The Integration of Eastside High School
By Parker McDonald
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
The Wilkes Honors College
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences
with a Concentration in Law and Society
Wilkes Honors College of
Florida Atlantic University
Jupiter, Florida
December 2014
The Integration of Eastside High School
By
Parker McDonald
This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Mark Tunick,
and has been approved by the members of her/his supervisory committee. It was submitted to the
faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences.
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:
____________________________
Dr. Mark Tunick
____________________________
Dr. Christopher Strain
______________________________
Dean Jeffrey Buller, Wilkes Honors College
____________
Date
ii
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Dr. Tunick and Dr. Strain whose comments and notes made this thesis
infinitely stronger. Thank you to my parents who supported me throughout my undergraduate
career and who listened to and critiqued the arguments I made long before I even stated writing.
Finally, thank you to Jackie Goldstein whose constant support made sure I finished this on time.
iii
Abstract
Author: Parker McDonald
Title: The Integration of Eastside High School
Institution: Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Mark Tunick
Degree: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences
Concentration: Law and Society
Year: 2014
In the 1954 Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court
issued a unanimous ruling declaring that separate schools for white and black students was
inherently unequal. This thesis will evaluate the goals of desegregation based on the Court’s
writings, and the opinion of academic scholars. It will then look at the history of desegregation in
Gainesville Florida, and specifically, Eastside High School. With this history in mind, I will
determine whether or not the goals of desegregation expressed by the court and these academic
scholars have been met at Eastside. I will conclude that while the goal of desegregation (simply
the removal codified segregation) has been met, the goal of integration (an active state
intervention to remedy the effects of segregation) has not.
iv
Table of Contents
I. Introduction - 1
II. The Process of Legal Integration - 7
Early Efforts - 7
Brown v. Board - 12
III. Goals of Integration - 14
Legal Goals - 14
Non-legal Goals - 16
IV. The Integration of Gainesville and the Creation of Eastside High School - 21
The First Plan to Integrate - 21
The Creation of the IB Program - 23
The Second Rezoning Attempt in 2008 – 25
Eastside Today - 27
V. Analysis of Integration At Eastside High School - 29
Legal Goals - 29
Non-Legal Goals - 30
VI. Conclusion- What Now? - 35
v
Introduction
United States school integration is a long process. It has been tackled one small step at a
time. One of the first steps was the Supreme Court rulings in Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v.
Oklahoma State Regents. The first case involved Heman Sweatt, an African American student
who applied to law school at the University of Texas. He was denied admission on the grounds
that the Texas State Constitution did not allow integrated schools. Sweatt was only allowed to
attend a separate school for black students that lacked the resources and facilities of the
University of Texas. The Supreme Court ruled that the University must either accept African
American students, or provide a separate school with truly equal facilities. Without the resources
to build a second school, the university was forced to accept Sweatt.1
McLaurin v. Oklahoma followed suit. This case involved an African American student
named George McLaurin. McLaurin was accepted into the University of Oklahoma, but under
certain restrictions. For example, he was forced to sit alone at a designated a table in the
cafeteria, a designated desk in the library, and a desk outside the classroom door. The Supreme
Court ruled this unconstitutional as well.2 However, while these were major steps, they only
enforced the equal clause of separate but equal. They did not strike down segregation fully.
The next step came out of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Here the
Supreme Court officially struck down the doctrine of “separate but equal” for all schools in the
country. Legally, this decision ended school segregation. In reality, integration was still a long
way out. This decision sparked massive resistance throughout the southern United States. Local
governments tried everything they could to keep the white schools white and the black schools
1
2
Sweatt v. Painter 70 S.Ct. 848 (1950).
McLaurin v.Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education et al, 70 S.Ct. 851 (1950).
1
black. Gainesville Florida, the subject of this thesis, was no exception. The city’s first solution
was relatively simple. For nearly 20 years after the Brown v. Board decision they flat out refused
to integrate.
However, in 1969 the Federal Government began to crack down. Under the new
leadership of Chief Justice Warren Burger the Supreme Court ruled in Alexander v. Holmes
County Board of Education that it was “the obligation of every school district to terminate dual
school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.” In response to
this decision the Alachua County School Board built two new high schools, Buchholtz and
Eastside, and planned to integrate both. While this complied with Supreme Court policy, the plan
caused tension throughout the city. First, the city planned to close Lincoln, the traditionally black
high school, before the new schools were even built. With Eastside being built close by, the
school board feared that there wouldn’t be enough students to fill both. Instead, the building
would be turned into a middle school. Students there would attend Gainesville High School, a
traditionally white high school, in the meantime. This was done to the dismay of the black
community who were irritated at the loss of their community landmark. The naming of the two
high schools caused some tension as well. Members of the black community asked that the
school on the east side of town be named Lincoln to stay consistent with the former high school
on that side of town. This would also be consistent with the high school being built on the west
side of town as Buchholtz was the name of a traditionally white high school that was closed for
the same reasons Lincoln was. Despite the logic of this, only one member of the School Board
supported the idea. Instead, the school was left without a traditional name. Finally, white families
who lived on the east side of town were also disappointed with the change. In the past their
children had been allowed to attend the all-white schools on the northwest side of town. With
2
integration being forced on the town these students would now attend Eastside, a school their
parents considered, “smelly and unsafe.” Even the Superintendent Tiny Talbot declared,
“Personally, I don't have the guts to walk across that railroad track on Eighth Avenue and I don't
see how we can expect our children to do that.”3 However, despite the complaints the school
opened without any serious incidents. While there was still some tension in the town and
between students, the situation remained relatively stable until 1983.
By this point the west side of Gainesville had experienced an enormous amount of
growth, while the east side had remained stagnant. This left Buchholtz at capacity and Eastside
under enrolled. To address this issue the County started a Task Force Committee to study
existing school attendance zones and to make recommendations to the Board for rezoning.
Through this effort the County hoped to even out the population of the two high schools as well
as address any lingering racial imbalances. They planned to achieve this by rezoning and bussing
former Buchholtz kids to Eastside. The School Board considered this a necessary evil. However,
Some parents disagreed with this decision, and took it up with the School Board. What followed
was two years of indecision as the School Board tried to balance their plans with the desires of
frustrated parents. Finally, they repealed the rezoning plan. In its place they built the
International Baccalaureate magnet program at Eastside High School with the intention that the
program would draw parents and students to the school voluntarily. The plan worked well
enough. Parents enrolled their kids into the IB program, Buchholtz was relieved of some its
overcrowding, and Eastside gained enough students to justify its existence. Furthermore, the new
IB students who came in from all over town added some diversity to the school. Since the
3
Regan Garner, A School Without a Name: Desegregation of Eastside High School, 245.
3
addition of the IB program, there have been no official actions that attempt to regulate diversity
or enrollment numbers at the school.
However, the racial tensions that surrounded the creation of the school and the 1980’s
rezoning attempt remain within the population of the school and the minds of the townspeople.
Soon after the IB program opened concerns of inequality and reports IB/mainstream tensions
began to pour out of the school. Mainstream students complained that the IB students were given
educational perks (like use of the UF library), and more qualified teachers than the non-IB
students were given. Some IB students complained of an atmosphere of hostility. One student
reported seeing the words “kill an IB” written on the bathroom wall.4 These issues became front
page news in 2008 when the school board attempted another rezoning effort. Once again, angry
parents swamped town hall meetings. When Superintendent Dan Boyd explained that the plan
was intended to bring further diversity to Gainesville schools, he was met with the boos of an
angry crowd. The plan was abandoned a few days later.
