Columbia Law Review

\\server05\productn\C\COL\110-4\COL401.
txt unknown Seq: 1 29-APR-10 13:56
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW

VOL. 110 MAY 2010 NO. 4
ARTICLES
REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY: FROM SLAVERY
TO SEGREGATION AND BEYOND
Jack Greenberg*
For much of their histories, the Roma in Eastern Europe and African
Americans traversed similar paths. Both endured centuries of slavery and
were emancipated, almost simultaneously, during the mid-nineteenth cen-
tury. Both continued to suffer years of discrimination, poverty, inferior hous-
ing, deficient health, and segregated education. During World War II, how-
ever, their paths forked. Perhaps 1,500,000 Roma were murdered by the
Nazis and their collaborators during the Holocaust. While the post-war pe-
riod in the United States brought with it the civil rights movement and legal
victories striking down segregation, in Eastern Europe the Roma came under
Soviet domination. Roma got jobs, apartments, and welfare, but were not
equipped to function in modern economies. After the Berlin Wall fell in
1989, the Roma remained at the depths of Eastern European societies. Roma
education, essential for climbing out of that abyss, has remained segregated
and inferior.
Because I was one of the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of
Education and, as head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, litigated many
school desegregation cases, in 2003 Roma leaders, beginning their own legal
campaign to desegregate schools, invited me to Eastern Europe. Since then I
have worked to uncover the reality of school segregation in the region.
The European Union and national governments have passed laws
prohibiting segregation and offered subsidies to promote desegregation. The
European Court of Human Rights and national courts have entered a few
judgments holding that schools have been illegally segregated. However, no
European or national judicial or administrative organ has ordered the cessa-
tion of segregation in any school, nor have they addressed the principal
* Alphonse Fletcher, Jr. Professor of Law, Columbia University, A.B. 1945, LL.B.
1948, LL.D. 1984, Columbia University. I am grateful to Judit Szira, my guide on a journey
through the complexities of Roma education, which has been not less arduous, but more
agreeable than the voyage of Dante Alighieri, Inferno, Canto II, 139–42 (Allen
Mandelbaum trans., University of California Press 1980) (n.d.). I am also grateful for
advice to my colleague Henry P. Monaghan, students Andrew Brantingham, Mary Kate
Johnson, Ryan Keats, Kyle Kolb, Minsun Lee, Jennifer Sokoler, and Christopher Wlach
(who provided extraordinary assistance), and friends Gwendolyn Albert, Christian
Bodewig, Leslie Hawke, Lilla Farkas, Boyan Konstantinov, Magda Matache, Marian
Mandache, Rumyan Russinov, András Ujláky, Tudor Velea, and Perry Zizzi. Jessica
Greenberg diligently took detailed notes of scores of interviews. Adam Carlis gave
invaluable editorial support. Open Society Institute paid the expenses of my travel.
919
\\server05\productn\C\COL\110-4\COL401.txt unknown Seq: 2 29-APR-10 13:56
920 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919
means of evasion, white flight. Instead, they have left corrective action to
uncoordinated, unconstrained municipalities.
Not only is European and national government initiative lacking, there
is no Roma civil rights movement. But there is ground for hope. I encoun-
tered schools—-and even districts—-that were taking initial steps to end seg-
regation. A few government initiatives have been designed to encourage fur-
ther integration. Young, bright Roma aspirants to public office have
ventured into politics. In some communities where desegregation has begun,
Roma applications to integrated schools outstrip available spots. Founda-
tions, the European community, other nations, and economic necessity exert
pressure in the right direction. Success should encourage further proactive
steps. In this Report, I report on my research into the current state of Roma
school segregation and offer a few words about what might be done to pro-
mote integration in the region.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921 R
I. DEMOGRAPHY AND HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923 R
A. Roma History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923 R
B. Roma Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925 R
C. Social and Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928 R
1. The Roma Underclass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928 R
2. Roma Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930 R
3. Roma Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931 R
D. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933 R
E. European Union Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936 R
F. Legal Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938 R
1. Litiation in European Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939 R
2. Litigation in National Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943 R
II. VISITING THE REGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946 R
A. Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946 R
B. Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951 R
1. Budapest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953 R
2. Miskolc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956 R
3. Hajdúhadház . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957 R
4. Szeged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957 R
5. General Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959 R
6. Student Intern Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963 R
C. Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964 R
D. Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971 R
III. THE LESSONS OF U.S. DESEGREGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977 R
A. Desegregation in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980 R
B. Desegregation in Elementary and High Schools . . . . . . 981 R
C. Social and Political Environment of U.S.
Desegregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984 R
IV. A ROMA RIGHTS MOVEMENT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988 R
A. Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991 R
B. Advocacy Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994 R
C. Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996 R
2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 921
V. SUMMARY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997 R

