Below is a transcript of our discussion with Professor Emerita Joyce Baugh
David Nicholas:
I'm David Nicholas and this is Central Focus, a weekly look at research activity and innovative work from Central Michigan University students and faculty. We conclude our two-part discussion of the 1974 Supreme Court decision in Milliken V Bradley, the case of desegregation busing in the Detroit Public Schools. Professor Emerita Joyce Baugh from CMU's School of Politics, Society, Justice and Public Service joined me to talk about her book on the case. Testimony from suburban schools greatly influenced the debate, even though little to no effort was going to be expected of them to address the problem. The District Judge who had steered the case in a reasonable direction toward enacting real reform would not live to see the implementation. The result also did nothing to address the systemic racism at the center of housing segregation in the city of Detroit that fed directly into the segregation in the schools. Professor Baugh in Part 2 of our conversation answers the question of what we have learned in 50 years and delivers what she calls the final epilogue to the story.
Joyce Baugh:
The dissenters: it was a 5-4 decision and the dissenters really kind of nails some of this stuff, and especially Thurgood Marshall. He said something like the other disingenuous part of Chief Justice Berger's opinion was something like, and so we remand this case now to the District Court for them to come up with the desegregation remedy for these students. And Marshall says we've already seen that there is no possibility of a real desegregation remedy within the current system within the Detroit School limits.
DN:
You're not going to solve one unless you address the whole.
JB:
Right.
DN:
(Have) we learned anything in the last 50 years?
JB:
Unfortunately, I think not. Let me give you the last part of this epilogue here. So of course, then the (the) Supreme Court remands this case back. So, the person who takes over for him, who then carries out the order, Judge Robert Demasio. And Damasio in UM, January of 1975, Damasio becomes a successor. He orders a new remedy of a very limited busing plan or desegregation plan that excludes all of the schools in the central city. So, it excludes 80% of the black students. It orders some financial compensation, some financial relief. But by that time, the school board that in the school district is in such dire straits because mileages and see school mileages and bond proposals were being defeated even before Milliken was decided even before the case began because as whites moved out the and the few who remained were not passing, were not voting to pass these things and right? And (and) I think one of the most fascinating things here at the end was…
DN:
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
JB:
And in an interview several years after this case, Judge Damasio said, you know what, folks? If I had been able to use the suburbs, I could have had black and white children going to school together without ever putting anybody on a bus. He was looking out his window one day at his office window and he was looking at the line between I can't remember it was Grosse Pointe or some of those schools. Some of those communities. And he said if I could have used the suburbs, I could have had kids walking back and forth. To those schools and we would have had some real desegregation. But that couldn't be done because the Supreme Court said no. And (and, and) you know, on one level you (you) understand, you know, parents want their children to go to their school and their neighborhood. But if you have segregated neighborhoods, you're going to have segregated schools.
DN:
Not a pretty part of the history by any means, especially when you're talking about the impact on young people who nothing of anything they did put us in the position that we were or that we are but…
JB:
No. Right.
DN:
It's a valuable story to revisit and see if we can learn something moving forward. Dr. Joyce Baugh, thank you very much for taking the time to share the story with us.
JB:
You are very welcome. Thank you for having me.