I would argue that these prevailing issues result from the flawed way in which
Gainesville high schools were integrated. The process, since it began in the 1970’s, was done
with a very simple goal in mind. Legislators, school board members and parents were content
with sticking to the most basic definition of integration (whites and minorities attending the same
school). As it stands today, Eastside’s student body is approximately 30% white and 70%
minority (mostly black).5 So, they have certainly reached this goal. However, the goals of true
integration extend far beyond whites and blacks sharing a classroom.
4
5
Regan Garner, “A School Without a Name: Desegregation of Eastside High School,” 253.
“School’s Profile.” http://eastside.sbac.edu/pages/EHS0421/About__Eastside_High_School.
4
In his article “Desegregating Politics: "All-out" School Desegregation Explained”, James
Liebman describes five possible goals for integration. He calls them, (1) the Equal Educational
Opportunity theory; (2) the Integration theory; (3) the Correction theory; the (4) Prohibition
theory; and the (5) Prophylaxis theory. The first is fairly self-explanatory. Under segregation
minority schools were often underfunded and largely ignored by the state. By integrating public
schools the state hoped to provide equal educational opportunities to people of all races. This
could not have taken place under separate but equal. As Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v.
Oklahoma show, separate schools meant that minority schools were usually given fewer
resources, less funding etc…The integrations theory argues that, “interracial contact broadens
choice horizons, or simply because racial interaction is good in itself.”6 Basically, students
inherently benefit from contact with other students who come from different ethnic or cultural
backgrounds. The correction theory argues that segregation “involves an official's or agency’s
evil act with evil effects.”7 Integration is simply a way to remedy this evil. The prohibition
theory follows a similar thought process. According to Liebman Prohibitionist argue, “Accepting
the Correctivists' view of official racial discrimination as a prohibited deviation from
interpersonal norms, the Prohibition theory limits the remedial object when courts confront the
wrong to henceforth prohibiting its recurrence.”8 Basically, integration is not designed to remedy
the evils of segregation, but to prohibit those evils from happening again. Finally, the
Prophylaxis theory argues that integration efforts should be made with social utility in mind.
According to Ronald Dworkin, the creator of the theory, “the political "machinery" of the
modern liberal state is designed to compute the comparative social utility of alternative allocative
measures by counting and comparing the total number of votes (i.e., individual "preferences")
6
James Liebman. Desegregating Politics: "All-out" School Desegregation Explained, James Liebman, 1463).
James Liebman. Desegregating Politics: "All-out" School Desegregation Explained, 1501.
8
James Liebman. Desegregating Politics: "All-out" School Desegregation Explained, 1524.
7
5
favoring each alternative.”9 Essentially, the goal of integration under this theory is to allow
traditionally disadvantaged races to achieve the social utility that was denied to them under
segregation.
While Gainesville manages to attain integration on its face, these theories show that
integration has some deeper goals than simply white students and black students attending the
same school. When Eastside is measured by these standards, they tend to fall short. This thesis
will discuss each theory, as well as the history of Eastside’s integration more in depth in order to
assess whether or not the goals that these theories identify have been attained.
9
James Liebman. Desegregating Politics: "All-out" School Desegregation Explained, 1533.
6
The Process of Legal Integration
Throughout the 1940’s and 50’s the NAACP and other organizations worked tirelessly to end
Jim Crow laws (legal segregation). Their work culminated in the form of a series of Supreme
Court cases leading up to the landmark Brown v. Board decision. This chapter will give a brief
history of the legal methods used to end segregation.
Early Efforts
Laws separating whites and the newly freed slaves began as soon as the civil war ended. Across
the country whites desperately tried to keep a dividing line intact. These laws were challenged in
a few Supreme Court cases. The first were a series of cases that were combined into one case for
the Supreme Court in 1883. They are commonly called The Civil Rights Cases. Black Americans
sued various theatres, restaurants, and transit companies for denying them access to their
facilities. The court ruled that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee equal protection from
private business. Therefore, the “whites only” accommodations were upheld. The largest blow to
the fight against segregation came from the 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson. This case ruled
again that the 14th Amendment does not restrict laws separating the races, as long as the
accommodations were equal. They argued, “The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to
enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could
not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as
distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms
unsatisfactory to either.”10 From here the motto of segregationists became “separate but equal.”
However, later cases would prove this as a faulty principle.
10
Plessy v. Fergusson, 163 U.S. 537, p. 544 (1896).
7
The fight for integration was long from over. From here advocates devised a new strategy
for tackling segregation. Realizing that they were unlikely to win on the grounds of the 14th
amendment, they sought to force states to comply with the “equal” part of “separate but equal.”
Their logic was that no state could possibly afford truly equal facilities. Colleges in particular
cost an incredible amount of money to maintain. Having a separate school for African Americans
was simply unrealistic. However, the process of convincing courts of this was slow. In 1936
lawyers for the NAACP’s legal team won a minor victory in the case Murray v. Pearson. The
case involved Donald Gaines Murray, and African American student who was denied entry to
Maryland law school based on his race. Murray argued that he should not be denied admission
considering that this was the only law school in the state. The Maryland court of appeals agreed.
The majority opinion stated, “If those students are to be offered equal treatment in the
performance of the function, they must, at present, be admitted to the one school provided.11”
They believed that in order for the “equal” part of Plessy to remain valid, the law school had to
be integrated.
While the ruling was a step forward, it was a small one. First, as Charles Hamilton
Huston, a lawyer for the NAACP pointed out after the case, the courts can only take policy so
far. They have no power of enforcement. In his article, Don’t Shout too Soon he argues,
“Lawsuits mean little unless supported by public opinion. Nobody needs to explain to the Negro
the difference between the law in books and the law in action.” Without public backing,
integration would not take root. The second problem was that the case never reached the
Supreme Court. Although it was appealed, it was not granted a writ of mandamus. This meant
11
Murray v. Pearson, 169 Md. 478, 103 A.L.R. 706 (1936).
8
that the ruling only applied to the state of Maryland. It would not be considered binding
precedent for all schools nationwide. For this, they would have to try again.
The next case the NAACP dealt with was Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada. This case
involved a young African American man named Lloyd Gaines who applied for law school at the
University of Missouri. Despite Gaines’s exceptional academic record, and Maryland’s recent
ruling regarding segregated schools, the school refused to accept him. Huston and the NAACP
filed a suit arguing that Gaines’s rejection from the University violated his 14th amendment right
to equal protection. The school countered by arguing that the NAACP had sued the wrong party.
It was the privately funded African American schools that needed to provide a law school for
African American students- therefore; the University of Missouri was not at fault. The County
court sided with the University, and dismissed Gaines’s claim. Two months later, the State
Supreme Court affirmed this decision. They said, “Missouri did not violate the separate-butequal principle of Plessy: “Equality is not identity of privileges.” Gaines can be adequately
prepared for Missouri practice in an out-of-state school.”
