Last November, the University of Cincinnati Libraries announced the award of an Archives Grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to the Libraries’ Archives and Rare Books Library (ARB). This grant supports the archival processing of records related to the lawsuit Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati maintained by the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and donated to the University of Cincinnati in the 1980s.
ARB is pleased to welcome Julianna Witt, who was hired as the project archivist dedicated to this project. Julianna will be writing a series of blog posts documenting her work and the discoveries she makes while organizing the NAACP records. Her first post below highlights some records related to earlier desegregation efforts in Cincinnati, most notably the Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education case filed in 1965.
Julianna writes:
The Cincinnati NAACP collection regarding the Bronson court case includes material on various desegregation cases in Ohio and across the country gathered by the NAACP and the plaintiffs’ attorneys as research into prior cases and precedents. Most referenced was an earlier Cincinnati education desegregation case, Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education which was filed with the NAACP in 1965.
The plaintiffs in Deal argued that the Cincinnati Board of Education had engaged in segregated practices which did not give African American students equal education opportunities. The 6th District Court ruled that there was no evidence that the Cincinnati Board of Education was intentionally causing racially imbalanced schools but that the schools were a result of the racial makeup of specific neighborhoods.
After Deal, the Cincinnati Board of Education passed a resolution on December 10, 1973, which would redistrict all Cincinnati Public Schools attendance districts and called for full desegregation of schools by fall of 1974. This plan was soon canceled when new, more-conservative, school board members were elected and rescinded the resolution. The board then passed a voluntary integration resolution in January 1974. This new resolution reestablished the prior Cincinnati school attendance districts which had been altered to promote integration, called for voluntary open enrollment, expanded alternative school programs, and canceled all efforts to achieve full integration by fall of 1974.
Bronson v. Board of Education was filed in 1974 to re-establish the December 1973 resolution and to discuss racial isolation inside the schools. The Deal case was quickly reintroduced to determine if res judicata or collateral estoppel applied, which would prevent the re-litigation of the issues found in the earlier case. The 6th District Court found that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied since the two cases argued that the Cincinnati Board of Education was participating in racial discrimination, and they would not retry the same matter. The court did allow post-1965 racial discrimination to be tried in the Bronson case and pre-Deal evidence could only be introduced if it was regarded as new and relevant on an individual basis.
Deal was commonly discussed in the court room which is evident in the various Bronson pleadings concerning pre-Deal evidence, prior decisions, and relevancy. The Cincinnati NAACP collection also includes other documentation regarding Deal besides pleadings, such as individual exhibits, interrogatories, correspondence, and newspaper clippings. During the ten years that the Bronson case was litigated, the plaintiffs’ attorneys continued to bring up Deal and other recent desegregation cases in Ohio and across the country in efforts to provide legal reasoning and support to desegregate the Cincinnati Public Schools and suburban school districts. The NAACP records currently being organized at ARB are proving to document not only the Bronson case of 1974, but earlier efforts to combat racial isolation and segregation in Cincinnati’s public schools.
This project has been made possible in part by grant RH-104772-24 from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this blog post do not necessarily represent those of the NHPRC.
