Category: Uncategorized

          Sixteen years after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling outlawed racially segregated schools in Southern and border states, civil rights activists filed a similar lawsuit in the northern city of Hartford, Connecticut. The Brown v. Board of Education court case unanimously ruled (9-0) that, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” on May 17th, 1954[1]. On February 20th, 1970, four minority Hartford parents challenged then Connecticut Governor, John Dempsey (1970-1971) in his ability to provide educational equity to all Hartford children by filing a similar lawsuit to that of Brown vs. Board of Education. Lumpkin v. Dempsey later recognized as Lumpkin vs. Meskill (Thomas J. Meskill 1971-1974) argued that certain Connecticut district laws functioned in such a way that they worked against the minority children of Hartford and ultimately denied them basic equal educational opportunities. The Lumpkin plaintiffs publicly challenged set school district boundaries between the city of Hartford and eight neighboring suburbs. The lawsuit challenged the efficiency of those district lines while raising important questions such as: why did certain towns have the ability to choose who they enrolled, and more importantly, why were Hartford schools not as academically successful as their neighboring suburban towns?

Legal Decisions leading to Lumpkin vs. Dempsey

        Before the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, the Board of Education abided by educational policies and regulations influenced by racial segregation. Under the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the notion of “separate but equal” was unanimously voted as unconstitutional in 1954.

        Since its inception, the sole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment has been to guarantee all American citizens equal protection of their laws. The plaintiffs in the Lumpkin v. Dempsey lawsuit based their case on the fact the government failed to provide equal opportunity to minority students residing in Hartford, therefore violating the Fourteenth amendment. Southern states utilized Jim Crow laws to create a distinct separation between racial differences. While Northern states, such as Connecticut did not directly mandate segregated schools in their state laws, the plaintiffs argued that laws practiced in the South were being indirectly practiced in the North as well. The Lumpkin plaintiffs, who happened to be of Hispanic and African American descent strongly believed that the educational system was de facto segregated by socioeconomic and ultimately racial means, whereas the plaintiffs in the Brown plaintiffs had factual evidence (established laws), which they argued to be inherently unequal.

 The Fight For Equal Educational Opportunities in Hartford

    Lumpkin v. Meskill placed the legitimacy and efficiency of Hartford’s Public School system into question. According to the initial complaint filed by the plaintiffs, Mae Willie Lumpkin, Helen Vernell Johnson, Barbara Henderson and Mary Diaz, certain Connecticut State laws function to segregate and create “racially imbalanced school districts”, and because they are not able to provide the plaintiffs and people of their class equal educational opportunities, are ultimately unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment[2]

        The plaintiffs, all parents of minority children enrolled in Hartford public schools were identified as citizens of the United States, but belonging to similar ethnic groups: African American and Hispanic (particularly of the Puerto Rican ethnic groups). The plaintiff’s racial background became the driving force behind their lawsuit which claimed, that many schools in Hartford had an excess amount (90%) of minority students enrolled, therefore making it practically impossible to integrate the schools, which is why they sought help from higher echelons that would restructure the way minority groups were distributed within Hartford[3].

          Mae Willie Lumpkin and the other three plaintiffs demanded that the court recognize the fact that certain laws violated rights, and most importantly, the ordering of the state to integrate suburban towns by erasing district lines and creating a regional school district in order to have statewide integration. Defendants Thomas J. Meskill and other members of the Board of Education countered their argument by stating that there were many discrepancies in the plaintiff’s complaints. These complaints included the misunderstanding of Constitutional laws, to vague accusations[4].

          To counter the plaintiff’s claims, in the Reply Brief of Defendants, the defendants called the plaintiff’s claims weak and urged them to reconstruct the foundation of their argument.  “However, they [plaintiffs] are strangely reticent about stating with some specificity just what educational opportunities the defendants are denying to them and in what way such denial is being accomplished by the defendant State officials.[5]” The defendants based their counter argument on the fact that, the state oversees district activities such as: allocation of resources for a fiscal year, implement educational interests for the school year, but does not control site selection, enrollment or construction of the school. The court brief reiterates the fact that “Neither state law nor the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandate equal educational achievement for every child attending a public school,[6]” thus making the Lumpkin argument invalid.