VI. WHAT IS TO BE DONE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999 R
INTRODUCTION
In 2000, as a condition of admission to the European Union, Eastern

European nations pledged to eliminate racial discrimination,1 including
widespread segregation of Roma (Gypsy)2 school children. In 2003,
Roma rights leaders invited me to share with them my experience in the
movement to end school segregation of African American children in the
United States from 1954, when I was one of the lawyers who argued Brown
1. See Council Directive 2000/43, art. 13, Race Equality Directive, 2000 O.J. (L 180)
22, 23 (EC), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:
2000:180:022:0026:EN:PDF (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (“To this end, any direct
or indirect discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin as regards the areas covered by
this Directive should be prohibited throughout the Community.”). In December 2009, the
Treaty of Lisbon, signed by the nations of the European Union, became effective. It
contains a Charter of Fundamental Rights which possibly might bear on the Roma rights
discussed in this Report. But at this time there appears to be no reason to believe that it
has changed the legal situation of the Roma or its implementation.
2. Commonly called Gypsies, many now choose to be known as Roma or Romanies, a
name preferred by official and international agencies. Nevertheless, most contemporary
official reports and documents I have seen use Roma. A leading NGO calls itself the Roma
Education Fund. I usually use Roma because the Roma groups with which I meet use it.
For a detailed discussion of nomenclature, see Ian Hancock, We Are the Romani People,
at xviii–xxii (2002). Gábor Kézdi and Éva Surányi addressed the same issue this way:
In Central and Eastern Europe the name Roma is used, as a noun (Roma plural)
and also as an adjective. It is also used by some international organizations and
initiatives, such as the Roma Education Fund or the Decade of Roma Inclusion.
The United Nations, the U.S. Library of Congress and other international
associations use the Romani name for an adjective and a noun as well (Romanies
plural). The name Gypsy is used by many non-Roma but not by the Roma: It is a
name created by outsiders and is derived from the misconception of Egyptian
origin. Similarly to the alternative local names such as Tsigane, Cigany, Gitane or
Gitano, the name Gypsy brings negative associations about lifestyle or project
[sic] images that are inaccurate for many Roma (e.g. the romantic image of
travelers).
Gábor Kézdi & Éva Surányi, A Successful School Integration Program 9 n.2 (Roma Educ.
Fund, Working Paper No. 2, 2009), available at http://www.romadecade.org/files/ftp/
Successful%20School%20Integration%20Program.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law
Review) [hereinafter Roma Education Fund, School Integration].
Ian Hancock speculates that medieval Europeans used Gypsy indiscriminately for a
number of foreign populations. Hancock, supra, at 1. Perhaps that Roma differed in
appearance from settled groups in Eastern Europe (they usually have darker complexions)
suggested that they had originated in Egypt or some exotic region. Cf. id. at 1–2
(suggesting explanations for widespread association of Roma with Egypt).
The differences over nomenclature bring to mind controversies over Negro, Afro-
American, colored, black, and African American, each with a link to a particular historical
period, sometimes carrying different connotations to different speakers or listeners.
v. Board of Education, through 1984, a period during which I participated

