Hide Article Text (OCR)
Iti:“Ssv.vw ;•/!By WALT STEGMIERf\\V Press-Courier Staff Writerequality and Justice for all of * Ramona. Before the 1071 inLOS ANGELESOxnard’s elementary school .. tegration order few so-calledheCourt- children. Oxnard, along with. Anglo youngsters ever attendedstiordered integration of the San Francisco and Pasadena, these two segregated barrio Oxnard elementary schools, continue to be the only three schools,” the judge said.carried out primarily by cross- California cities under federalThatUtown busing of students, will integration plans.open discriminatorySs.VvV Xsintent” of the 1930s and 1940sthcontinue, U.S. District CourtJudge Harry Pregerson ruledThe judge said in his decisionTuesday.while he saw some signs ofextended in more subtle formsinto the 1950s and 1960s,MThe judge, in a 12-pagedeliberate segregation intentA1decision, ordered the inwhen he found, without a trial,He cited the testimony ofCi--------- ...v f. t , /«»hia|i„ Supt. Harold R. De Pue, whotegration plan first adopted in served from 1961 to 1965 andthalJuly 1971 to be continued after »^aos!S!!ttJ!2ILLn„,5!!!^ said “the same mentality thattofinding previous Oxnard school motivated the school boardatboar* '•iiiwntioiuilly andpurposefully” adopteda“policy of racial segregationschools.1940S. existed into the 1960s.sn“Although De Pue wanted toThis racial and ethnic This new evidence, Pregerson integrate the Oxnard schools,„ segregation was “blatant” in said, came from school boardhe testified that the board chose13the 1930s and 1940s, continued in minutes of the 1930s introduced to follow a 4do nothing* policy,“more subtle forms*’ into the at the September trial by the judge said. “The conflict in1950s and 1960s and board Nowlin and Edelman showingmembers followed a44dothe ‘‘Oxnard school board not Pue’s departure from his postresulted in De ^nothing policy’* in correcting only established and main* as superintendent/* the judgeSegregation, Pregerson found, tained segregated schools, but added.The judge, in ruling for the *ls0 established and main‘The existence of this ‘do*plaintiffs, rejected the Oxnard tained segregated classrooms nothing* policy to preserve *School District position it did within a school.”*segregation spawned in thenot carry out a deliberate policy The judge cited the “odious” 19308 * corroborated by other isof racial and ethnic segregation school board minutes of Nov. 4, witnesses, the judge found.V*but took positive steps towards *93$ which read in part:Pregersoncitedtheending 40 years of segregation “President Dockstader stated testimony of former Supt. Dr.vvin the elementary schools.I? Instead, Pregerson found in principle of segregation, from *949 to 1961 and whothat the board was in favor of Richard M* Clowes, who servedNV -Vthe mid-1960s, “under the guise although it might not be entirelytestified the school board “tookof pursuing a neighborhood practical at this time.Itschool policy, the board r The judge found, based on the' schools or relieve segregationno action to integrate thessituated three new schoolsschool board minutes of 1938Sierra Linda, Marina West and and 1939, “the board continuedRose Avenueduring his term superintendent.**as Oxnard*$JtV«■V\• Vwithin the tobeobsessedwithdistrict so that these schools segregation plans to separate “* umber of desegregationThe judge noted in the 1960swere segregated on theveryday they opened their doors.*’Mexican-American and Anglo Ptans,which wereadchildren.ministratlvelyandPregerson said he based his i„ 1940, when the board built educationallysoundandv.ruling on evidence presented Ramona School “for the con- feasible, were presented to-theduring the three-day trial in venience of the Mexican board and rejected.”U.S. District Court from Sept. population,” the judge notedEven board member Thomas14*27 and on final written “its conveniences were few.Kane, who served from 1963 toarguments submitted later by “its floor consisted of im» “admitted the board tookplaintiffs* attorneys Herb blacktop rolied over bare earth,Nowlin and Joel Edelman and its illumination came from alittle positive action to correct segregation diving the 1960s,tfschool district attorney, Asst single bare bulb, its roof leaked, the Judge said.County Counsel Tony Waters, its toilet facilities were conclusion, the judge saidIn ordering the July 1971 deplorable, Pregerson noted. “the segregation which in fact* tintegration plan continued, the Eleven years later Juanita -■ *xisted inthe district’s* .judge noted the plan is School was built In the Cokmia elementary schools prior to the4#fulfilling its promiseto relieve overcrowding atimplementation of the courtordered desegregation plan,was caused by the schoolboard’s intentional, deliberateand purposeful policy of racialsegregation.ItThe judge did not only rule forthe plaintiffs, 10 Coloniachildren who first brought thesuit, on the basis there was aV.