Dissenting Opinions that Lead to Demise of Lumpkin Case

        As Lumpkin v. Meskill gained regional attention, dissenting opinions arose from parents living in the surrounding suburban neighborhoods. Various periodicals of the time tracked the opinions of residents in the neighboring towns such as Bloomfield and

Windsor. “The Bloomfield School board, one of the eight suburban boards named in the suit, is the only one to support the Lumpkin side of the issue requiring total integration”[7] wrote journalist Bill Grava in a Hartford Courant article published in 1974. Parents of students enrolled in Bloomfield schools were not pleased with the unanimous decision in a Parent-Teacher Association meeting to support the plaintiffs of Lumpkin v. Meskill. Another article published by James Ross, states,  “‘I’m so burned up’ one parent said, ‘If this thing works, are they going to throw kids out like cattle? Will they divide kids up by color like a rainbow?’…. The parent accused the board [Parent-Teacher Association] of not wanting to fight.[8]”

         

Brown vs. Board of Education asserted that it was unconstitutional to racially segregate schools. Nearly two decades later, a four to five decision in Detroit resulted in the dissemination of a regionalization plan that would integrate schools involving nearly 800,000 students [9]. Milliken v. Bradley (1974) made it clear that because suburban towns had no direct involvement with creating a segregated environment, they were not obliged to help desegregate the districts in any way. The Milliken ruling played a critical role in the influence of the decision to dismiss the Lumpkin case because the decision clearly stated that suburban towns would not be held responsible for integrating cities. The Lumpkin plaintiffs specifically asked for the cooperation of the eight surrounding suburban towns in the initial lawsuit, and because this ruling made it constitutionally viable to refuse participation that is what many school districts chose to do.

          A decade after both rulings, Sheff v. O’Neill surfaced, arguing a similar point to that of the Lumpkin case. The determining factor of the success of Sheff was the critical decision to take Sheff to the Connecticut Superior Court, versus Federal district court as done by Lumpkin plaintiffs. The complaint filed on April 26th, 1989 argued that the state of Connecticut allowed school districts to operate under racially, and socioeconomically segregated conditions ultimately allowing the state to create racially isolated residential communities such as those found in Hartford. In her book, The Children in Room E4, author Susan Eaton claims that there are parallels between the Lumpkin and Sheff cases, the earlier becoming the impetus for the latter to file in a higher level court, rather than Federal district court[10].

          Ultimately, the Lumpkin case was left dismissed by the Federal District courts. After 1980, the plaintiffs, who worked endlessly to prove that those controlling the Board of Education caused the disparities in the public educational system were unheard of, and to this date there is no real updates of Mae Willie Lumpkin, or her childrens’ whereabouts. Although the Lumpkin case did not gain nation-wide recognition, it became the impetus for other big lawsuits such as the 1989 Sheff case, whose results have affected and will continue to affect children in Connecticut and potentially children across the nation for years to come. The Lumpkin case was the first of it’s kind; the plaintiffs being brave as parents of minority children to challenge those in power regardless of the socioeconomic and ethnic boundaries to fight for equal rights.

Work Cited

1. Collier, Christopher. Connecticut Public Schools: A History, 1650-2000. Orange: Clearwater Press, c2009.
2. Eaton, Susan. The Children in Room E4.  Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, N.C., 2007.
3. Grava, Bill. “Smith Predicts No Regional School Board: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). February 20, 1974.http://search.proquest.com/hnphartfordcourant/docview/552135542/abstract/140FFE468547E9ED9BF/1?accountid=14405.
4.  Ross, James. “Town Viewed as Now Meeting Desegregation Suit Objections: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). April 26, 1974.http://search.proquest.com/hnphartfordcourant/docview/552141713/abstract/140FFD210DA46836B93/7?accountid=14405.
5.  “Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka – 347 U.S. 483 (1954).” Justia US Supreme Court Center. Accessed October 8, 2013.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html.
6. “Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File” United States District Court, District of Connecticut; Filed in New Haven on August 25th, 1972. Attorney Robert K. Killian. Accessed via DropBox October 8,2013 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pktjiisx2zhi9bz/erOj3QfPzP/Lumpkin_19720825%20D%20Reply%20Brief%20CourtFile.PDF.
7. “Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint” United States District Court, District of Connecticut; Filed at Hartford on February 20^th, 1970. Attorneys Raymond B. Marcin, and Douglas M Crockett. Accessed October 8,2013 via DropBox. 

