The Sixth Circuit Court, however, seems to imply that follow-up decrees are required. It might even be said that its own decision reversing Judge Gordon is a "follow-up" decree for this reason:

District Judge Gordon found "white flight" to be a defacto cause of any continued racial imbalance" in certain schools in Metropolitan Louisville despite thorough desegregation efforts by the authorities. He specifically found no dejure causes due to any continued official vestiges of racial segregation.

The Circuit Court seems to have refused to accept the actuality of this population mobility-cited by the Supreme Court in Swann as the reason making follow-up racial adjustments unnecessary-as a defacto cause of the racial imbalance it found, ruling that imbalance entirely due to dejure causes which Judge Gordon found absent completely.

One can certainly question the implication in the Circuit Court's language that a school board must prevent future discrimination by successive adjustments when that court does not seem to accept the fact of society's mobility inescapably leading to varying racial ratios all the time, a fact the Supreme Court did accept in Swann. But as Prince Georges County found out to its dismay, the Supreme Court does not always stand by its own rulings. So one is justified in asking, just what is the position of the courts as to continuing adjustments of racial ratios in our schools?

The two examples I have presented here-the Supreme Court's refusal to review a lower court's mandating of a compulsory racial ratio in an entire school system despite the highest tribunal's previous dictum that it would be obliged to reverse such an order, and the Sixth Circuit Court's clear defiance of one Supreme Court desegregation standard and its broadening of another-support my contention that forced-busing is here to stay unless Congress puts an end to it.

Forced busing is here to stay, as a never-ending, court-ordered, court-reviewed, and court-reordered phenomenon in American life, unless Congress acts to terminate it by way of a Constitutional Amendment, or by way of the statutory legislation embodied in the bills before this Senate Subcommittee and in the bills I have introduced in the House of Representatives.

But it is not just forced-busing that is here to stay, but ever-changing forcedbusing. The problem is not just busing forever, but ever-changing forced-busing forever!

The reason for this is apparent from the position of the Circuit Court in Cincinnati. As population changes develop among races as they have in Louisville and Jefferson County and elsewhere, and the racial balance automatically changes in neighborhood schools with new enrollments and departures, the courts can claim as time passes that racial “imbalance" exists anew, and on the grounds of this "evidence" of renewed "discrimination," order and reorder, over and over again, the school boards of the nation to draw up and implement new guidelines, new attendance zones, new busing schedules, etc. for the same or different school districts and/or counties or cities, for the same or for different students, at the same or different schools.

And all this on an unending basis-unless the Federal courts also go into the business of controlling where the American people can move to or not move to! No further amplification on my part is necessary for everyone to see what may lie in store for this country-disruption unlimited! But the greatest disruption will be imposed on the lives of our tenderest citizens, the young students in elementary and secondary schools. Parents will not know from one term to the next what schools their children will be in, or what hours they will have to keep to make their bus schedules.

In the cases involving Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky, the Sixth Circuit Court refused to accept as effective the desegregation measures found to be very satisfactory by the District Court. The only way to satisfy the higher court is to have increased forced-busing that involves leapfrogging, or crossbusing. I completely agree with the sensible opinion on that very point that District Judge Gordon stated in his decision, now reversed:

"We have closely scrutinized the situation at the Newburg school and the adjoining elementary schools and the Cane Run school about which plaintiffs complain. We have seen the efforts by the school board in these areas and the use of permissible tools employed by the Board and we reject as totally unrealistic the contentions of the plaintiffs that it is necessary, in order to comply with constitutional mandate, to transport white children into the Newburg area from adjoining districts, and at the same time transport some of the Newburg children who

live near the school to white schools, thus cross-busing or leap-frogging these children merely in order to achieve some sort of racial balance, absent dejure acts or failure to act by the authorities." Newburg Area Council v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky (p. 32)

This finding by the District Judge gets to the very heart of the issue. Is forcedbusing to be a permanent sociological tool (without regard for human feelings) utilized to reach and maintain throughout never ending population shifts, some idealistic but impractical form of racial balance based purely on preconceived, arbitrary percentages?

This evidently is what the Sixth Circuit Court wants-and yet it is a wellknown fact that roughly twenty-five percent of the American people move every year!

