Judge J. Skelly Wright's decision, in favor of the plaintiffs, sought to remedy the re-segregation or de facto segregation enforced by the educational policies, including tracking and optional-transfer zones, adopted by the Board of Education in an attempt to accommodate the consequences of the shift to integrated schools in the aftermath of Bolling, and within the wider context of emerging racially and socioeconomically rigid residential patterns.
[1] The post-World War II era experienced a surge in white migration to the suburbs, "as city dwellers lured by the prospect of spacious new homes and easy financing left urban areas nationwide.
"[2] The civil rights advances of the late 1940s and early 1950s – including the Supreme Court's rulings in Hurd v. Hodge (1948) and Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) calling for desegregation in housing and education, respectively – catalyzed the flight to the suburbs.
African Americans were feeling a burgeoning unrest as they fought for their rights peacefully, while whites were reacting angrily with violence.
Efforts such as "pickets, negotiations, and boycotts to pressure businesses to hire black employees at all job levels," by individuals like Hobson, prompted angry backlash from the white community.
[2] Alongside Sterling Tucker, Hobson worked through CORE, creating a "merit hiring" program for African Americans.
The Supreme Court in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education (1954), "held that the District of Columbia's racially segregated public school system violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
[7]: 275 Educational integration meant that the achievement scores of black students were reported on a citywide basis in a manner uncharacteristic of the preceding system.
In the aftermath of integration, Dr. Hansen, then Assistant Superintendent of senior high schools, began to receive "reports of very serious retardation in achievement in the basic skills [of black students].
In an effort to "treat the causalities of de jure segregation," the Board of Education adopted optional-transfer zones and a track system.
He claimed that the school system, "more than a decade after desegregation… was discriminating against black students by channeling them into lower rungs of rigid academic tracks that received inadequate resources and discouraged achievement.
The plaintiffs mainly argued, with the support of testimonial and documentary evidence, that the track system, whether by intent or effect, "unconstitutionally discriminates against the Negro and the poor.
The Harvard Law Review outlines the arguments used by Hobson, referencing related Supreme Court rulings that "scrutinized the underlying justification of statutes invading 'critical personal rights'.
He argued that education falls under "critical rights," claiming that it is "of signal importance to minority groups as a means of social advancement.
According to the same review, Dr. Hansen and the Board's policies, "although nondiscriminatory in form and purpose, nevertheless fail to respond adequately to the educational needs of the Negroes and other disadvantaged minorities," without, or avoiding, giving rise to questions of intent.
[7]: 271 The opinion articulates a critical sentiment, stating that "[i]n sum, all of the evidence in this case tends to show that the Washington school system is a monument to the cynicism of the power structure which governs the voteless capital of the greatest country on earth.
"[4] The opinion then proceeds to outline the remedies to rectify the racial and economic discrimination evident in the operation of the District's public school system.
The defendants, by October 2, 1967, to file for approval by the court a plan for pupil assignment eliminating the racial and economic discrimination found to exist in the operation of the Washington public school system.
[4] Judge Wright reasserted the democratic triumph the decision represented in emphasizing the extent of the insult of the track system, for "the danger of children completing their education wearing the wrong collar is far too great for this democracy to tolerate.
"[18] The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Judge Wright's 1967 decision, as the "orders abolishing optional zones and requiring faculty integration and voluntary busing to relieve overcrowding were affirmed.
"[24] In the year following the decision, "Congress changed the method of choosing School Board members, providing for their election by the people of the District of Columbia," as opposed to their appointment.