Despite these rulings the NAACP pressed forward. Unlike in Murray v. Pearson, the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The two sides began oral arguments on November 9,
1938. This time, in a 5-2 decision, The Supreme Court ruled in Gaines’s favor, and required the
State court to reconsider the case. The majority argued that “Gaines “as an individual” was
entitled to have Missouri “furnish within its borders facilities for legal education substantially
equal to those which the State afforded for persons of the white race, whether or not other
Negroes sought the same opportunity.”12 Essentially, the court ruled that the burden of education
could not be passed to out of state institutions, or privately funded schools for minorities. Any
12
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, p. 351 (1938).
9
state that provides a school to white students, must provide in state education to black students as
well.
However, once again this victory was only a stepping stone. States would now be
required to provide educational opportunities for African American students, but were not forced
to accept them into previously established schools. The court’s ruling allowed for a separate
facility to be built. In reality, most Universities simply would not change. More importantly, the
ruling was not binding yet. The case would have to appear before the State Supreme Court again.
Unfortunately, in between the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the second hearing before the State
Supreme Court, Gaines mysteriously disappeared. When the University moved to dismiss the
case, the NAACP did not oppose the motion.
However, the Gaines case proved to be a solid foundation for the NCAAP to build on.
Although progress was slowed by the depression and the Second World War, they were able to
make significant progress towards ending legal segregation in 1950. This progress came in the
form of two major civil rights cases. The first was Sweatt v. Painter. The case involved a student
named Heman Marion Sweatt who applied to and was rejected by the University of Texas law
school based on his race. The NAACP challenged his rejection. In the trial court, the judge held
the case over for six months, giving the state time to build a separate law school for African
American students. Once the case was heard by the trial court, the judge ruled in favor of the
University. He argued that Sweatt should simply attend the new, separate law school. This
decision would be affirmed by the court of appeals, and the State Supreme Court. However,
when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision was reversed. In a unanimous
decision they ruled that the separate law school failed to fulfill the equal clause of “separate but
equal.” In their decision the Court cited several inequalities between the law schools. For
10
example, the University of Texas had a faculty of 16 full time and three part-time professors, a
student body of 850, and a library containing over 65,000 volumes.”13 The separate African
American law school on the other hand had only, “a faculty of five full-time professors, a student
body of 23, and a library of 16,500 volumes.” Therefore, the court required Sweatt to be
accepted into the University of Texas law school.
The second of these cases is McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents. This case was
decided at the same time as Sweatt, and was an equally important piece in striking down legal
segregation. Like the previous cases it involved an African American student, George McLaurin,
who was rejected from a State University. In this case, it was the graduate education program at
Oklahoma State. The District court ruled in McLaurin’s favor, arguing that the state had failed
to provide separate facilities. Without these facilities, the school would be forced to admit him.
The school complied with the court order, but separated McLaurin within the school. He was
forced to sit at a special table in the cafeteria, a designated desk in the library, and a desk just
outside the classroom doorway. McLaurin petitioned the District Court a second time, asking
them to rule against the separate accommodations he was given. When it was denied, he
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled in McLaurin’s favor. They argued that the
separate accommodations handicapped McLaurin “in his pursuit of effective graduate
instruction. Such restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and
exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.”14 By this reasoning,
they ruled that separate facilities for African American students inside an educational institution
to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
13
14
Sweatt v. Painter 339 U.S. 629, p.632 (1950).
McLaurin v.Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education et al, 339 U.S. 637, p. 641 (1950).
11
This was the first major step in striking down legal segregation. Although the “separate
but equal” doctrine laid out during Plessy remained a part of the American education system, it
was now significantly weakened. First, the NAACP was on its way towards a precedent for
striking down segregation based on the 14th amendment. Courts were beginning to agree that
separate most often meant unequal. These cases showed that true separate and equal facilities
were practically impossible. States simply couldn’t afford to provide them.
Brown v. Board
Brown v. Board of Education was the final nail in the coffin for legal school segregation. The
case was a class action lawsuit with five participating families. Unlike the previously mentioned
cases, the students involved in Brown were not applying to college or graduate school. Instead,
the NAACP decided to challenge segregation as a school board policy using high school
students. However, like previous cases, the NAACP relied on the equal protection clause of the
14th amendment to make their argument. Essentially, they argued that separate school facilities
were inherently unequal. The district court disagreed. They followed the precedent of Plessy, and
argued that the separate schools in Topeka were equal in terms of buildings, transportation,
curriculum, and educational qualifications of teachers. However, the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed this decision. By a unanimous vote, the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and
declared separate school facilities unconstitutional.15
While Brown was a major victory, the decision left much to be desired. If this chapter
illustrates one thing it’s that integration was, and would continue to be a slow process. Each case
before Brown was only a small stepping stone to achieving an end to legal segregation. Brown
15
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
12
itself would only be one more small step to achieving actual integration. Throughout the next
several decades white citizens would begin what is known as massive resistance. Knowing that
segregation was now illegal, their goal simply became to slow down integration for as long as
possible. While their efforts would ultimately be unsuccessful, massive resistance would
continue to leave scars on school systems nationwide. Later chapters will show the ways in
which Gainesville resisted integration, and the problems that this resistance generated.
13
Goals of Integration
This chapter focuses on the goals of integration based on a variety of sources. It will start by
addressing the legal goals of integration. These are discussed by the NAACP during the Brown
trial, and the Supreme Court in their decision. This chapter will also discuss the goals of
integration that have been identified by legal scholars. They tend to focus more on the social
aspects of integration, and the effect that it may have on students.
Legal Goals
The legal goals of integration are discussed throughout Brown v. Board. In the oral
arguments before the U.S. Supreme court, activists for integration described the value of
integrating schools. The two main lawyers for the NAACP (Robert L. Carter and Thurgood
Marshall) discussed relatively similar ideas. Both argued that segregation put African American
students at a disadvantage. During his oral argument Carter states that because of the emotional
impact that segregation has, “it does impair the ability to learn, that you are not as able to learn
as well as you do if you were in a mixed school, and that, further than that, you are barred from
members of the dominant group, and therefore, your total education content is lower than it
would ordinarily be.”16 Carter argues that separating white students from minority students puts a
badge of inferiority on the minority students. This sense of inferiority has an emotional impact
that lowers the quality of their education. Thurgood Marshall argues a similar point. In his oral
argument he states, “The summation of the testimony is that the Negro children have road blocks
set up in their minds as a result of this segregation, so much that the amount of education they
16
Ed. Phillip Kuland and Gerhard Casper,“Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United
States: Constitutional Law.” University Publications of America inc. (1985).
14
take in is much less than other students take in.”17Like Carter, Marshall argues that segregation
puts minority students at a disadvantage by labeling them with a badge of inferiority.
The Supreme Court in their Brown decision listed what they believed the goals of
integration were. First, they point out that their decision was not made based on the physical state
of the separate schools. They state, “Here, there are findings below that the Negro and white
schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings,
curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other ‘tangible’ factors.”18 This seems to be
a confusing argument. Some have argued that this was most likely not the case. Schools for
African Americans during segregation were often underfunded, and featured inferior amenities
compared to their white counter parts. However, were the Supreme Court to recognize the
inferiority of African American schools, a remedy could simply be to force states to increase the
quality of such schools. Knowing that this ruling would most likely result in little action from the
states, they chose to focus on factors that would allow them to rule segregation as a whole
unconstitutional. The Court argued that segregation caused a detrimental emotional effect on
African American Students. “Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to
(retard) the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some
of the benefits they would receive in a racial(ly) integrated school system”19 Like the arguments
made by the NAACP, the Court argues that segregation puts minority students at a disadvantage.