I submit, if the view of the Sixth Circuit Court prevails-and I've already shown the Supreme Court does not always overturn lower court decisions that defy its own-this country will be put through fantastically costly, unending contortions and disruptions, involving not so much our school children's education, as where they will get it, unless the Congress acts favorably on the bills before this Subcommittee.

If left standing, the Circuit Court's decision in effect holds that school boards for all time must revise busing plans-no matter how often changes must be made in any or all aspects of their plans and operations-to keep up with changing population trends, on the specious grounds that racial balances in schools differing from some preconceived, court-set percentages will, ipso facto, prove dejure segregation and discrimination.

As cities expand, and people of both races move farther from midcity areas, forced-busing could require longer and longer trips. Earlier departures, and later arrivals home involve greater dangers for our school children, as many have pointed out. Walking to, waiting for, and riding on, school buses by many more children, will involve more time away from home. Leapfrogging forced-busing likely will become even more of a disrupting factor than it has been to date.

FORCED-BUSING LARGELY BASED ON ERRONEOUS SOCIAL THEORY

Federal court decisions in the area of race relations since the early 1950's have been based on the speculative theories and assumptions of certain sociologists. Among these was Gunnar Myrdal of Sweden, whose book, "An American Dilemma," was cited in the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954.

Now we have a new American Dilemma.

It is ridiculous and tyrannical for our Federal courts, which are totally unrepresentative and unanswerable to the American people, to impose and perpetuate an untenable sociological pattern of costly forced-busing on our people largely on the basis of social theories and assumptions now proven to have been erroneous!

The courts have the responsibility of adjudication on the basis of law, not sociology. The Supreme Court's function largely has been the determination of constitutionality of our laws. It has no power under the Constitution to determine the validity of social theory. Law under the Constitution is the guide for our courts, not the disproven-nor unproven-concepts of foreign or domestic social theoreticians, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

Millions of dollars have been expended on voluntary and mandatory busing in the North, South, East and West as a direct result of court decisions heavily influenced by social theories now shown to have been incorrect.

One outstanding survey demonstrating the falsity of the theories selected by the courts was that reported by David J. Armor, Associate Professor of Sociology at Harvard, in the quarterly journal, THE PUBLIC INTEREST for Summer, 1972.

Professor Armor has this to say of the implications of his findings on busing: "It is obvious that the findings of integration research programs have serious implications for policy. . . . The most serious question is raised for mandatory busing (or induced integration) programs. If the justification for mandatory busing is based upon an integration policy model like the one we have tested here, then that justification has to be called into question. The data do not support the model on most counts." (p. 114)

As Armor predicted ("it is likely that in some quarters the data we have presented will be attacked on moral or methodological grounds and then sum

marily ignored") his findings have been criticized and ignored. (But he devastated his critics in his surrebuttal, "The Double Double Standard: a Reply" in the Winter, 1973 issue of THE PUBLIC INTEREST.)

A careful reading shows him to be eminently fair, in my opinion. For example, he states (p. 115), "Although the data may fail to support mandatory busing as it is currently justified, these findings should not be used to halt voluntary busing programs." He urges more support for continued voluntary busing, but flatly declares, "massive mandatory busing for purposes of improving student achievement and interracial harmony is not effective and should not be adopted at this time." (p. 115)

My position essentially is that States and local communities have the right to determine their own methods of improving race relations in schools and the standard of education for both blacks and whites as long as officially imposed segregation is ended. Federal fiat that claims to be juridical but is merely sociological, has no place in this area. Armor and others have now demonstrated the unsoundness of Federal court sociology, and it must be discarded. Inasmuch as the courts show no inclination to shed their social hypotheses, the Congress under Article III of the Constitution must step in and strip away the juridical abuse of the courts-their basing judgments on illusions. The elected representatives of the people in both Houses of Congress know the people would support such action. Only one in twenty Americans supports busing as a satisfactory integration tool, according to a nationwide Gallup Poll taken in early August, 1973. The National Parents and Teachers Association in its National Congress, on May 22, 1973 resolved, "That the National PTA oppose the reassignment of students solely to achieve racial balance in the schools."

The American people know what the courts won't face up to, that busing is a failure. Armor asked the question, "Why has the integration policy model failed to be supported by the evidence on four out of five counts? How can a set of almost axiomatic relationships, supported by years of social science research, be so far off the mark?" (p. 111) He gives three answers, but my point here is that the people-unlike the courts-know that forced-busing as a solution is far off the mark!

