5-2 on May 16, 1968.7 By August of that year, support for the resolution grew and was evident in the community. One pledge of support was reflected in a letter to Mayor Currigan from Miriam B. Johnson, President of the American Association of University Women. This letter indicated that her organization would support the DSB to “ Leute from Mayor Currigan to members of Denver School Board, May 6, 1968, Curtigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18. * Slavens School PTA memorandum, May 8, 1968, Curtigan Papers WH929 Box 40 Folder 18, © Cervis Journal, May 8, 1974, p.23 i“{Blalance racially the Denver and Metropolitan Schools.”#* Additional evidence which reflected community support was through the organization Citizens for One Community. This organization stated that it would show its support to the DSB in implementing a plan to desegregate its schools. Their primary focus, however, was not “[l]ntegrated education for the sake of integration.” They hoped that the plan to be put forth by Superintendent Robert D. Gilberts created equal education, not just integrated education, One member of the group stated, “We are mothers; we are fathers. We expect something when we send our children to school and the schools are failing us."*? Support for a plan to integrate Denver's, public schools, while not as prevalent as the opposition, was growing. In September of 1968, as required by the Noel Resolution, Robert D. Gilberts, Superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, presented to the school board a document that became known as the Gilberts Plan. This plan laid out a proposed “Model-School Concept,” whereby, “the neighborhood school would be maintained as the basic unit, but ‘maximum social and racial integration would be achieved.” Essentially, schools would be order to attain the maximum benefits for all of the placed together in regional “cluster: children within that particular groupings! The Plan went on to state that in order to achieve the goal of the Model-School concept, “[T]ransportation of minority pupils, on the basis of geographical attendance areas, to other schools,” would be necessary.®? This plan, if approved, would take affect in January 1969.5! © Letter from Miriam B. Johnson to Mayor Currigan, August 24, 1968, Curtigan Papers, WH929 Box 40 Folder 18. # Rocky Mountain News, August 16, 1968, p. 8. © Robert D. Gilberts, Superintendent, “Planning Quality Education: A Proposal for Integrating the Denver Public Schools.” October, 1968. p. 7. Spi. 2 Ibid, p. 8. © Wid, p55. 12The Gilberts Plan was contested at several schools’ Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings. The PTA members from Montclair Elementary voiced their concerns ata meeting held to discuss the ramifications of the proposed Gilberts Plan. Under the plan, Montclair Elementary students who were moving on to middle school would attend Smiley Junior High School, instead of Hill Junior High.5* One Montclair PTA member, concerned about the quality of education currently at Smiley stated, “I know the educational level next fall at Smiley won't be as high as itis at Hill.”85 Another parent, while acknowledging the inequality at Smiley, indicated that if the boundary changes were to take affect and more white students were to attend the school, then Smiley could “become one of the top schools."S* These statements indicate that several members of the Montclair community believed there to be unequal educational levels between Smiley Middle School and Hill Middle School, and in doing so confirmed the fears the African American community had been voicing about inequalities between the schools. Another concern for several Montclair PTA members and parents was the issue regarding their children having to ride the bus to Smiley Junior High School. One parent said, "I don’t want my kids spending 1 % hours a day on a bus,” indicating a concern about the length of the bus ride.” The issue of a child being bused away from their neighborhood school was the concern for a parent who said, “We will not accept involuntary busing of our children from our neighborhood schools to some unknown, arbitrarily assigned institution."® An additional declaration opposing busing said, “If we want to bus children * Denver Past, January 23, 1969, p. 15, % Denver Post, January 23, 1969, p. 15 a * Rocky Mountain News, February 4, 1969. 1Bto attain integration, let’s bus all of them, not just ours."s? This sentiment reflects the idea that some people felt the busing component in the Gilberts Plan was not equal across the district. Parents of students attending Smiley Junior High had their own qualms regarding the proposed Gilberts Plan. In November, 1968, the Drastic Action Committee of the Smiley PTA, interpreting the Gilberts Plan as unfair to Smiley, sponsored a one day boycott of. classes. The boycott included Smiley and its “feeder” elementary schools. The Committee provided the following list of demands to the DSB: “quality integrated education - Facial balance in enrollment... elimination of double sessions and equal treatment.”61 ‘The feeling was these demands should be met in addition to the proposed Gilberts Plan. Parents picketed the school and student attendance at Smiley was less than ten percent of its