in a great many school segregation cases.3
I visited Vidin and Montana, Bulgaria, where, with Open Society
Institute funding, desegregation had begun successfully: Social workers
visited schoolchildren’s families; Roma and non-Roma children partici-
pated in joint recreational programs; food, clothing, and transportation
were subsidized for Roma children; and political leaders publicly lauded
desegregation efforts.4 The contrast between what I saw in Bulgaria and
the massive resistance that had confronted United States school desegre-
gation after Brown astonished me. From this promising beginning, I fore-
saw speedy, comprehensive dismantling of segregation throughout the re-
gion. But, alas, the wish was father to that thought. After returning
home, I corresponded with Roma rights workers throughout Eastern
Europe and scoured the press and internet looking for evidence of fur-
ther change, but almost none appeared. I had failed to appreciate that
the progress I witnessed was part of a foundation-funded pilot program,
the nature and location of which had insulated it from the constraints of
local and national resistance to integration. Elsewhere, segregation
reigned and many efforts to integrate schools were floundering.
For example, Hungary initially used financial incentives to en-
courage desegregation. The Ministry for Education set up and operated
the Nationwide Integration Network (Országos Integrációs Hálózat) to
support the distribution of integration funding. The Network, through a
system of local representatives, provided educational advice and aid to
schools and school districts seeking to desegregate. A great number of
municipal schools (probably between 100 and 200) joined the Network
during this period. However, the role of the Network (although it still
operates) has changed in recent years, and it no longer is a strong force
for integration. Funding for integration has decreased as well. As a re-
sult, integration efforts in Hungary have not produced much progress.
In 2007 and 2008, I returned to Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. I
also visited the Czech Republic because a few months earlier the Euro-
pean Court of Human Rights had held that the Czech Republic was vio-
lating the European Convention on Human Rights by segregating Roma
children. I wanted to see what would happen in response to that deci-
sion. I also arranged for three Columbia Law School human rights in-
terns to visit the region with the mission of reporting on educational seg-
3. From 1949 to 1961 I was Assistant Counsel and from 1961 to 1984 I was Director-
Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which participated in the
litigation of virtually all the school segregation cases in the United States during that time.
In 1984 I joined the Columbia Law School faculty.
4. For a more detailed description of early desegregation in Bulgaria, see Jack
Greenberg, Brown v. Board of Education: An Axe in the Frozen Sea of Racism, 48 St. Louis
U. L.J. 869, 869–78 (2004).
regation.5 Three more student researchers visited in 2009. This Report

is based on what the interns and I found. I hope to provide a clear pic-
ture of the state of school integration in Europe (within the substantial
limits of available information), and a few thoughts on how their path
towards integration compares to our own.
The Report proceeds in six Parts. Part I explores the demography
and history of the Roma, with a focus on Eastern Europe. I pay particular
attention to the social and political forces that have contributed to their
current impoverishment. In Part II, I share my own observations, col-
lected over multiple visits, on modern Eastern European school segrega-
tion and the organizations fighting against it. In Part III, I compare de-
segregation in Eastern Europe to that of the American South, noting key
similarities and differences. One of the distinctive features that made
American desegregation possible was a vibrant civil rights movement. In
Part IV, I investigate whether a Roma rights movement could form in
Eastern Europe. Parts V and VI offer concluding thoughts on what I be-
lieve to be necessary correctives if the Roma are not to remain mired in
poverty and inability to function in a modern economy.
I. DEMOGRAPHY AND HISTORY
The current socio-economic problems facing the Roma of Eastern

Europe have historical origins. This Part begins by exploring that history
and explains how it led to the development of the current Roma under-
class. Then, after reporting on the current state of Roma education,
economy, health, and housing, it investigates the role national and
European law plays in maintaining and, one hopes, dismantling
segregation.
A. Roma History
Legends find Roma in Eastern Europe as early as the fourth century,