Armor blames "(1) inadequate research designs, (2) induced versus 'natural' factors, and (3) changing conditions in the black cultural climate," for the errors of the sociological concepts which were chosen by the courts to underlie their decisions involving busing.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE ARMOR STUDY

Professor Armor stated at the outset of his essay in THE PUBLIC INTEREST: "The policy model behind the Supreme Court's 1954 reasoning-and behind the beliefs of the liberal public today-was based in part on social science research. But that research did not derive from the conditions of induced racial integration as it is being carried out today. These earlier research designs were 'ex post facto'-i.e., comparisons were made between persons already integrated and individuals in segregated environments. Since the integration experience occured before the studies, any inferences about the effects of induced integration, based on such evidence, have been speculative at best. With the development of a variety of school integration programs across the country there arose the opportunity to conduct realistic tests of the integration policy model that did not suffer this limitation. While it may have other shortcomings, this research suffers neither the artificial constraints of the laboratory nor the causal ambiguity of the cross-sectional survey. The intent of this essay is to explore some of this new research and to interpret the findings." (p. 91)

Armor's study was chiefly based upon the busing experience of school children in grades one through twelve over a period of from one to five years in five geographical areas: Boston, Massachusetts; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Hartford, Connecticut; Riverside, California; and White Plains, New York.

Professor Armor, at the outset of his article, indicted "educational policy makers" for deliberately ignoring a key finding of sociologist James Coleman, author of the "Coleman Report" in 1966 which was the product of a survey by the U.S. Office of Education commissioned by Congress as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Armor presented his case in these words:

"The Coleman study, however, also reported some findings that surprisingly were not in accord with the early model. For one thing, black children were already nearly as far behind white children in academic performance in the first

grade as they were in later grades. This raised some question about whether school policies alone could eliminate black/white inequalities. Adding to the significance of this finding were the facts that black and white schools could not be shown to differ markedly in facilities or services, and that whatever differences there were could not be used to explain the disparities in black and white student achievement. This led Coleman to conclude that 'schools bring little influence to bear on a child's achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and this very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities (of their adult life).'

“While the findings about segregation and black/white differences have been widely publicized and largely accepted, this concluding aspect of Coleman's findings has been ignored by educational policy makers. Part of the reason may derive from the methodological controversies which surrounded these findings (e.g., Bowles and Levin, 1968), but the more likely and important reason is that the implications were devastating to the rationale of the educational establishment in its heavy investment in school rehabilitative programs for the culturally deprived; the connection between public policy and social science does have its limitations." (p. 94)

Professor Armor carefully delineated his survey (p. 96) as relating only to forced, not natural, school integration, and not the "effects of integration on adults, nor on the effects of other types of integration, such as neighborhood housing, employment, and other forms." He stressed this limitation:

"We are specifically interested in those aspects of the model that postulate positive effects of school integration for black students; namely, that school integration enhances black achievement, aspirations, self-esteem, race relations, and opportunities for higher education . . In other words, we will be assessing the effects of induced school integration via busing, and not necessarily the effects of integration brought about by the voluntary actions of individual families that move to integrated neighborhoods."

Armor catalogued his findings specifically. He stated (p. 98)

"To test the integration policy model we can group our findings under five major headings-the effects of busing and integration on: (1) academic achievement; (2) aspirations; (3) self-concept; (4) race relations; and (5) educational opportunities. . . In each case, we shall compare bused students with the control groups [students of similar backgrounds not bused] to assess those changes that might be uniquely associated with the effects of induced integration."