student population. The Drastic Action Committee considered the boycott a success, although the attendance at the other suggested schools was well within the normal range for absenteeism. The actions of these parents provide just one insight as to how unclear Superintendent Gilbert's plan was for parents of the children attending the public schools in Denver. ‘Then, in May of 1969, a blow was struck to the integration movement. Two staunch anti-busing proponents were elected to fill vacancies on the DSB. The addition of James Perrill and Frank Southworth to the board changed the political balance of the DSB from a pro-busing majority to an anti-busing majority. By June 9, the anti-busing majority school © Denver Post, January 23, 1969, p. 15. © Denver Post, November 21, 1968, p. 4. © Tbiaboard passed Resolution 1533. This new resolution rescinded resolutions 1520, 1524, and 1531, which the DSB had previously passed to begin desegregating its schools. Due to the DSB's nullification of plans to integrate the schools, a group of racially diverse parents decided to bring a lawsuit against the school board. Dr. Wilfred Keyes and eight other plaintiffs began in July, 1969, their lengthy court battle against the Denver School Board. The battle in the courts over the DSB's refusal to implementa plan for system wide desegregation lasted, in various forms, well into the 1990s. 6 Judge William E, Doyle presided over Keyes vs. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, from its inception in 1969, until handing over jurisdiction to U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch in 1976. Denver was not the only city with court cases pending as a result of public school desegregation plans. Boston's case, Morgan vs. Hennigan, dealt with a school committee who knowingly practiced segregation. In Charlotte, North Carolina, Swann vs. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education concerned an accusation of school boundary lines being “gerrymandered to prevent the mixing of races.”** From the late 1960s through the 1970s, large numbers of lawsuits were filed nationwide regarding practiced segregation or failure to desegregate. Overall, the court cases themselves reflect the struggle between supporting and resisting the idea of public school integration, iborhood Schools, Inc., “Education by Judicial Fiat,” July 1974. p. 1 Wilfred Keyes, individually and on behalf of Christi Keyes, et.al, Plaintiffs, v. School District Number One, Denver, Colorado, et.al, Defendants. 303 F. Supp. 279; 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10290. Accessed April 15, 2010, via www.lexisnexis.comskyline.uedenver. edu Wilfred Keyes, individually and on behalf of Christi Keyes, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. School District Number One, Denver, Colorado, et. a., Defendants. 303 F, Supp. 279; 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10290. Accessed April 15, 2010, via www lexisnexis.comskyline.uedenver edu, “Rocky Mountain News, April 23, 1976, p. 15. Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 54. “James E, Swann et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, a public body corporat, Defendant. 243 F. Supp. 667; 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7398. Accessed April 15, 2010, via ‘www. lexisnexis.comskyline.uedenver.edu,The continuous appeals and remanding of the Keyes vs. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado case kept DPS in a state of desegregation confusion until an important decision was issued from Judge Doyle. In early 1974, Judge Doyle employed Dr. John A. Finger, who was tasked to develop a desegregation plan for the public schools of Denver. Dr. Finger was a well-known integration advisor from Massachusetts who had helped construct the integration plan in the Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case, as well as a plan for the city of Boston.” Finger’s plan proposed a paired school element as well as a large across district busing component. The paired school design matched predominately African American student attended schools with schools having predominately white students. Children from these matched schools entering first through third grade would attend one school as a group, and then attend grades four through six at the other paired school. This would allow children to attend their neighborhood school for three years and then be bused to another school for three years. Busing of students would encompass approximately 7,000 children, both white and African American.® Finger’s plan deepened the opposition to mandatory busing and increased the argument for neighborhood schools. The neighborhood school concept became the primary argument used by the anti- busing supporters to promote their cause. The idea of neighborhood schools was not new, but was vigorously renewed during this time. The report written by the Special Study Committee in 1964, had defined neighborhood schools as being, “{A] school which is more or less centrally located within an area bounded by definite lines which children within “Rocky Mountain News, February 16, 1974, p. 5. © Frederick D. Watson, Removing the Barricades from the Northern Schoolhouse Door, p. 202-203. 16that area are expected to attend.”