They are seen as, and feel inferior to white students. This sense of inferiority causes them to
receive a lower quality of education. This argument allowed the Supreme Court to strike down
segregation altogether.
17
“Landmark Briefs and Arguemnts of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constituional Law.” Ed. Phillip
Kuland and Gerhard Casper. University Publications of America inc.
18
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, p. 492 (1954).
19
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, p. 494 (1954).
15
The legal goal for integration as argued in Brown v. Board centered on eliminating the
sense of inferiority segregation caused minority students. While the argument allowed the Court
its best justification for striking down segregation, it ignores several other detrimental factors
caused by segregation. The rest of this chapter will be devoted to filling in these gaps by looking
at other goals of integration based on the opinion of scholars.
Non-Legal Goals
Goals of integration beyond those of the court are diverse. Scholars and community
members alike have a variety of opinions on what they hoped integration would achieve. This
section focuses on the article, Desegregating Politics: "All-out" School Desegregation Explained,
by James Liebman. Liebman is a Columbia Law school professor who studies education reform.
His article discusses the various goals of integration suggested by a variety of people, and
condenses them into five separate categories. This section is meant to serve as a broad overview
of the non- legal goals of integration that will be used to evaluate the success of integration of
Eastside High School.
The first goal that Liebman mentions is equal education opportunity. Essentially, this
argues that the goal of integration was to allow African American students to achieve the same
quality of education as white students. Liebman says that those who subscribe to this idea “have
understood this constitutional and public-law requirement to encompass a mandate to provide
black and white children with the same education by educating both in the same, hence in
integrated schools.”20 This is similar to what the Supreme Court argues in Brown. Basically,
separating children based on race causes minority children to achieve a lower quality of
20
James Liebman. “Desegregating Politics: "All-out" School Desegregation Explained.”1486.
16
education. Therefore, the goal of integration based on this is to put white and minority children
in the same school under the assumption that this will eliminate any disparity in education.
However, as Liebman suggests, it may rely on faulty principles. He says, “segregation can exist
even when students are not assigned to schools on the basis of race… but rather on the basis of
some ... innocent criterion, such as geography.”21 Essentially, this goal does not reach far
enough. It may achieve its goal of integration, while still segregating students.
The second goal that Liebman discusses is the integrationist theory. He breaks this goal
down into two possible versions. The first he calls the Universalist perspective. In this
perspective, “the Constitution defines racial integration as a desired end either for instrumental
reasons, for example, that interracial contact broadens choice horizons, or simply because racial
interaction is good in itself.”22 Essentially, this theory takes the position that contact between
students of different races is inherently good. The other version of this goal is the redistributive
perspective. According to him Liebman this, “holds that black children as a group have a
substantive right not only to an equal share of the fruits of, but also to integration within,
society's dominant educational institutions.” This version of the goal argues that black
Americans have a right to integration because it allows them access to the most desirable
educational opportunities. Both the universalist version and the redistributive version is to simply
educate all races in the same facility in either an attempt to achieve a universal good, or to
redistribute educational opportunities. However, this goal shares some of the flaws of the equal
education opportunity goal. Liebman calls them “product focused approaches to
desegregation.”23 Product focused means that these goals value an end result. They focus only on
21
Liebman, p.1487.
Liebman, p.1496.
23
Liebman, p.1500.
22
17
educating white and black students in the same facility. Those who subscribe to the following
goals will argue that this does not go far enough.
The next goal that Liebman discusses is the correction goal. According to it, “segregation
involves an official's or agency's evil act with evil effects. The desegregation decree eradicates
both evils-the violation by means of a prohibitory injunction that forces defendants to stop discriminating, the effects by means of a mandatory injunction that, by desegregating the district,
eliminates the injury "root and branch”24 This theory argues that segregation was an act of injury
on minorities. By integrating schools, the courts have remedied that injury. The goal then of the
correction theory is to cure the injury that was segregation. Unlike the previously discussed
goals, the correction goal argues that integration must go beyond simply putting white and
minority students in the same classroom. It must actively remedy a past evil. However, it is not
without its faults. Liebman suggests that this goal is too vague. He says, “Pure Corrective theory
is incomplete: The theory says how the law should react when one person injuriously wrongs
another, but it does not say what constitutes a wrong. To resolve disputes, therefore, correctivists
must supplement their theory with an extrinsic conception of justice that does define the
wrong.”25 Essentially, this goal fails to answer what a wrong is. The goal is based only off of
their concept of justice.
After that Liebman gives an overview of what he calls the prohibition goal. This goal is a
more detailed version of the correction goal. As he describes it, “the Prohibition theory deploys
the remedy exclusively against those harms that are redressable without cost or benefit to anyone
besides identifiable wrongdoers and the identifiably wronged. Then, taking to heart the
24
25
Liebman, p.1501.
Liebman, p.1504.
18
difficulties of individually identifying the wrongdoers and especially the wronged and of
directing an affirmative injunction at those persons but no others, the theory concludes that the
best the courts can do is to issue a negative injunction forbidding the identified wrongdoers to err
again in the future.”26 This goal seems similar to the correction goal. However, it varies slightly.
The correction goal argues that segregation must be corrected. However, defining how
segregation was a wrong and how integration remedies it becomes problematic. The prohibition
goal sidesteps this. It simply argues that the goal of integration is to prevent segregation in any
form from recurring. However, like the others, this is not without its faults. Liebman says that
this theory relies on the “ideal school district.” For prohibition to work, “The Ideal District, let us
say, has twenty-five schools, fifteen for whites and ten for blacks. Although both sets of schools
are spread through- out the district, officials will not let black children attend the nearby schools
for whites, and the white children, with or without official sanction, will not attend the nearby
schools for blacks. Once the Ideal District is ordered to refrain from these segregative
practices…its effects are for the most part righted.”27 Essentially, unless there is obvious
segregation to be stopped, this goal holds no power.
The final goal that Liebman discusses is the prophylaxis goal. This is one of the more
complex goals in the group. It argues that, “Because they reflect "external
preferences,"[u]tilitarian arguments that justify disadvantage to members of a race against whom
prejudice runs will always be unfair arguments" unless properly countable personal preferences
would justify the same disadvantage in the absence of racial prejudice.”28This theory discusses
utilitarian principles. In standard utilitarian theory, each person counts as one vote. The
26
Liebman, p.1524.
Liebman, p.1527.
28
Liebman, p.1534.
27
19
government should do what benefits the most number of people at one time. However, according
to the prophylaxis goal the opinion of those who would achieve social utility by putting one race
at a disadvantage should not be counted in decisions based on social utility. The goal then of this
is for integration to allow disadvantaged races to achieve social utility. Once again, this goal
comes with its own problems. It has trouble answering why just desegregation. Liebman says,
“In particular, absent a justification for choosing desegregation as its one and only remedy, the
Prophylaxis theory has no answer to exemption requests from white children who claim that
desegregation's high transactions costs make them worse off than they would have been had no
remedy been ordered or had one of the nonintegrative but equally prophylactic options listed
above been utilized in desegregation's stead.”29 Essentially, this goal has no answer to the
question, could disadvantaged races achieve social utility though a different source?
