Racial Discrimination Morgan v. Kerrigan Gautreaux cases.

Racial DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationMorgan v. KerriganMorgan v. KerriganGautreaux cases Gautreaux cases

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%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

The Plan• Create 8 Community Districts with

subunits of geocodes• A 9th District that would consist of

citywide schools• College and business pairing to aid

certain schools• Magnet schools to facilitate choice

School District• District Map

A Sample Community District

• Brighton-Mission Hill

School Breakdown• Data for schools in the district

Sample Racial Breakdown

• Racial Composite by Grade

Busing• The court concedes that busing is

a problem. • The court does not want to burden

children excessive commuting time

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

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

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

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)

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

Background Cont’d• The 4 White Housing Projects are

severely racial segregated– Trumbull: 7% Black– Lathrop: 4%– Lawndale: 6%– Bridgeport: 1%

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

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

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

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

Social Science• Studies have tried to show a

correlation between the quality of life in a neighborhood and the well being of families

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%

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

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)

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

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)

ResultsDropout Rates

Attend College

Suburban Residents

5% 54%

City Residents

20% 21%

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Problems• Because participation is voluntary,

the sample might not be representative

• Selection bias of those who are most likely to benefit

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

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.

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

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

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.

Suggestions• Look at the characteristics of the

individual neighborhoods that the people move into