®? The Committee did state, however, that the neighborhood school principle “[S]hould never be used deliberately to contain or restrict any ethnic or racial group."” An acknowledgement by the Committee that neighborhood schools did exist and were an important part of the community reflects the deep roots of this idea. Anti-busing groups comprised of white citizens were not the only groups supporting neighborhood schools. In an article from the Denver Post in June, 1969, an African ‘American organization proposed keeping children in their neighborhood schools. The East Denver Ministerial Alliance sponsored several community meetings that summer. The meetings were held to discuss the DSB’s rescission of the resolutions that had been passed implementing public school desegregation. One of many suggestions from this meeting was that there should be “neighborhood school control."7! Although other suggestions were made at this meeting, the idea of communities taking control of their neighborhood schools held the majority of the attendees’ support.” Another example of the growing neighborhood school movement was represented ina series of letters sent to Mayor William McNichols. Over the course of a month in 1974, Mayor McNichols received over 25 letters from various parents and community members representing the Kaiser Elementary school neighborhood. These letters were handwritten, typed or photocopied, and they all contained essentially the same wording: “As members of your voting public, we would like you to know that we are emphatically opposed to the use Denver Public Schools, “Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education,” p. A-1 ” Denver Public Schools, “Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education,” p. A-2. ™ Denver Posi, June 11, 1969, p. 54. * Ibid, 17of forced bussing to achieve racially integrated schools in Denver.””? ‘The language in these letters suggest a group of people who viewed themselves as “voters” and therefore having the right to decide where their children should go to school, and “the use of forced bussing” would take away those rights. This language also suggests that if Mayor McNichols permitted the mandatory busing to take be implemented, then he would possibly lose their vote at the next election. The letters also contained alternatives to mandatory busing and suggestions that if busing was to be enforced, it should include the suburbs. The final paragraph in each of the letters then stated the followin; Asa Kaiser school area family, we feel that our children have been bussed long enough. Twelve years is a long time to be without a school in the neighborhood. We just got our school, please let our children attend it. None of these letters contained a reference to a specific parent or community organization. It is evident, however, that someone recruited a group of parents and other community members in the Kaiser elementary school neighborhood and initiated a letter writing campaign. It appears that the letters written to Mayor McNichols were aimed at persuading him to intervene, on their behalf, to the DSB and hopefully relieve their neighborhood of mandatory busing. As parents and other Denver citizens started to take sides as either for or against the proposals to integrate the pubic schools, they established organizations reflecting these sides. Citizens Association for Neighborhood Schools, Inc. (CANS), which was established in February 1974, became the prevalent anti-busing group. People Let's Unite for Schools ® Letters io Mayor MeNichols, various dates. William H. MeNichols, Jr. (hereafter McNichols) Papers, WH1015 Wester History Collection, The Denver Public Library, (hereafter WHI015), Box 93 Folder 14 ™ Citizens Association for Neighborhood Schools, Inc., “Education by Judicial Fiat,” July 1974 18(PLUS), represented the proponents of integrated schools.’5 CANS and PLUS came to symbolize the opposing sides of Denver's desegregation movement. PLUS, the primary organization supporting system wide integration was established in May 1974. The focus of this group was to help facilitate a “[P]eaceful and academically successful change in Denver public schools.””® They also stated that they were neither for nor against mandatory busing, Father Kerr, a representative of PLUS, was quoted as saying, “The catch phrase is ‘remember the children’.””7 Members of PLUS included the League of Women Voters, the Denver Bar Association, Congress of Hispanic Leaders and Black Educators United. Overall, the ultimate goal of PLUS was to educate the community and help alleviate parents’ fears about the upcoming changes within the schools for the fall.73 While pro-integration groups were visible nationwide, it was the anti-busing groups who claimed the media spotlight. A group in Pontiac, Michigan called the National Action Group (NAG) was nationally known for blocking school buses, chaining themselves to the bus yard gates, and school boycotts.” In Boston, the organization Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR) had gained national attention for its school boycotts, vocal protests and use of violence to achieve its goals. One of Denver's early anti-busing organizations was Denver's United Schools Against Forced Busing. In 1972, this group sent a Denver mother to Washington D.C. to speak in front of the House Judiciary Committee. In her speech, she encouraged Congress to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution that would ° Rocky Mountain News, May 22, 1974, p.8. * id. ” iid ® Rocky Mountain News, May 22, 1974, p.8. ” David Riddle, “Race and Reaction in Warren, Michigan, 1971 to 1974: “Bradley v. Milliken” and the Cross- District Busing Controversy,” The Michigan Historical Review, Vol. 26 No. 2 (Fall, 2000), p 22. * Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 71 19prohibit mandatory busing in order to achieve racial integration.