 

---

 

[1] “Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka – 347 U.S. 483 (1954).”

[2] Attn. Marcin,  Attn. Crocket, Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint, 6.

[3] Attn. Marcin,  Attn. Crocket, Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint, 5.

[4]  Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 16.

[5] Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 23.

[6] Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 24.

[7] Grava, Bill. “Smith Predicts No Regional School Board: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). February 20, 1974.

[8] Ross, James. “Town Viewed as Now Meeting Desegregation Suit Objections: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). April 26, 1974.

[9] Collier, Connecticut’s Public Schools: A History: 1650-2000, 634.

[10] Eaton, Children of Room E4, 79.

 See an updated version of this essay on “Federal Lending and Redlining” in http://OnTheLine.trincoll.edu.

The contemporary racial isolation in the Hartford metropolitan region, similarly to metro areas across the country, undoubtedly stems from a mixture of past and present policies. Past policies, promoted by both private and federal interests, encouraged racial segregation. Despite the fact that explicitly racist policies no longer exist, their legacy often perpetuates inequality. A practice that appears outwardly benign, such as local zoning codes, can maintain historical inequality due to the outcomes created by racist policies in the past. Of all the historical housing barriers faced by ethnic minorities in America, “redlining” is perhaps the most talked about, and for good reason. Redlining is the nickname for the way in which banks evaluated the security of a property value for a loan transaction. This often resulted in downgrading investments in particular neighborhoods due to the way racial and socioeconomic status were used as criteria for determining desirability. Redlining practices played a prominent role in shaping the demographic patterns of cities and suburbs across the U.S.

 

Formation of the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation: Rating Neighborhood Investment Risks

The Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) was established through President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Legislation in 1933, as a way to combat home foreclosures during the years of the Great Depression.[i] What is critical to understand is that the HOLC created residential security maps to assess the “trend of desirability” in residential areas in Hartford and over 200 other cities during the late 1930s.[ii] In other words, the HOLC set out to evaluate the insurance risks of homes in order to direct the underwriting criteria of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) and to provide a detailed guide for the contemporary and future mortgage loan investment decisions of all the newly regulated financial institutions engaged in home mortgage lending.[iii] The major issue is that the HOLC utilized the racial and socioeconomic composition of residents as criteria to determine whether neighborhoods were safe and stable investments for loans, rather than solely focusing on physical property conditions as the deciding factor. For example, a 1937 HOLC appraisal report for a tract of land near downtown Hartford describes the neighborhood as a “slum area now mainly occupied by Negros.”[iv] The appraisal also identifies the residents of this area as predominately “laborers or domestics” and estimates the average annual family income to be around $1,000.00.[v] This report exemplifies the role of race and class in the HOLC rating system – the neighborhood was given the lowest possible rating (Grade D).

The HOLC created color-coded maps that delineated four grades of housing – green being the highest rated, followed by blue and yellow respectively, while red was reserved for the lowest grade of neighborhood, hence the term “redlining”. This mapping system represents an institutionalized barrier to equal access to property and loans because the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and private lenders had adopted similar policies and maps in their own underwriting manuals, thus influencing their lending decisions in a racial manner as well. For instance, in the 1936 FHA Underwriting Manual, there are references to “inharmonious racial groups” or “incompatible racial elements” causing decreased value in a neighborhood.[vi] Essentially, the FHA was acknowledging that the presence of ethnic minorities in a mostly white neighborhood was an adverse influence that would damage property values.