\*deliberate intent to segregate,Three Ventura ^ County speculate about Schmidt’s vote causingaconstitutionalSheriff’s officers, who wanted or the role his feud with COnlan violation of the right to. equalthe county to pay nearly 623,000 played in it.education.in legal bills they ran up“There has been some byplayHe also found the schoolfighting for their jobs, lost their between two of tbeboard was in violation of thebid Tuesday.visors,” Regniersuper*said to Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ofBy a 3-2 vote, the board reporters. “You would have to *be st*te **w outlined by tbeturned down Chief Deputy be deaf not to notice that.”State Supreme Court in the 1963Merle Hollis, who sought Supervisors, with Schmidt’s Pasadena case.$15,596; Chief Deputy Al Miller, support, orderedCountyUnder the Civil Rirfits Act,who requested $3,709, and Sgt. Counsel Dorothy Schechter last because the school districtDaniel Galitz, who sought- week to draft a policy under receives federal funqs, the'V$3,500.which the three officers could found ‘he school boardHollis was fired by Sheriff be reimbursed, although few the affirmative duty tos**William E. Hill a year ago, but other county employes would be - overcome the effects ofVswas exonerated by the county’s likely to be eligible for «milar discrimination, even if theseCivil Service Commission.payments.were the result of no purposefulMiller and Galitz were Schmidt contended that the design to segregate or were tbedemoted and then reinstated by policy should have been more r*sult ot Prior segregation.Hilt.generalBoard Chairman John Conlan bad opposed lastsomething Conlanof Thousand Oaks and SupertningweekUnder state law, Pregersonregefound the board in violation,Flynn said he couldn’t unnoting tbe law requires thevisor John Flynn of Oxnard derstand how Schmidt could •ch°o« board to alleviate racial*fought for the reimbursement of have supported his motion last *n® 'rebalance, as far as■vthe officers. But they were week to have tbe policy drawn reasonably feasible, regardlessoverridden by Supervisors and then turn around and vote cause of imbalance.f Ralph Bennett of Ojai; Frank against it Tuesday. Schmidt In 1971, before the integrationJewett of Ventura; and Glen claimed there was a difference order was effect- nuie of 12Schmidt of Simi Valley.between the two actions.Oxnard elementary schoolsSchmidt’s vote triggered After Flynn and Conlan failed were racially and ethnicallylastest of a aeries of clashes to get the policy drawn by Mrs.between him and Conlan. It also Schechter approved, the boardimbalanced, the judge noted, The evidence also snowsIttsurprised and angered at« chairman asked Schmidt if his . though reasonablytorney s for Hollis and Galits. vote was cast because he f**as 1 hie desegregation -plans$*“It s very difficult to know what he’s doing,” Allan Gitdisapproved of the policy or waswere available to the school£terman, who represents Calitz9against reimbursing.*. •»beard, it failed to act on them,tl*4* declared foilowtng the vote, explanation,1 don’t think I qwe you anthe judge Mid.IfMaybe he doesn’t know what ped.Tbe judge complimented*n*P' former - superintendentt• • vhe’s doing.M. Conlan retorted that Schmid# -ruring leadership” to the inwho owed something to the, three 2^,* «L,VTregarthen for giving “ipRichard Regnier,4-represented Hollis on behalf of officers,as__tegration plan finally adoptedlt;tinder court order in July 197 L
Newspaper Details
Oxnard Ventura County Ad Visor
Oxnard, California, US
Thu, Dec 19, 1974
Page 100
Full Page
Clipped by
California S.
CA, DZ 29 Mar 2022
Other Publications Near Oxnard, California
Oxnard Press Courier
Ventura County Classified Pictorial
Oxnard Ventura County Ad Visor
Oxnard Daily Courier
Oxnard Courier