%! This group, although vocal in its protest of busing to achieve racial integration, did not provide Denver with a strong enough voice needed to unify the anti-busing proponents and combat the implementation of the mandatory busing policy. In 1974, the establishment of CANS provided Denver with a prominent anti-busing organization. One of the reasons that CANS was able to bring a cohesiveness to the anti- busing movement in Denver was because of its outspoken leader, Nolan Winsett, Jr. A former employee of the FBI and CIA, Winsett was a Denver real estate agent when he stepped into the role of CANS president with “the dedication of a near fanatic.’®2 He publicly described himself. as a Cherokee Indian and father of three, although he did admit toa journalist that he had “only a little Indian blood in him.”®3 Winsett’s basic argument against mandatory busing was that Judge Doyle's decision was a violation of equal protection rights under the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. He staunchly protested the assignment of children to public schools based on their race and believed that children should all have the opportunity for a “basic education.” By July of 1974, CANS had published a pamphlet titled, “Education by Judicial Fiat.” ‘The opening statement declared that CANS was an organization committed to “end|ing] such ‘educational’ folly” as it relates to the “frustration on the subject of forced busing to achieve racial balance.” The pamphlet went on to provide a timeline detailing Denver's public school integration history starting in the 1950s. The rest of the pamphlet provided a "Rocky Mountain News, March 17, 1972, p. 83. © Rocky Mountain News, October 27, 1974, p. 8 © Siraight Creek Journal, July 2-9, 1974, p. 6. ™ bid "Citizens Association for Neighborhood Schools, Inc., “Education by Judicial Fiat,” July 1974, 20discussion surrounding the pending court cases as a result of the DSB rescission of resolutions intending to implement a district wide desegregation plan, and, most unashamedly, a chronicle of the many victories achieved by CANS. This pamphlet, although intended to provide Denver citizens with a current status of the desegregation issue in the city, instead suggested a hostile attitude towards the Denver court system as well as certain members of the school board.2 One of the lasting legacies of CANS was their ability to collect over 90,000 signatures needed to place an anti-busing measure on the ballot for the November 1974 general election, This measure would amend the state constitution to “prohibit the busing of pupils to public schools for the purpose of achieving racial balance.”®? ‘The Rocky Mountain News had predicted, “Amendment 8 isn’t likely to ever find its way into the Constitution."®® When the votes were counted, Amendment 8, according to the Straight Creek Journal, was “overwhelmingly approved” by voters across the state.” The numbers reported were 472,731 votes for, versus 215,425 against Amendment 8° Although the amendment passed, its enforcement was difficult because the state no longer had supervision over the school district. The Federal Courts had taken over the supervision of the school district and its integration plans due to the pending litigation in Keyes vs. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, Meanwhile, Amendment 8 remained a part of the Colorado State Constitution, while its enforcement by the state was inactive. * Citizens Association for Neighborhood Schools, Inc., “Education by Judicial Fiat," July 1974, Rocky Mountain News, November 3, 1974, p53. * pid. Straight Creek Journal, February 18-24, 1975, p. 3. ** Rocky Mountain News, November 7, 1974, p. 62. 2During the height of CANS’ protest against busing, the group was often compared to the anti-busing group in Boston, ROAR ROAR had gained national attention with its vocal protests and school boycotts. CANS leader Nolan Winsett disclosed that he had coordinated with ROAR a series of school boycotts that take place in both cities during October of 1974. The Rocky Mountain News reported in a September 1974 article about how the similarities between the two anti-busing groups led one CANS member, Wally Beckler, to “drop his name" from the organization. Beckler explained, “We're opposed to forced busing, But we're also opposed to this type of demonstration.” Beckler went on to say that the proposed boycotts would not persuade the courts to change their minds on the subject of forced busing and in the end, only hurt the children who were being used for an adult protest.