of Negro and American school teachers; and the failure to provide a majority to minority transfer rule; all of which, regardless of all explanations and regardless of all expressions of good intentions, was calculated, and did maintain and promote a dual school system.

Therefore this Court finds as a matter of fact and law that the Corpus Christi Independent School District is a de jure segregated school system.

The defendants have attempted to show that the Negroes and Mexican-Americans are spread throughout the city. To what extent this is true, nevertheless, the undisputed statistics show that the Negroes and Mexican-Americans are substantially segregated in the school system. So this would mean that the schoolhouse is more segregated than the neighborhoods.

The defendants argued that they did not have the benefit of hindsight, which we all appreciate, but this Court feels that there were sufficient warnings given to the school board by interested citizens and groups to alert them to this problem, which any school board member or superintendent should know might be a problem in this day and age.

This Court is not here to place blame, criticize, or find fault, but this suit was brought to this Court by the plaintiffs alleging a denial of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And it is this Court's duty to adjudicate these grivances. The courts do not go out and look for these controversial problems to solve, they are brought to the courthouse by human beings with a grievance, and that is where they should be brought.

This Court knows that board members change from time to time; this Court knows that in our complex society of today of large institutions that we do have problems of personal responsibility or of collective responsibility, individual fault, or corporate fault, private blame or institutional blame. Moral man and amoral society, as Neihbur puts it, is still with us. But whatever was the personal and individual intentions of the school board members, who I noted did not testify in this case, the board had the ultimate responsibility, and I find that the board of trustees of the Corpus Christi Independent School District has not discharged its heavy burden to explain its preference for what this Court finds is a segregated and dual school system.

I cannot and do not accept the explanations given by the school administration for not only maintaining a segregated school system and dual school system, but really what appeals to me to be a program which will intensify and magnify the problem as time goes on.

This Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable available methods to effect a unitary system, and this Court finds that this dual system can be disestablished without significant administrative, educational, economic, or transportation costs. And I appreciate the plaintiffs bringing the Court's attention to they are not here asking for a large number of children to be bussed, and neither is the Court, and it is obvious that the faculty and the administrative staff is even more segregated than the schools. There is no real dispute here.

The school must assign Negroes and Mexican-American teachers throughout the system on the same ratio of percentages they are in the total teacher and staff population. Furthermore, the school board must immediately take steps to employ more Negro and Mexican-American teachers.

And as to the dire effects the defendant claims will result if there is more transportation of students than is presently done, the Court says that the children who are being bussed now make no such claims, nor have I been shown any harmful effects on the individual children that will outweigh the harmful effects on the Negro and Mexican-American child who is in a segregated and dual system. That is my opinion after giving careful attention to all of the testimony of the experts.

The physical and social inconveniences that some children might suffer will not be as severe or as prolonged as compared to the psychological and emotional trauma, and scarring, and crippling that minority children suffer when they feel that they are rejected or not accepted.

As to the educational benefits-this Court is of the opinion that the Anglo child and the Negro and the Mexican child will benefit by a unitary system, and I think the plaintiffs' statistics and study show this, especially those on the amount of schooling Anglos and Mexican-Americans get in duration of time. Our nation is becoming polarized and fragmented, and this has the effect of radicalizing many of our young people. It is not enough to pay lip service to the Constitution by tokenism.

While many of our institutions has a tendency to divide us, religious institutions, social institutions, economic institutions, political institutions, the public school institution, as I see it, is the one unique institution which has the capacity to unite this nation and to unite this diverse and pluralistic society that we have. We are not a homogeneous people; we are a heterogeneous people, we have many races, many religions, many colors in America. Here in the public school system as young Americans, they can study, play together, inner-act, they will get to know one another, to respect the others' differences, to tolerate each other even though of a different race, color, religious, social or ethnic status.

But be that as it may, the Supreme Court has resolved that problem for the district court by saying that separate education, educational facilities are inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional.

Therefore the Court finds for the plaintiffs and the injunctive relief prayed for will be granted.

Because the courts, especially in the south, are finding that a bi-racial or human relations committee appointed by the court can aid the school boards and the courts through these trying times, and in these complex problems of creating a unitary system and maintaining them, this Court is of the opinion that a human relations committee appointed by this Court will be of great help. And therefore the plaintiff and defendant will immediately provide the Court with a list of fitfeen names each of patrons of the Corpus Christi Independent School District, which list shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person, and each list shall include five Negroes, five Anglos, and five Mexican-Americans, and the Court will choose from this list two names for each of the five names submitted which will provide the Court with a committee of twelve persons, four of which will be Anglo, four will be Negro, and four will be Mexican-Americans. The Court will charge this twelve member human relations committee with the responsibility of investigating and consulting and advising with the school board periodically with respect to all matters tending to promote and to maintain the operations of a unitary school system, wihch will satisfy the law.