Accordingly, Armor set forth his findings under those headings. I can only quote them in the briefest manner as follows:

"Achievement

"None of the studies were able to demonstrate conclusively that integration has had an effect on academic achievement as measured by standardized tests." (p. 99) "The integration policy model predicted that achievement should improve as black students are moved from segregated schools to integrated schools. . . But four of the five studies we reviewed (as well as the Berkeley and Evanston data discussed in footnote 4) showed no significant gains in achievement scores; the other study had mixed results. Our own analyses of the Coleman data were consistent with these findings (see Armor, 1972)." (p. 109)

"Aspiration and Self-concept

"In the [Boston] METCO study we found that there were no increases in educational or occupational aspiration levels for bused students; on the contrary, there was a significant decline for the bused students, from 74 percent wanting a college degree in 1968 to 60 percent by May 1970 . At the very least, we can conclude that the bused students do not improve their aspirations for college." (p. 101) "The integration policy model predicted that integration should raise black aspirations. Again, our studies reveal no evidence for such an effect." (p. 110)

"In the METCO study we also found some important differences with respect to academic self-concept. The students were asked to rate how bright they were in comparison to their classmates. While there were some changes in both the bused and control groups, the important differences are the gaps between the bused students and controls at each time period. The smallest difference is 15 percentage points in 1970, with the control students having the higher academic

self-concept. Again, this finding makes sense if we recall that the academic performance of the bused students falls considerably when they move from the black community to the white suburbs. In rating their intellectual ability, the bused students may simply be reflecting the harder competition in suburban schools." (p. 102)

"Race Relations

"One of the central sociological hypotheses in the integration policy model is that integration should reduce racial stereotypes, increase tolerance, and generally improve race relations. Needless to say, we were quite surprised when our data failed to verify this axiom. Our surprise was increased substantially when we discovered that, in fact, the converse appears to be true. The data suggest that, under the circumstances obtaining in these studies, integration heightens racial identity and consciousness, enhances ideologies that promote racial segregation, and reduces opportunities for actual contact between the races." (p. 102) "The integration policy model predicted that race relations should improve as the result of interracial contact provided by integration programs. In this regard the effect of integration programs seems the opposite of that predicted, It appears that integration increases racial identity and solidarity over the short run and, at least in the case of black students, leads to increasing desires for separatism. These effects are observed for a variety of indicators: attitudes about integration and black power; attitudes towards whites; and contact with whites. The trends are clearest for older students (particularly the METCO high school students), but similar indications are present in the elementary school studies as well. This pattern holds true for whites also, insofar as their support for the integration program decreases and their own-race preferences increase as contact increases." (p. 110)

Thus, in the first four of Armor's categories we see that he found few positive, but many adverse effects, as a result of what he called "induced school integration via busing."

In the fifth category-"Long-term Education Effects"-he stated his finding that a higher percentage of bused black students did start college than un-bused control students, but this was based on two studies surveying a total of less than 150 students, and of which he said: "Neither of these studies is large enough, of course, to draw any definite conclusions." And, he had already pointed out (as quoted above under "Aspiration and Self-concept") that there was already a much higher aspiration to go to college among bused students at the outset of their busing than among the control group-although those aspirations declined markedly as that busing continued. Armor said (p. 101), "In this respect, some educators have hypothesized that integration has a positive effect in lowering aspirations to more realistic levels; of course, others would argue that any lowering of aspirations is undesirable."

Sure enough, Armor's critics claimed that lowering of aspirations was a positive effect! We find a separate category devoted to it in their critique of his study: "Shifts in aspirations and ‘academic self-image' during desegregation are positive in meaning."

I quote briefly from this section:

"Katz (1967), for example, has demonstrated experimentally how unduly high aspirations can doom black students to serious learning difficulties. In his view, desegregation benefits learning among black children by lowering their aspirations to more effective and realistic levels. . . . In short, when desegregation lowers rigidly high aspirations of black students to moderate, effective levels, it should be considered a positive, not a negative effect." ("Busing: a Review of "The Evidence' " by Thomas F. Pettigrew, Elizabeth L. Useem, Clarence Normand & Marshall S. Smith, in THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Winter, 1973, p. 107-108) For the life of me, I can not understand why forced-busing must be resorted to achieve this so-called "positive" effect. Could not teachers counsel black students to this end in their own neighborhood schools if it were warranted? Why subject Negro children to the embarrassment and chagrin of having to learn such a "lesson" by being forced to "achieve" alongside white students who already are considerably ahead of them, to say nothing of the time they must spend on school buses. I see no value whatsoever in a program of any kind that reduces a student's desire to better himself, and for any educator to call this a "positive" benefit is sheer nonsense. Even where a student clearly does not have the ability to handle college work, he should be encouraged to better himself in other ways. Professor Armor, as I have mentioned earlier, answered his critics in what he called, "The Double Double Standard: a Reply." In this reply he further empha