* Wally Beckler was not the only voice heard in opposition to the boycotts; other anti- busing proponents voiced their concerns as well. Frank Southworth, an anti-busing school board member, expressed his concern regarding the proposed boycotts. He stated that he still supported the neighborhood school concept, but was against boycotting schools because, “Children are better off in school."®5 Bob Starzel, president of the PTA at Steck Elementary School, stated that he was disappointed that CANS did not want to wait for the courts to make their final decision and reiterated the fact “[T]hat the 10° Circuit Court of Appeals is not a democratic institution to be swayed by public opinion.”% For some anti- °' Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 71 ® Rocky Mountain News, September 21, 1974, p. 140. ” Ibid ™ Rocky Mountain News, September 21, 1974, p. 140. * Ibid * Ibid 2busing proponents, the comparison to ROAR was unsettling. They did not want tht movement in Denver to be equated with the aggressive ROAR in Boston. Soon after CANS’ proposal for the Friday boycotts became public, Judge Doyle issued a restraining order to prohibit the boycotts. Winsett, in response to the court order burned the CANS membership list. Winsett indicated that the reasons behind his actions were to eliminate the possibility of CANS members being prosecuted for violating a court restraining order.%” The first school boycott in October 1974 did not seem to make much of an impact; schools reported normal absentee levels. Winsett was not displeased, however, as he considered the boycotts another way to reach outside the circle of parents and advertise the upcoming November election and the anti-busing amendment that would be on the ballot. CANS eventually decided to discontinue the boycott initiative due to the restraining order and the apparent disinterest. At about the same time, Winsett stepped down as CANS president, although unrelated to the boycott failure.%® CANS continued its efforts to change the forced busing mandate well into the late 1970s. In 1976, there were at least two separate anti-busing gatherings. The first took place in April as a rally at the state capitol, Speakers at this event included Frank Southworth, current CANS president, Glen Robinson, and state Representative Sam Zakhem. Their message was clear. Representative Zakhem stated that mandatory busing was a “[D]eprivation of freedom of choice.”®® This drew on the primary principle of CANS that court-ordered busing was a deprivation of a constitutional right. The second event took place in August and was a national conference called, “Symposium on Constructive ° Rocky Mountain News, October 3, 1974. p. 10. "Rocky Mountain News, October 5, 1974, p. 3. » Rocky Mountain News, April 24, 1976, p. 28Alternatives to Forced Busing,” Attendees at this meeting came from other states that were experiencing similar integration issues similar to those in Denver. One idea put forth during this meeting was that a national organization should be formed to protest mandatory busing on a larger, more cohesive scale.!®° Anti-busing groups had come to agree that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was necessary to prohibit the implementation of busing in order to achieve racial balance within pubic schools.102 In June 1975, the Rocky Mountain Research Institute conducted a survey of Denver residents regarding their position on school integration and mandatory busing. According to the Institute, “participants were selected at random from 18 clusters of City of Denver neighborhoods.”:®? The results reflected that approximately seventy-two percent of the respondents were opposed to mandatory busing. Various reasons were provided to support the opposition including “distance from the school” and “hard to get involved with the school.”!°3 Other statements against busing had to do with the convenience of the neighborhood school. What is interesting to note, is that when the participants were asked, “What is your attitude toward desegregation?” forty-six percent of the respondents said they were, “Strongly for” it.1* Only four percent were, “Strongly against” desegregation. ‘The survey concluded that while Denver residents were in favor of integration, they were ‘opposed to mandatory busing.1°5 ‘The grass-roots anti-busing fervor leveled off in the late 1970s. While not as, represented as CANS during the height of the anti-busing protests, the pro-busing groups 19° Rocky Mountain News, August 15, 1976, p. 6. ©" Rocky Mountain News, April 24, 1976, p.28. "© Rocky Mountain News, Jun 8, 1975, p. L10. © Rocky Mountain News, June 8, 1975, p. L10 "Tid, "8 Tia, 24remained active behind the scenes. An article in the Straight Creek Journal, from February 1975, noted that when the integration issue was taken to the court system, the groups who favored integration by the use of busing stopped attending school board meetings. According to the article, these groups focused on easing the community's concerns and helped parents and children cope with the changes in their schools.19® PLUS worked closely with parents and community members to help the transition from segregated to desegregated schools go as smoothly as possible. In December 1977, Denver's Commission on Community Relations (CCR) credited PLUS as being an influential organization which “aided in the desegregation process,” and established a “community-wide campaign to persuade people to accept the desegregation orders.”"