Because this opinion and partial final judgment involves a controlling question of law, as to which there is substantial grounds for differences of opinion insofar as this Court is of the opinion that Mexican-Americans are an identifiable ethnic class who have suffered de jure and de facto segregation and who are protected as a class under the Fourteenth Amendment and the laws of the United States, and who are now being subjected to a dual school system in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the laws of the United States, and the Court, that the Court has found that they should be and are protected, and that they should be in a unitary school system, and therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the defendant may utilize the procedures of 28 United States Code Annotated, Section 1292 to the end that such an interlocutory immediate appeal, if the defendant should desire to do so, would materially advance the ultimate determination of this Court. But this opinion and the judgment to be entered immediately will not be stayed pending this interlocutory appeal, if one is made because of the defendant's right to an emergency appeal under Rule 2 and Related Rules and Practices of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and further because the parties have already had the transcript made of all the testimony and the voluminous evidentiary data which has been introduced into evidence, is already catalogued, and in such a manner that time will not be a real problem.

The plaintiff and defendant will submit to this Court by July the 15th a final plan which will achieve a unitary school system which will be educationally, administratively, and economically reasonable. It shall include a majority to minority transfer rule as suggested in Singleton, et al, versus Jackson Municipal Separate School District, No. 29226, decided on May the 5th, 1970, by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The deputy courtroom clerk of the court, Miss Baker, shall select the twelve names which will comprise the human relations committee by arranging all six stacks of five names in an alphabetical manner and taking the top two names from each stack which will provide a human relations committee of twelve persons, four of which will be Negro, four will be Anglo, and four will be Mexican. The clerk will communicate immediately with these twelve persons and inform them that the Court wishes that they serve on this human relations committee, and if any should decline to serve, the Court then will take the next name from the particular stack. The Court has not seen nor looked at those names and does not know who they are except the Court did ask the lawyers, and do

ask the lawyers to give us competent people, which I am sure they have done. The Court Reporter will immediately transcribe these oral findings of fact and conclusions of law in this opinion and will file it with the clerk of the court and provide each party with a copy.

This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case until it is satisfied that the dual system has been disestablished and an unitary system is in existence for a sufficient length of time to indicate the dual system will not tend to be reestablished.

The plaintiff will submit to the Court immediately after consultation with the defendant's attorneys, and after giving the defendant an opportunity to approve it as to form, an appropriate judgment not inconsisent with this opinion. The Court is adjourned.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

(C. A. No. 68-C-95)

JOSE CISNEROS, ET AL V. CORPUS CHRISTI INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the opinion of the court rendered in open court on June 4, 1970, which is incorporated herein by reference wherein the court set forth Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the court on this the 4th day of June, 1970, renders Partial Final Judgment as follows:

I.

On the merits of plaintiffs' claim pertaining to the present and past assignment of Negro and Mexican-American students the court is of the opinion that the facts and law are with plaintiffs and against defendant and judgment should be rendered for plaintiffs and against defendant.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the present assignment of Negro and Mexican-American students, by the defendant Corpus Christi Independent School District does not conform to law.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the defendant Corpus Christi Independent School, the members of its Board of Trustees, and their successors in office, and the agents, officers and employees of the said district, and all those in active concert with them be, and they are hereby, permanently enjoined from discriminating on the basis of race, color or ethnic origin in the assignment of students, teachers and staff to the various schools of the district. It is further ordered that defendant School District shall take the following affirmative action :

1. Assign teachers and staff personnel to various schools so as to eliminate either racial or ethnic identifiability of any schools in the system and further so as to achieve an assignment of faculty and staff at each school in approximate proportion to the racial and ethnic composition of the school system's entire faculty and staff at the same school level, that is, elementary, junior high and high school.

2. In the consideration of new schools or expansion of existing facilities give consideration to the achievement or preservation of a reasonable mixture of Mexican-American and Negro students with other students in each new or expanded facility.

3. File in this court on or before July 15, 1970, and simultaneously serve upon plaintiffs' counsel, a plan for the revised assignment of the student population to be effective before the commencement of the regular school term for the fall of 1970, which plan will conform to law. Such plan shall in the discretion of the defendant include the relocation of boundaries or attendance zones, pairing of schools, grouping of schools, bussing or other device which in the judgment of the defendant school district will promote the objective of a unitary school system taking into consideration the pertinent educational, administrative and economic factors.

Such plan shall include a majority-minority right of transfer by MexicanAmerican or Negro students. Plaintiffs shall likewise file a similar plan.