As shown above, each theory presents its own goal for integration, and its own short
comings. Goals like the legal ones, the equal education opportunity theory, and the integration,
are too end focused. They see integration as simply educating whites and minorities in the same
facility. The correction theory, the prohibition theory and the prophylaxis theory are often vague
in terminology, and difficult to implement. Therefore, to measure the success of integration
based on any one theory in particular would result in an incomplete evaluation. In later chapters,
I will evaluate the success of integration at Eastside High School by looking at how it achieves
the goals of each theory separately. By achieving the goals of multiple theories, a school can
achieve more successful integration policies.
29
Liebman, p.1538.
20
The Integration of Gainesville and the Creation of Eastside High School
As discussed before, integration has been a process of baby steps. Each of the cases
leading to Brown v. Board brought civil rights activists a little bit closer to the end of legal
segregation. However, even with the court mandate, southern schools were slow to integrate.
After the Brown decision Gainesville Florida inched towards integration. This chapter will show
the various steps the town took to comply with the new federal mandate, and the problems that
resulted from some of their policies.
The First Plan to Integrate
While the Brown ruling mandated schools to integrate, it was quite vague regarding when
actual integration should take place. In fact, the only time frame given came from the 1955 ruling
which stated that schools should integrate “with all deliberate speed.”30 This vague phrasing gave
cities across the country exactly the excuse they needed to get out of integration. Gainesville was
no exception. For almost 20 years after the Brown decision, the town took no action to integrate
schools. However, in 1969 the court set out to remedy this issue. The change came in the form of
the court case Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education. This case involved plans for 33
Mississippi school districts to integrate. The plans were set to be submitted to the court by July 3
1969. However, at the last minute the U.S. Department to Health and Welfare (the organization
in charge of submitting the plans) asked to extend the deadline to December 1st. The court of
appeals allowed this extension The NAACP brought the case to the Supreme Court in an attempt
to reverse the delay. The Court in their decision allowed the plans to be delayed till December
1st, but ruled that the “all deliberate speed” standard from Brown II was no longer adequate.
30
Brown v. Bd. of Education II, 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955).
21
Instead, the court insisted that it was "the obligation of every school district to terminate dual
school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.”31
Reluctantly, Gainesville began to make plans to integrate. First, they closed Lincoln High
School (the traditionally African American school). After that, two new schools would be built,
one on the west side of Gainesville (the traditionally white area of town), and one on the east
side (the traditionally African American part of town). The 11th and 12th graders from Lincoln
would be sent to integrate Gainesville High (the traditionally white school), which would remain
opened even after the two new schools were built. The other students would be sent to attend one
of the new schools that were still under construction. In the meantime, they would share
classroom space with local middle schools. This decision did not play well in the African
American community. Angry that their high school would be closed, Lincoln students staged a
protest and refused to go to class until the decision was changed. Later that week the students
attempted to voice their concerns at a school board meeting. However, the current
Superintendent, Tiny Talbot, refused to negotiate. The boycott ended when county Judge John
Connell, who was attending the meeting, threatened court action against the students and their
parents. Some members of the African American community suggested that to make up for the
loss of their traditional high school, the new high school located on the east side of town should
be named Lincoln High. This request also went unheeded. On May 14th, 1970 the school was
officially named Eastside High School. Presumably, the school was not named Lincoln High
because the city planned to reopen the former high school as a middle school. The reason no
name was given to the high school at all was not given. The new high school on the west side of
town was given the name Buchholz High.
31
Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969).
22
In the 1970-1971 academic year the two schools finally opened. However, the
controversy over integration was far from over. In fact, no one in the town seemed happy about
the new arrangement. White students on the east side of town were now upset that they would be
forced to attend a school with predominantly African American students. According to a local
newspaper from the time, “less than a month before classes started, four hundred white parents
from east Gainesville had pledged to keep their two thousand children home rather than send
them to "smelly and unsafe" Negro schools.”32Although this boycott never took place, tensions
remained. African American students were equally upset. They complained that the new school
had a bad reputation, due to misinformation given by local news sources. According to one
student, “Many people refuse -that is the nicer ones - to have any dealings with Eastside High
School. A certain radio station.., has been 'downright nasty' to both newspaper and yearbook
solicitors.”33 Even the Gainesville Sun, the local newspaper, was blamed for favoring the other
new school, Buchholz High, over Eastside. A few years after the two schools opened one student
complained, “The Sun article devoted ten paragraphs to a "minor conflict" at EHS, but only one
paragraph to a bomb scare that night at BHS.”34
The Creation of the IB Program
These issues were put center stage in 1983. By this time the west side of Gainesville had
grown exponentially, leaving the schools on that side of town over crowded. The east side, on
the other hand remained underdeveloped. As a result, Eastside high was barely meeting the
necessary enrollment standards to keep the school opened. Furthermore, some officials raised
concerns that the school system was not properly integrated. School board member Dr. Frank
32
Cliff Cormier, White Parents Pledge Boycott, Gainesville Sun (Florida), Aug. 19, 1971.
Regan Garner, “A School Without a Name: Desegregation of Eastside High School.” 248.
34
Garner, p.249.
33
23
Lagotic, said, "The school system was designed as a dual system.... The concentration of schools
is on the east side, while the concentration of population is on the west side."'' Essentially, this
meant that in a city as residentially segregated as Gainesville, where the east side population was
almost eighty percent black, neighborhood schools translated into segregated schools35. To
resolve this issue, the city decided to rezone and send more students from the west side of
Gainesville to Eastside High.
Once again, parents and students were not happy with the proposed change. In the time
that followed west Gainesville residents complained to the school board that the plan would
restrict [the students'] participation not only in school activities but in other outside activities as
well,” and force the children to attend what they considered to be academically inferior schools.
The solution the School Board devised was to place a magnet program at Eastside. In the 19831984 academic year the International Baccalaureate program opened up at Eastside High. The
program gave west Gainesville parents an incentive to send their children across town. Rather
than being forced to go there, they now chose the school because of the program’s superior
academic standards. This gave Eastside enough students to maintain enrollment standards, and
adequately diverse student body.
However, some questions were raised as to the viability of this solution. Some critics
argued that magnet programs defeated the purpose of integration. They pointed out that while
they often allowed the school to attain a racially diverse student body, the students often
remained separated inside the school. Gordon Foster, one such critic, argued that magnet
programs said to the white community, “This is a school which has been made so attractive
educationally (magnetized) you will want to enroll your child voluntarily in spite of the fact that
35
Garner, p.251.
24
he will have to go to school with blacks.36" Basically, magnet programs could be seen as a way
to simply bolster numbers, while actively avoiding putting white and minority students in the
same classroom. Under magnet programs they could share a school without actually spending
time with one another.
The solution also caused problems within the school. Major program students complained
that IB students were granted preferential treatment. For example, IB students were granted
access to the University of Florida Library while major program students were not. Furthermore,
in a 1986 issue of the school newspaper, a letter to the editor from a major program student
complained that their classes were being cut while IB classes were experiencing no setbacks. The
letter reads, “I know it is difficult to find qualified teachers to teach the classes, but they seem to
find the teachers for the I.B.'s . . . maybe a resolution to this would be to let the regular students
share classes with the I.B.'s, or just not offer the class. The way it is now, it is unfair to the
students and the teacher teaching the class.”37 IB students complained that they were often
bullied by the major program students. One student wrote an open letter in the school newspaper
saying, “"You tell me what makes some of you hate IB students as much as you do. You tell me
what makes people write 'Kill all IB's' on bathroom walls.”38 However, despite the tension inside
the school, these issues were kept out of the public eye for several years.