 

The Relationship Between Race and Redlining in the Hartford Region

In the year 2000, West Hartford’s population consisted of about 17% minorities; Hartford’s minority population was recorded at 81%, making it a minority-majority city by a wide margin.[vii] An examination of the Federal HOLC “Redlining” Map from 1937 (shown above) helps to illuminate how two adjacent districts became strikingly racially polarized over the course of about 60 years. It is helpful to compare this map to the 1940 map of Racial Change in the Hartford Region (shown below). The comparison reveals two obvious conclusions: First, the region is overwhelmingly white. Second, the two census tracts in Hartford with a substantial black population, tract eight and nine, are both neighborhoods that were redlined by the HOLC.

The Hartford neighborhoods that were redlined were also located in slum areas. So, was this low rating due primarily to race, or the poor quality of the housing? The answer is that both factors most likely played a major role, however, a comparison between two areas with similar physical factors, but racial differences provides evidence that a neighborhood’s HOLC rating could be substantially affected by the presence of an  “inharmonious racial group”. Through an examination of HOLC appraisal reports, it is apparent that area B-5 (North End of Hartford) and area C-9 (South End of Hartford) were neighborhoods with similar physical character in 1937. Both neighborhoods predominately consisted of two family houses that were 15-20 years old, in fair-good condition, and in a comparable price range. Even the socioeconomic breakdown of the two neighborhoods was close; B-5 had an estimated annual family income of $1,800.00 and up, while C-9 was estimated at $1,500.00 and up. However, area B-5 was rated “blue”, while area C-9 received a “yellow” rating. This difference in rating can most likely be attributed to the racial composition of the neighborhoods. Both had a small population of Italians, but area B-5 had no black population, while area C-9, although slight (approximately 1%), contained a black demographic. One remark from the appraisal of C-9 acknowledges this, “The Negro families are confined to Roosevelt Street. Lenders suggest caution in the selection of loans.”[viii] This demonstrates that the HOLC rating system focused as much on racial composition as it did on the physical quality of neighborhoods.

 

The Legacy of Racialized Housing Barriers

The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which is title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, made redlining on a racial basis an illegal practice. Yet, this did not mean lending institutions were expected to approve all loan applications. There is evidence that redlining continued in the Hartford region as late as 1977, manifesting itself as a systematic disinvestment of urban properties by banks and insurance companies.[ix] Redlining had serious ramifications for minorities in cities like Hartford. The racialization of space through real estate marked a shift from use-value to market-value, giving property a value that could grow or decline partially based on the racial composition of a neighborhood. New data has reinforced the fall-out caused by redlining. It shows that the neighborhoods redlined in the 1930s are now the areas of lowest opportunity in Hartford.[x] These high poverty areas are a result of past disinvestment caused by an undesirable status that was racially motivated. In the end, it is clear that simply outlawing racist policies of the past does not necessarily fix the damage that has already been done.

Bianca Brenz

Under the Connecticut Constitution and Connecticut Statutes, all school-aged children in Connecticut are entitled to equal educational opportunities no matter their race, ethnicity, or class background. The Sheff v. O’Neill complaint of 1989 specifically pointed out that the state was not holding true to its constitution. Instead of having the opportunity to their right to equal education, the Sheff plaintiffs (and other Hartford schoolchildren alike) were being deprived of an equal education to suburban school-aged children. The Sheff plaintiffs argued that poor and minority students living in Hartford were isolated from suburban and upper class students based on their racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences. Simply put, both of these groups of students were being deprived of a cultural and social education by being isolated from each other. The Sheff plaintiffs argued in favor of integrating suburban and urban students so that lessons might be learned from one another that could positively affect their work experiences in the future.