This court has heretofore requested the parties to nominate citizens who reside in the area of the defendant district to serve as an Advisory Committee to this

court and to the defendant district. The court shall designate in a subsequent order the citizens who shall constitute the Advisory Committee. Said Committee shall be granted access to all records of the defendant and shall submit proposals and advice to the district and to this court affecting the achievement operation and maintenance of a unitary school system and all matters pertinent thereto. including but not limited to, new construction and new sites.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, this court has heretofore severed the trial of a specific issue of this case, to-wit: the institution and maintenance of a sequence or grouping system for students. The court makes no finding with reference to the facts or law pertinent to such issue but retains jurisdiction of the case for the further trial and decision of said issue.

The court further retains jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of amendment, expansion or alteration of this judgment pursuant to the plans to be filed in this court on or before July 15, 1970.

This judgment is a final judgment of the merits of the case but is not a final judgment insofar as to the appropriate remedial action of the court in the premises. In making this partial final judgment, the court finds under 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1292 that this judgment involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion insofar as this court has rendered judgment that Mexican-Americans are an identifiable ethnic group who are subject to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the laws of the United States and have been subjected to both de jure and de facto segregation.

Senator PELL. If Mr. Henry Ramirez is in the audience, will he come forward?

Senator MONDALE. He is not here yet.

Senator PELL. Mr. Ruiz.

STATEMENT OF MANUEL RUIZ, MEMBER, U.S. COMMISSION ON

CIVIL RIGHTS

Mr. RUIZ. Gentlemen, it was with profound interest that I came to the city of Washington from the city of Los Angeles, because I had read, for the first time in my life phraseology in a proposed Federal bill on education which gave recognition to various ethnic segments of our minority group children.

Section 9(d)(1) of the act refers to the American Indian. It says: "French, Orientals, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and children of other Spanish origin or ancestry."

The bill as presently written, however, does not provide, as indicated, for the special problems of the Spanish, Mexican American ethnic minority, which is principally isolated in de facto concentrations of populations.

In order to provide for the special problems of the Mexican American segment of our population, if that is what this committee intends. to do, it is suggested that the authorized appropriation-and listen to this-be doubled-and that the increase in funds be earmarked and devoted to persons of Mexican and Spanish origin who are specifically identified in the act and who come from an environment, according to the act, wherein the dominant language is other than English, therefore, as the act states, are educationally deprived.

Now, this kind of recognition by our legislators, gentlemen, should have been forthcoming a long time ago. In 1923, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Meyer v. State of Nebraska and other related cases, announced the doctrine that a foreign language had the propensities of property and was susceptible of constitutional protection in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

Said the U.S. Supreme Court, copy of which opinion is annexed by way of exhibit to my exposition, "The protection of the Federal Constitution extends to those who speak other languages as well as to those who speak English."

The U.S. Supreme Court in said opinion, which is the law of the land, subscribes to the advantages of the right of a child to retain. his first language and at the same time to become proficient in the English, as a patriotic American citizen.

It is my belief that a special amendment should be added to Senate bill 3883 as presently proposed in committee, so that, in the process of the mechanics of physical desegregation, the special problems of educational integration of ethnic minorities whose first language is not English be provided for and protected.

The facts and contentions which support the need for the requested amendment, gentlemen, to the bill are contained in the exhibits which I have submitted for your perusal.

The following language should also be added firstly to the authorized activities eligible for financial assistance; that is, the words “educationally deprived minority group children who are in need of language skills."

Present section 6(d), as amended, would then read as follows:

Section 6(d). Development and employment of new instructional techniques and materials designed to meet the needs of racially isolated school children and the needs in language skills of educationally deprived minority group children.

The community gap which denies equality of educational opportunity to racialy isolated children national origin minority groups requires that the act under consideration be explicit in its language to be placed in parity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Secondly, there need be no pending process of desegregation as to those racially isolated ethnic segments wherein the dominant language is other than English.

The additional funding requested for these ethnically impacted areas would constitute a second part of the bill which is not presently provided for. By adding a second part to the bill wherein funds would be devoted to ethnic groups having non-English language problems, the portions of the bill as now written relating to court order and voluntary desegregation would assure emergency fundings for the southern part of the United States. At the same time, the distinguishable problems arising out of language in other areas of the United States would be provided for, and the bill accordingly will have nationwide impact and scope.

As you know, the Office of Civil Rights of HEW has issued a policy memorandum which sets for the responsibility of school districts to provide equal educational opportunity to national origin minority group children deficient in English language skills. The bill is presently silent as to this concept but could easily provide for the same in a second part to the bill.

That this committee may know why additional separate funding would be used and is required, reference is being made to exhibits wherein some research is taking place. More funds are necessary to solve the problems relative to the needs and language skills of educationally deprived minority group children who reside in ethnically impacted

areas.