The Second Rezoning Attempt in 2008
Once again, after a few years of simmering, these issues became front page news. By
2008 Buchholz was experiencing overcrowding again. According to the Gainesville Sun,
“Buchholz High School is the most overcrowded school in the district, operating at almost 116
36
Gordon Foster, Desegregating Schools:. A Review of Techniques, 43 harv. educ. rev. 24 (1973).
Garner, p.262.
38
Garner, p.253.
37
25
percent capacity or 322 students over the capacity of 2,054 students.”39 School Board members
also cited a need for more diversity in city schools. Finally, there was concern that Eastisde was
underperforming on standardized tests. Like in the 1980’s the School Board proposed a rezoning
plan. This plan would zone some children from the west side of town to Eastside, and
Gainesville High. Ideally, this would alleviate the overcrowding at Buchholz and increase
diversity and test scores at the other two schools. Once again, the decision did not go over well.
Parents cited a variety of reasons they were against rezoning. Predominantly, they argued again
that they didn’t want their children to attend school so far away from their homes. According to
one parent, “What I feel the School Board needs to do is focus on meeting the needs of students,
particularly those in the lower quarter percentile in terms of academic performance. … Shuffling
our children around town will only serve to hide the lower performing students.”40 The argument
became heated at a School Board meeting on January 7th. When Superintendent Dan Boyle
announced, “I'm concerned about the diversity in the high schools in Gainesville” his comment
was met with boos from the crowd.41 One parent, referring to Eastside, stood up and declared, “I
don’t want my child going to school in a warzone.” This comment generated quite the response
from other town members. This was seen by some as a comment generated out of fear of the
traditionally black school. After the meeting, School Board member Janie Williams stated in an
interview, "Racism is alive and well in Alachua County”42 In a letter to the editor one Eastside
student responded by saying, “The school is far from being perfectly integrated, and,
unfortunately, there is still some inherent racism and tension. But it is better that there are people
who are at least trying to re-balance the schools, as opposed to those who place their children in
39
Karen Voyles. “School Board Delays Rezoning,” The Gainesville Sun, Jan 9, 2008.
Elaine Simmons “School Rezoning Plan Flawed,” The Gainesville Sun, Jan 12, 2008.
41
Megan Rolland. “Parents Object at Rezoning Meeting,” The Gainesville Sun, Jan 8, 2008.
42
Megan Rolland. “Parents Object at Rezoning Meeting,” The Gainesville Sun, Jan 8, 2008.
40
26
so-called "better" schools to avoid facing this issue.”43 Ultimately, the School Board voted to
table the rezoning plan. As this is being written, no further changes have been made.
Eastside Today
A recent article in the Gainesville Sun entitled “Beneath the Surface Segregation Lives on,”
discussed the current state of integration in Gainesville schools. First, it argues that a major part
of the problem is residential segregation. As mentioned previously, white families tend to live on
the west side of town, and black families on the east side. In a school system based on zoning,
the schools tend to remain partially segregated. While busing may help this problem, the article
points out that often the School Board must decide between diversity and efficacy. As pointed
out by parents throughout the previously mentioned integration conflicts, they do not want their
children to attend schools far away from their own neighborhoods. Bussing becomes ineficent
for parents and students because they are forced to travel so far away from their homes to attend
school. More importantly, the article discusses the problems that come from the magnet
programs like IB. According to the students interviewed, the magnet program students (typically
white) often don’t interact with the (typically black) major program students. Jeff Charbonnet,
the current principle of Eastside, says that the school recognizes this problem, and is making
efforts to deal with it by planning “grade-level-wide events and special forums in which students
must work together in groups.”44 However, these efforts often don’t result in much change
regarding who the students see on a day to day basis. Clarke, the district curriculum official
argues that it simply comes down to who you see every day. He says, “If students have five
classes a day with the same group of people and see students from the other program only during
43
44
“Letters to the Editor.” The Gainesville Sun, January 12, 2008.
Erin Jester. “Beneath the Surface, Segregation Lives on,” The Gainesville Sun, September 13, 2013.
27
band or PE, during lunch they’re probably still going to sit with the friends they see all day.”
Ultimately, it seems that the current efforts to integrate Gainesville schools may simply be a
numbers game. White and black students may share a school name, but often not a classroom.
28
Analysis of the Integration at Eastside High School
So far this thesis had discussed the goals of integration and the history of the integration
of Gainesville schools with a focus on Eastside High. This chapter will reintroduce those goals
and discuss the extent to which those goals have been achieved at Eastside using the descriptions
of the school found in chapter 4.
Legal Goals
Brown v. Board ruled that the Plessy standard of “separate but equal” is inherently
unequal. Certainly then, a major goal of legal integration was to eliminate separate schools for
whites and minorities. Eastside has certainly achieved this. It is very clear that the school accepts
both white and minority students into both its major program, and IB program. However, the
school may fall short of deeper integration goals.
One of the legal goals, as discussed in both the oral arguments and the Supreme Court
decision of Brown v. Board is that segregation caused minority students to feel a sense of
inferiority. By integrating schools, they hoped to generate a greater feeling of equality among
students. Eastside has certainly run into trouble regarding this goal. Although the IB program
helped students to maintain enrollment and diversity standards, it may have been a backwards
step in eliminating the sense of inferiority the court set out to correct. Students mentioned soon
after the IB program was opened that those students often received amenities that the major
program students did not receive. For example, it was mentioned that IB teachers were
prioritized over major program ones when classes needed to be cut, and that the IB students were
granted access to the university library while major program students were not. It is plausible
that this could cause a feeling of inferiority in minority students, but this is not conclusive.
29
Therefore, it is difficult to say for sure whether or not Eastside meets this goal. First, the goal of
the court was to eliminate the sense of inferiority a student would feel based on their race. One
could argue that a sense of inferiority a major program student would feel is not because they are
a minority but because they are not an IB student. This doesn’t mean the problem shouldn’t be
corrected, simply that the problem is not a racial one, and can’t be counted as a problem with
integration. Another argument might be that these complaints were made in the 1980’s. It is
plausible to assume that some corrections were made to this system since this time. No recent
article to my knowledge mentions such complaints. It is difficult to say whether or not the major
program students experience the same badge of inferiority that minority students experienced
during segregation. However, it is plausible that they do. Any evidence suggesting that this
badge of inferiority still exits would be anecdotal. One would be required to talk to a variety of
students and record their opinions. Even then, this evidence would only be the perspective of
those individual students. Therefore, it is possible that the legal goals of integration have not
been met at Eastside, but to state this conclusively, more research would need to be done.
Non-legal Goals
Eastside could also fall short of the equal education opportunity goal on the same
grounds. Those who subscribe to this goal argue that integration is designed to eliminate the
disparity in education related amenities such as number of teachers, newer textbooks, larger
facilities, that existed between whites and minorities before integration. Once again, there is
some evidence that a disparity still exists at Eastside. The mostly minority major program
students may be offered fewer resources as the student newspapers from the 1980’s suggest.