®? The CCR acknowledged that without the organizations that provided community awareness and support to the integration process things could have been more disruptive than they were. During the community protest and conflict over mandatory busing, the DSB followed the March, 1976 U.S. District court ordered integration plan.12® Every couple of years from 1980 through 1994, the school board, or another organization, petitioned the court to have the schools released from Federal Court supervision. For the DSB to achieve their supervisory release, they had to prove to the court that they could design and implement a new plan that would continue to keep the schools adequately integrated.10° ‘Then in 1995, Judge Richard Matsch, who had taken over supervision of the school district, from Judge Doyle in 1976, released the Denver Public Schools from Federal Court "sypaight Creek Journal, February 18-24, 1975, p.3 °© Commission on Community Relations, City and County of Denver, “Role ofthe City and County of Denver in the Desegregation of Denver Public Schools” December 12, 1977. p. 7. MeNichols Papers WHIOIS Box 93 Folder 19. "© Denver Publie Schools, Adopted Plan for Implementing the United States District Court Order of March 16, 1976, April 1976 "© Racky Mountain Neves, April 16, 1983, p. 8 25supervision. After twenty-five years of struggle, Denver's public schools were out from under the court's custody, thus ending the battle over desegregation. In 1995, although CANS was no longer active, they received their concluding victory. ‘The amendment that CANS had helped to place on the November 1974 ballot finally received a legal sanction. When Judge Matsch released DPS from Federal Court supervision he also ruled that Amendment 8 did “[NJot violate the 14 Amendment to the U. Constitution.”""° Through the court’s ruling, Amendment 8 could be enforced and it became a violation of the state Constitution to transport children in order to achieve racial balance within the state’s public schools. Denver could no longer bus school children out of, their neighborhoods for the purposes of integration. The DSB could not violate a parent's right to send their children to their neighborhood school, which is exactly what CANS had fought for. One outcome from the lengthy desegregation conflict can be seen in comparing the ethnic distribution of DPS students from 1973 to 1994. The percentage of white students attending DPS went from fifty-seven percent in 1973 to just over twenty-eight percent in 1994. The number of African American students went from almost eighteen percent in 1973 to twenty-one percent in 1994, reflecting a fairly stable increase over the twenty-one years.!11 The decrease in white students could be considered evidence of “white flight’, which was predicted by a report published by the Center for the Study of Education.*12 Although, it could also be the result of white families moving further into the suburbs, but not necessarily as a means to escape mandatory busing. " Denver Post, September 13, 1995, p. 1A. "" Denver Post, September 13, 1995, p. 1A and p. SA. " Stirling M. Cooper, Center for the Study of Education, “White Flight Continues Unchecked” April 3, 1978, MeNichols Papers WHIOI5 Box 93 Folder 21.Denver Public Schools and the Denver School Board endured a heavy burden during the battle to desegregate its schools. At the outset, the DSB sought to rectify its boundary Jine transgressions by restructuring some school attendance areas which would result in the schools being more racially inclusive, Parents rallied against this proposal claiming violation of the state Constitution. Next, in trying to implement a plan to provide district- wide integration, protest arose around the proposed mandatory busing component. Supporters of school desegregation worked quietly in the background to alleviate the concerns of the community. While at the same time, support of the neighborhood school concept grew to the point where attendance at any school other than one’s neighborhood school was considered to be an infringement of a Constitutional right. In the end, the infringement of a parent's, tax payer's or property owner's rights was the one consistent premise on which the anti-busing proponents based their protest. ‘The desegregation of Denver's public schools cannot be looked at as ultimately successful, but it can be seen asa time of heightened community involvement. Parents, teachers, community members and city politicians came together during this time to promote their beliefs and work toward equal educational opportunities for Denver's children. The anti-busing organizations, who fought tirelessly against mandatory busing, received their victory with the legal confirmation of Amendment 8. The supporters of public school integration via mandatory busing had their victory because busing had been maintained during the twenty-one years between Amendment 8's passage and when it became enforceable. In the end, Denver's public school desegregation reflects the ability of individuals and grass-roots organizations working together to influence the final outcome. 27