Category: Exercise 3 Sheff sources

The Lumpkin v Dempsey 1970 complaint is a legal document that outlines school segregation complaint which was filed by Mae Willie Lumpkin, Barbara Henderson, Mary Diaz and Helen Vernell Johnson against John Dempsey, the Governor of Connecticut.  The plaintiffs, Lumpkin, Henderson, Diaz, and Johnson argued that their children were not receiving equal educational opportunities when compared to the opportunities suburban children had. The plaintiffs used the Fourteenth amendment in the United States Constitution and also the 1965 education amendment on the Connecticut constitution to back the disputed claims up. Dated on February 20^th, 1970, this legal document puts forth the details behind the lawsuit action. The plaintiffs claimed that John Dempsey did not exercise his right to use his powers as supreme chief officer of the state of Connecticut to provide an equal education for all minority children enrolled in Hartford schools.

On the other hand, the defendants and his/their attorneys argued that it would be unconstitutional to attempt to desegregate schools by the plaintiff’s means due to the fact that it is dependent on the votes of citizens living in Hartford, Windsor and West Hartford (three bordering neighborhoods they planned to integrate). However, votes would have been skewed due to the fact that each town mentioned in the document were either suburbanized (had very little minority enrollment percentages) or heavily urbanized (majority of enrolled students are considered of Hispanic/African American descent). The plaintiffs of the court asked for a more structured school system, in where children would be required to attend “zone schools”, and for state officials like Mr. Dempsey to practice their power in a positive way, whereas ultimately abolishing the unintentional segregation that they found alarming.

To my own knowledge, the Sheff v. O’Neill 1989 case was the first one of its’ kind. In her book, The Children in Room E4, author Susan Eaton makes a small reference about the Lumpkin v. Dempsey case, one that I overlooked myself. On page 79 Eaton states, “Connecticut-most like Northern and Midwestern states and unlike much of the post-Brown South- had established each town or city as a separate school district and required students to attend school where they lived…numerous schools within Hartford, the lawyers had pointed out, had minority group enrollments “in excess of 90 percent.” Eaton points out the fact that the lawsuit was left untouched after three years.  She parallels this one lawsuit to many lawsuits before she goes on to introduce the 1986 Sheff v. O’Neill case.

 

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think that it would have been fair to have residents from Hartford, Windsor and West Hartford vote the decision for integration of schools?
2. Why do you think the complaint was left untouched after 1973?
3. How does this complaint compare to the Sheff v. O’Neill case? How does it differ? What was the determining factor of the success of one case, versus the failure of the other?

Sheff vs. O’Neill Stipulation and Order (Phase I, 2003) is a document dealing with the opening and production of Magnet Schools in the Hartford area.  In an attempt to create racial, ethnic, and economic equality, this document provides an abundant plan.  The purpose of a magnet school is to integrate the suburban and city students.  However, there must be guidelines for this to take place.  The percentage of minority students in any school cannot exceed the Sheff region minority percentage enrollment plus thirty percent.  They must reach this number by their third year of operation.  The schools will be run by the public school system and they must follow the Open Choice policy.  The Open Choice policy allows children from Avon, Bloomfield, Canton, East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, Ellington, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Hartford, Manchester, Newington, Rocky Hill, Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks to have access to enter a lottery in order to attend these Magnet Schools.  It is important to note that none of these schools are guarantees for residents of these areas.  Seats are guaranteed for a certain number of minority students and the remaining seats are based on lottery.  The State will be an extreme catalyst in the building of these schools.  They will aid in everything from regulating the amount of students per complex to funding the actual construction projects.  The Commissioner also plays a large role in the process of these magnet schools as well.  Through the Commissioner, student’s time spent on the bus was supposed to be cut down, parents were to become more informed, and suburban students were to be persuaded to participate in the Open Choice Policy.   To avoid stagnant educational patterns, parties are to meet no less than twice a year to make sure everything stays fresh and up to date.

Paul von Zielbauer mentions in his article “Change in Hartford” a quote from Susan Eaton. This was prior to the book The Children in Room E4, however Eaton makes a comment stating ”If you compare what they got with what the original vision was, it’s a huge disappointment,” This Sheff case runs parallel and is mentioned in Eaton’s chapter called The Plantiff and is indirectly referred to in the chapter named Separate but Equal? On page 266.  It outlines the inequality within urban and suburban school districts through telling a story of a field trip to Simpson-Waverly Marlborough.

“Sheff v. O’Neill Complaint” is a legal complaint filed by ten-year-old Milo Sheff and seventeen other Hartford school children, all acting through their parents, which claims that the state of Connecticut has denied their right to an equal education, as is guaranteed to them in the state constitution. This complaint, filed on April 26, 1989, argues that not only has Connecticut tolerated school districts that are racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically segregated, but that the state has played a major role in creating and maintaing isolated residential communities. 

The plaintiffs identify the defendants as William O’Neill, Governor of the Connecticut, Gerald Tirozzi, Commissioner of Education of Connecticut, Franciso Borges, Treasurer of Connecticut, J. Edward Caldwell, Comptroller of Connecticut, and several members of the State Board of Education. 

The complaint begins with a statement of facts regarding the racial disparity between Hartford and its surrounding suburbs, citing that while the state’s population is made up of 12.1% black school-age citizens, 44.9% of the students in the Hartford school district are black. Sheff also cites statistics about single-parent households, children with limited English proficiency, and families receiving federal aid in order to argue that Hartford operates at a “severe educational disadvantage in addressing the needs of all students” (Sheff 11). 

Under the section titled “An Unequal Education,” the complaint cites the percentages of students in Hartford and 21 other suburbs who fall below the State Department of Education’s “mastery benchmark” level on the Statewide Mastery Tests. The data shows that Hartford students, on average, performed strikingly worse than suburban students. Sheff also insists that the integration of city and suburban schoolchildren would benefit all students, not only those in Hartford, because blacks, Hispanics, and poor children make up such a large part of the state population. 

The complaint offers numerous examples of Connecticut’s “longstanding knowledge of these iniquities,” as well as its “failure to take effective action” (16, 22). For example, Sheff points to exclusionary zoning as one of the most prominent housing barriers affecting Hartford schoolchildren’s education, arguing that Governor O’Neill and his predecessors “failed to take action to afford meaningful racial and economic housing within school zones” (Sheff 22). 

Generally, Susan Eaton’s description of the Sheff complaint reflects the original document’s text. She discusses test scores, overall school quality, and the benefits of school integration. One difference between her book and the actual legal complaint is that while The Children in Room E4 goes into great depth about the current state of Hartford education, using a vivid and touching narrative, the document spends much more time referencing past malfeasances the state had already committed in regards to ignoring educational inequality and obstructing any attempts to remedy the issue. 

Discussion Questions:

Do you agree with the decision to mainly choose plaintiffs who live in Hartford, or do you think this case could have benefitted from citing more students both inside and outside the city?

Sheff proponents face many criticisms from those who belief that while de jure segregation is wrong, de facto segregation should not be remedied by the government. Do you think Sheff could have predicted these criticisms and rewritten part of the complaint to address these concerns in advance?

Could Sheff have benefitted from a more specific definition of school integration?