However, since the evidence to suggest that this goal is not being met is the same evidence used
to argue that the legal goal was not being met, it shares this goal’s flaws. There is hardly enough
30
evidence to suggest that this kind of disparity still exists. However, no effort has been made since
the 1980’s to improve the disparities noted in the 1980’s either. Essentially, it is difficult to say
whether or not the equal education opportunity goal of integration has been met at Eastside.
However, the fact that some doubt concerning the schools ability to meet this goal can be
expressed is certainly worth noting.
The integration goal runs into trouble as well. The goal for integrationists is to educate
increase diversity in the classroom setting. They argue that diversity is inherently good, and that
students will benefit from studying alongside peers of different races. Eastside achieves this in
some sense. White and minority students do attend school in the same facility, giving the school
a somewhat diverse atmosphere. However, multiple accounts suggest that they often don’t share
the same classroom. In the 1980’s, soon after IB opened one student argued that the major
program students and IB students do not share classrooms at all. “I know it is difficult to find
qualified teachers to teach the classes, but they seem to find the teachers for the I.B.'s . . . maybe
a resolution to this would be to let the regular students share classes with the I.B.'s, or just not
offer the class. The way it is now, it is unfair to the students and the teacher teaching the class.”45
Unlike the previous two goals, there is evidence that this continues to be a problem. The
Gainesville district official argued in a recent Gainesville Sun article that major program students
often do not spend any time with IB students even in their free time. He says that the students
simply, “If students have five classes a day with the same group of people… they’re probably
still going to sit with the friends they see all day.”46 One could argue once again that this has
nothing to do with race and therefore is not relevant to integration. However, again, given the
fact that the IB program is a product of integration, and the demographics of the two programs,
45
46
Regan Garner, “A School Without a Name: Desegregation of Eastside High School.” 262.
Erin Jester. “Beneath the Surface, Segregation Lives on,” The Gainesville Sun, September 13, 2013.
31
this argument seems to fall flat. Therefore, Eastside does not meet the integrationist goal for
integration.
There is also some doubt concerning whether or not Eastside meets the goal of the
correction theory. This theory argues that the segregation was an evil. The goal of integration is
to correct this evil. Eastside’s ability to meet this goal depends on how one defines the “evil” that
was segregation. If the evil was simply that whites and minorities were separated by race, then
Eastside achieves this goal. White and minority students do share a school facility. However, if
one defines the evil as a failure to achieve diversity, Eastside runs into problems. White and
minority students often don’t share a classroom with one another. As mentioned in the previous
paragraph, they may not spend any time together at all. Furthermore, residential segregation
plays a role in keeping white and minority students separated. When Gainesville integrated in the
1970’s the zoning system was set up to keep them apart. Any attempt at rezoning has been struck
down. So, if the goal of the correction theory is to correct the evil that was segregation, Eastside
plausibly fails to maintain this. Although Gainesville’s efforts to integrate have achieved some
level of diversity, students of tended to re-segregate. Therefore, I would argue that the evil of
segregation in part has not been completely corrected.
Eastside runs into similar issues with the prohibition theory. The goal of prohibition
theorists is similar to those of the correction theorist. They also believe that segregation was an
evil. However, they believe that correcting segregation is unlikely, and instead argue that the
goal of integration is to stop the evil of segregation from happening again. Once again, in some
ways Eastside meets this goal. If prohibiting segregation simply means prohibiting laws that
separate whites and minorities within the school system, then the prohibition goal has been met.
However, if prohibiting segregation requires that whites and minorities share a classroom, there
32
is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that segregation is not being prohibited. As discussed in the
previous paragraph, students at the school are often segregated, but simply in different ways than
they were before Brown v. Board. Rather than the city sending white and minority students to
separate schools, zoning laws coupled with residential segregation do the job. White students
tend to be zoned for schools with predominantly white students, and minority students tend to be
zoned for schools with predominantly minority students. The IB program does little to prevent
this. As previously mentioned, the typically white IB students spend little if any time with the
typically African American major program students. It is fairly clear that segregation in some
form is not being prohibited. It is simply being allowed to thrive under new conditions.
Therefore, Eastside does not manage to meet the prohibition theory’s goal for integration.
The Prophylaxis theory runs into slightly different problems than the others. According to
this theory, integration should allow minorities, the traditionally disadvantaged races, to achieve
greater social utility within society. Furthermore, it argues that anyone who would achieve social
utility at the coast of the utility of the typically disadvantaged races should not have their
opinions considered when considering plans for society. Gainesville has failed to achieve these
goals throughout its multiple attempts to rezone students for Eastside. In both the 1980’s and
2008 Eastside lacked in number of enrolled students and funding. Busing students from the west
side of town to Eastside could help the situation. However, parents from west Gainesville fought
the idea and won based on the idea that their children would be forced to attend a school far
away from their neighborhoods. Essentially, Gainesville decided to weigh the utility of the west
Gainesville parents (typically white) more than the utility of those who already attended Eastside
(typically minority). By choosing their utility over the Eastside student’s utility, the town failed
to meet the goals of the Prophylaxis theory.
33
The process to end legal segregation happened one small step at a time. Likewise the
process to integrate Gainesville schools happened one small step at a time. So, it makes sense
that there may be a few small steps left to take. Currently, Eastside fails to achieve any but the
most basic goals of integration. Although its short comings for every goal cannot be proven
completely, there is at least some doubt regarding every goal listed earlier in this thesis. This is
surely a problem that requires more attention, and further action by city officials.
34
Conclusion- What Now
If more steps are necessary to complete the goals of integration, the question becomes
what are those small steps? So far, the process of integration has taken place because of
requirements by the court. Segregation was outlawed in Brown v. Board, and Integration was
forced in Alexander v. Holmes. However, this is clearly not enough. In his book, The Hollow
Hope, Gerald Rosenberg argues that ultimately the courts have very little power to enact social
change. He says, “Delay is built into the judicial system and it serves to limit the court.”47
Essentially, the American judicial system is designed to be slow. This is why the integration
process has continued for so long. For quicker change, we must look to other outlets for reform.
This chapter will discuss those other options.
The first step is to identify the problem. The most important issue overall is residential
segregation. The schools in Gainesville were designed to keep segregation in place. In the 1970’s
the down did not want to integrate. They created one school near the typically black area of
town, and one school near the typically white area of town. This ensured that changing the
system to one based on housing area did not create diverse schools. They maintained the status
quo. This is still a problem. White citizens still live on the west side of town and black citizens
still tend to live on the east side of town. If there is to be a change in school diversity, there must
be a change in either who lives on which side of town, or which school students are zoned for.
However, rezoning does not seem like the most plausible solution. The Gainesville
school board has attempted to rezone students twice in the last 30 years. Both attempts have been
met with vicious confrontation from parents. A critic might attribute this to racial tensions. They
47
Gerald N. Rosenberg , “The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?” University of Chicago Press:
Chicago, 1992, 87.
35
may point out that these parents simply don’t want their children to attend school with minority
children, and therefore their concerns are less valid. While it’s plausible that their concerns are
racially motivated, their arguments are not invalid. Both parents and students value
neighborhood schools. Students want to attend schools with others who live close to them.
Furthermore, Eastside is around 20-40 minutes away from west Gainesville depending on which
neighborhood the student lives in. Neither students, nor parents want to spend that much time
and gas to drive that distance to school, nor do students want to sit on a bus that long. Attending
a school near their homes is simply easier. Bussing is a viable solution, but there are others that
could be implemented without over burdening parents and students.