The plaintiffs on this case were made up of seventeen schoolchildren (5 Black, 6 Puerto Rican, and 6 White). Representing them were their parents, Elizabeth Sheff (one child), Pedro and Carmen Wilda Bermudez (three children), Oscar and Wanda Melendez (two children), Virginia Pertillar (one child), Rosetta Hughley (two children), Denise Best (one child), Adria Laboy (one child), Karen and Leo Harrington (two children), Eugene Leach and Kathleen Fredrick (two children), and Carol Vinick and Tom Connolly (two children). With a common goal to provide their children with equal educational opportunities, the plaintiffs of the Sheff v. O’Neill case went forward with the lawsuit against Governor William O’Neill, the State Board of Education (7 members), the Commissioner of Education of the state of Connecticut, the Treasurer of Connecticut, and the Comptroller of the state of Connecticut. The Sheff plaintiffs claimed that the above listed defendants were not doing their job in giving children in the Hartford Public Schools district an equal educational opportunity, and saw that these underprivileged children were not given an adequate chance to merely perform at grade level on the Connecticut Mastery Test. (Sheff Complaint)

Up Close and Personal with Plaintiff Concerns

Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the primary plaintiff involved in this case expressed that wanting to be part of this case as a way to stand up for her community. In an Interview Sheff said, “I’m fully committed to ensuring that there is access to quality, integrated education for those people who want it… Sheff is voluntary, you don’t have to participate” (Sheff Interview). Personal experiences made the decision for Sheff to be a plaintiff in this case difficult. Often Sheff’s friends and family were offended by the case and thought they did not need to be “sitting next to white kids” (Sheff Interview). To Sheff, however, it was much broader than a black student sitting next to a white student, it was also learning in an integrated environment with students who were very different while still learning the same things.

In an interview, Denise Best expressed her experiences with the Hartford School System. Her daughter Neiima Best had been “deemed gifted” but would have had to attend a school where “only 11% of the children were reading on grade level” (Best Interview). In wanting the best for her child, Denise Best took a stand on bettering her child’s education through joining the Sheff movement.

Analyses taken from 1987-88 have shown that of the approximately 25,000 students in the Hartford Public School district, 90.5% of them are in the ethnic minority. Other suburban school districts ranged from approximately 2-30% in minority students. Interestingly the percentage of minority staff was significantly higher in the Hartford Public Schools District (approximately 33%) than surrounding suburban school districts (approximately 0-5%). Data from the same period also showed fewer racial and ethnic minorities held teaching positions in the suburban school districts compared to Hartford. These statistics supported the plaintiffs’ argument that racial isolation (or segregation) pervaded the school system at all levels.

Ultimately, the reasons for the 1989 Sheff complaint were the state’s inadequate efforts to provide equal educational opportunities to school-aged children living in impoverished circumstances and single-family households. Furthermore, Sheff plaintiffs argued that the state did not provide these students with a minimally adequate education due to their race, ethnicity, and to a certain extent, their geographical location (a poor city).

The Broader View

The Sheff movement was one that was widely known across the country as the breakthrough in educational equality. The goal of integrating urban and suburban schools was felt throughout the country; however, the Sheff v O’Neill complaint was the starting point for this revolution of magnet schools and the Project Choice program. The Sheff movement set out to, through winning this case, prepare children to live in a society and country that is ethnically, economically, and socially diverse. To Sheff plaintiffs, their children would become prepared through learning in an integrated setting, mixed with urban and suburban students, to take on life.

 

 

Work Cited:

Bermudez, Wildaliz and Eva. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill school desegregation by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 30, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Best, Denise. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, August 10, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Lauren A. Wetzler. Yale Law & Policy Review , Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring, 2004), pp. 481-524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40239617

Sheff, Elizabeth Horton. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Candace Simpson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, July 28, 2011.Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Sheff Movement: Quality Integrated Education for All Children. About Sheff v. O’Neill. http://www.sheffmovement.org/index.shtml.

Sheff v. O’Neill complaint (Connecticut Superior Court 1989). Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford, Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu)

 

Learn More:

Harrington, Leo and Karen. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 27, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).

Leach, Eugene. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill, with video, by Anique Thompson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, June 7, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp/).