LOS ANGELES SCHOOL DESEGREGATION LITIGATION
1924Piper v. Big Pine School District. Alice Piper, a 15 year old Native American student, was excluded from the school designated for White students. She sued, claiming that the law establishing separate schools for “Indian children and for children of Chinese, Japanese or Mongolian parentage” was unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court ruled that the state could create separate schools “provided such schools are equal in every substantial respect with those furnished for children of the white race.”
1947Westminster School Dist. of Orange County v. Mendez, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947) California Supreme Court Declares Segregation of Mexican School Children unconstitutional because existing California law only allowed for segregation of Native American, Japanese American, and Chinese American students.
1947Governor Warren repeals California Education Code §8003-4 which had
permitted school boards to establish separate schools for Native American, Japanese American, and Chinese American students.
1962LAUSD superintendent’s office tells ACLU that the district does not have ‘White’ and ‘Black” schools.
1963Jackson v Pasadena City School District. California Supreme Court declares that school boards have an obligation to take all reasonable steps necessary to end segregation “regardless of its cause.”
8-1-63Original Crawford Complaint Filed. The suit focused on segregation between Jordan High School and South Gate High School.
7-6-66Amended Complaint Filed -- Expands Crawford to Whole District
10-28-68Trial Begins in Crawford Case
2-11-70Judge Alfred Gitelson Issues Original Trial Decision finding intentional Segregation in Los Angeles schools. Gitelson argued that the LAUSD School Board had “knowingly, affirmatively and in bad faith … segregated, de jure, its students.” Further, it had drawn school boundaries so as to “create or perpetuate segregated schools.”
1975California voters remove Gitelson from office; Gitelson blames his loss on “enough people who are truly racist.”
3-10-75California Court of Appeal Reverses Gitelson's Findings
6-28-76California Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeal, Affirms Gitelson's Findings
3-18-77School Board Proposes Integration Plan to Judge Egly
7-5-77Judge Egly Rejects Board's Proposed Plan; Orders Board To Return in 90 with plan to Begin Desegregation in February of 1978; Permits Filing of Other Plans.
Spring 1978Egly Works Out New Plan; Court of Appeal Stays Mandatory Part
9-6-78California Supreme Court Overrules Court of Appeals; Orders Plan Into Effect
11-6-79Proposition 1 passes with 70% of the vote. Proposition aims to end ‘mandatory busing’ for de facto segregation.
7-7-80In Second Year of Court-Ordered Integration, Egly Enters Final Order Adopting Comprehensive Desegregation Program; Finds Proposition 1 Inapplicable
8-6-80Court of Appeals (Partially) Stays Integration Order
8-27-80California Supreme Court Affirms Court of Appeals Partial Stay; 80,000 Children To Be Bused As of Sept. 16
12-19-80Court of Appeals Finds No Federal Constitutional Violation and Upholds Constitutionality of Proposition 1, Thereby Reversing Egly's Integration Order
3-16-81Board Directs April 20th Termination of Mandatory Pupil Reassignment.
9-10-81Superior Court Judge Robert Lopez Enters Order Still in Effect; Decree:
1.State Funding Available to segregated schools
- Magnet School
- Increased Pay Minority Teachers
4.No Mandatory Busing; Little Busing Accept Magnet
6-30-82U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 1