There would also be the issue of who gets bussed and rezoned. Travis Moore, a fellow
FAU Honors student wrote a thesis in 2011 discussing the integration efforts in the town of
Suncoast Florida. He concludes that the major problem with the town’s integration efforts was
the closing of the community school in the traditionally African American neighborhood. He
argues, “Busing and closed schools should be shared by white and black students alike.”48 Any
effort made by Gainesville so far has been uneven. In the 1970’s when Buchholz and Eastside
were first created, it was the traditionally African American school, Lincoln, which closed while
all preexisting white schools stayed open. When rezoning was attempted in the 1980’s and the
2000’s, it was the predominantly white students from west Gainesville that would be forced out
of their neighborhood schools. Rezoning and busing fairly is difficult. More often than not, one
group of people will be placed with a heavier burden. While integration is a goal worth a burden,
I would argue that there are better solutions to the current problem with Gainesville schools than
busing and rezoning, and those should be considered first.
48
Moore, Travis. “Implementing Brown v. Board: An Evaluation of the Success of Desegregation at Suncoast High
School,” Undergraduate Thesis: Florida Atlantic University, 2011. p40.
36
The simplest solution is to put IB students and major program students in the same
classroom. As stated several times, IB students are kept separate within the school. One student
mentioned this in the school newspaper in the 1980’s, and Gainesville’s district curriculum
official discussed this in a recent article in the Gainesville Sun. The IB program was
implemented as a way to bring diversity to the school. As it stands, it is being underutilized. The
IB curriculum requires that students pass certain standards in six different subjects. According to
the program’s website “students take written examinations at the end of the programme, which
are marked by external IB examiners. Students also complete assessment tasks in the school,
which are either initially marked by teachers and then moderated by external moderators or sent
directly to external examiners.”49 However, these exams and internal assessments are typically
done at the end of the student’s high school career (junior or senior year). During the first two
years of high school, it would be completely appropriate for IB students to share a classroom
with one another. This would not only increase the amount of diversity in the classroom, but also
increase the likelihood that IB and major program students would spend time with each other
outside of the classroom as well. As mentioned by the district curriculum official, students will
spend time with the people they see every day.
A critic of this might point out that IB students have chosen a rigorous academic
program. Students in the major program have not made this choice. If the two groups were to
share a classroom, the teachers would be forced to slow the curriculum to the level of the major
program students who have not elected an accelerated program. This is true, and I would not
argue that IB and major program students share every class with one another. However, some
major program students do elect to take advanced placement classes. During the first two years
49
“The IB Diploma Programme” http://www.ibo.org/diploma/.
37
of the IB program, students are required to take some of the same advanced placement classes
that major program students sometimes elect to take. As it stands, there is a separate advanced
placement teacher for the IB program that teaches only IB students and one for the major
program that teaches only major program students. This would be a perfect time for the two
groups to share a classroom. Presumably, the major program students who have elected to take
an advanced placement class will be on the same level as the IB students, and will not slow down
the curriculum.
Another outlet for change is funding. According to Erin Chemerinsky, author of Ending
the Dual System of American Public Education, “it is estimated that twenty percent more is spent
on each white student’s education then on each black pupils schooling.”50 This is obviously an
issue. For Gainesville, this disparity can surely be attributed to the difference in schools. A
majority of black students attend Eastside, and a majority of white students attend Buchholz. By
correcting this funding imbalance the town would not only end a major integration issue, but also
make the school more attractive to parents. More students being sent to the school, IB or not
creates more diversity, especially if the change in classroom situation suggested in the previous
paragraph is implemented.
Funding for the east side of Gainesville in general would help with integration issues as
well. In both rezoning efforts made by the Gainesville School Board, the expansion of west
Gainesville was cited as the main problem with getting students to Eastside. The fact is that the
east side of town is not attractive to new businesses or residents. If Gainesville made an effort to
expand the east side of town, new residents would move in. This expansion could come in the
form of public works projects: new parks, or libraries implementing incentives (lower taxes etc)
50
Erin Chemerinsky, “Ending the Dual System of American Public Education” 78.
38
for businesses to build there etc… Essentially, anything that would make the east side of town
more attractive to live on. New residents means new students in the major program classes, and
most likely, a more diverse student body.
However, I would argue that the most important step in changing Eastside’s and
Gainesville’s current problem with integration is a change in attitude. In all stages of
Gainesville’s integration, there has been a severe issue with the way (typically white) community
members viewed the school. In the 1970’s when white students were first sent to Eastside they
were angry about being sent to “smelly and unsafe negro schools.” In the 1980’s after the
creation of the IB program students complained about bad press from the town’s newspapers.
One student pointed out that “The Sun article devoted ten paragraphs to the "minor conflict" at
EHS, but only one paragraph to a bomb scare that night at BHS.”51 Finally, when another
rezoning attempt was made in 2008, members of the community booed at the idea of diversity.
These attitudes only hold the school and the town back. The goal of this thesis is to question
these attitudes. Ideally, those who read this will not boo at the idea of diversity, but recognize its
importance in our school system. Ideally they will realize that schools like Eastside are not
necessarily more “a warzone,” but that the school may simply be the victim of a biased
newspaper. Ideally, readers will recognize, and begin to work towards solving the problems of
what they formally considered to be “smelly and unsafe negro schools.”
51
Regan Garner, “A School Without a Name: Desegregation of Eastside High School.” 262.
39
Bibliography
Articles and Books
Gerald N. Rosenberg , “The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?” University
of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1992.
Liebman, James. “Desegregating Politics: All Out School Desegregation Explained.” Columbia
Law Review 90 (1990): 1485-1587
Moore, Travis. “Implementing Brown v. Board: An Evaluation of the Success of Desegregation
at Suncoast High School,” Undergraduate Thesis: Florida Atlantic University, 2011.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Ending the Dual System of American Public Education: The Urgent Need
for Legislative Action, 32 DePaul Law Review 77-106 (1982)
Regan Garner, "School without a Name: Desegregation of Eastside High School 1970-1987,"
University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy (August 2005), pp. 233-265.
Gordon Foster, “Desegregating Schools: A Review of Techniques” 43 harv. educ. rev. 24 (1973)
Ed. Phillip Kuland and Gerhard Casper. “Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court
of the United States: Constitutional Law.” University Publications of America inc. (1985).
Court Cases
Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969)
Sweatt v. Painter 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
McLaurin v.Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education et al, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Murray v. Pearson, 182 A. 590, 169 Md. 478, (1936).
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938)
Newspaper Articles
Megan Rolland. “School Zoning Changes Questioned,” The Gainesville Sun, Jan 6, 2008.
Karen Voyles. “School Board Delays Rezoning,” The Gainesville Sun, Jan 9, 2008.
Megan Rolland. “Parents Object at Rezoning Meeting,” The Gainesville Sun, Jan 8, 2008.
Elaine Simmons. “School Rezoning Plan Flawed,” The Gainesville Sun, Jan 12, 2008.
40
Erin Jester. “Beneath the Surface, Segregation Lives on,” The Gainesville Sun, September 13,
2013.
Cliff Cormier, White Parents Pledge Boycott, Gainesville Sun (Florida), Aug. 19, 1971
Websites
www.ibo.org
www.eastside.sbac.edu
41