BCE; there are references to them dating back to the eleventh century,
and substantiated historical documents confirm their presence in the
twelfth.6 We know little about the early years of the Roma because until
recently most Roma have not had ready access to written history, and
some have consciously remained functionally nonliterate in order to insu-
late Roma culture from alien influences. Ian Hancock, a modern author-
ity on Roma matters, recently wrote that “[w]hile Romani has only been
written to any great extent since the twentieth century, it is very rich in
oral tradition, and the first Romani-language publication in fact appeared
5. Mary Kate Johnson, Jennifer Sokoler, Christopher Wlach (2008); Ryan Keats, Kyle
Kolb, Minsun Lee (2009). Some of their findings are incorporated in this Report.
6. David M. Crowe, A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia, at xvii
(Palgrave Macmillan 2007) (1994).
about a hundred years ago.”7 This accounts for gaps, or uncertainty, in

the historical record, as with details of the Roma Holocaust, for example.
It took centuries for their origins to be uncovered, but, by the 1700s,
linguistic evidence established that the Roma had come from northern
India.8 After leaving northern India, the largest concentration of the
Roma population lived in Wallachia and Moldavia (parts of present-day
Romania). There, they were enslaved from the fourteenth century until
well into the nineteenth century. As slaves, or robi, they were treated “as
no more than cattle.”9 The horrors inflicted on robi were comparable to
the worst imposed on the bodies and dignity of African American
slaves.10
In the areas where the Roma were not enslaved, oppression still took
its toll. David Crowe’s extensive history on the subject recounts how
Roma in Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe
were once employed as smiths, musicians, and soldiers, but during the
sixteenth century they began suffering increasing restrictions on their ac-
tivities.11 To escape these limitations, many of them adopted a nomadic
way of life.12
In the early to mid-nineteenth century, the influence of abolitionist
movements in the West, and humane principles brought home by chil-
dren of Eastern European elites who studied there, as well as the indus-
trial revolution, which had made the ownership of slaves less of an asset,
contributed to the emancipation of perhaps 600,000 robi. Church- and
state-owned slaves were freed in Wallachia and Moldavia between 1842
and 1847. Finally, in 1855, all remaining Roma slaves in the region were
freed, followed by full liberty for all peasants eight years later.13
Roma emancipation coincided with the formal end of slavery in the
United States. President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation
on January 1, 1863, freeing slaves in Confederate states as a wartime mea-
sure designed to deprive those states of slave labor. Many freedmen
joined the Union armies, hastening the end of the war. The Thirteenth
Amendment, abolishing slavery, was ratified in 1865. Following northern
7. Hancock, supra note 2, at 145. R

8. In 1760, a student from Western Hungary at Leiden University in the Netherlands
overheard students from India converse about the Sanskrit language. Certain Sanskrit
words reminded him of a language used by Roma workers on his father’s estate. Current
linguistic evidence suggests that the language used by the workers was that of descendants
of high caste groups that had emigrated from northern India around 1300 to escape
conflict with Islamic invaders. Id. at 2, 10–15. Recent genetic analysis confirms this
conclusion. Id. at 13.
9. Id. at xviii.
10. Id. at 21 (“Punishments for the slaves included flogging, the falague (shredding
the soles of the feet with a whip), cutting off the lips, burning with lye, being thrown naked
into the snow, hanging over smoking fires and wearing a three-cornered spiked iron collar
called a cangue.”).
11. Crowe, supra note 6, at xvii.
12. Id.
13. Hancock, supra note 2, at 22, 25. R
victory in the Civil War, Congress, through a process known as

Reconstruction, adopted provisions ensuring civil rights, including the
right to vote, to former slaves. Reconstruction was followed by Redemp-
tion, an effort by former slaveholders and their supporters to return black
citizens to an existence as close to enslavement as possible. As Redemp-
tion ascended, abolitionist values, embodied in the Fourteenth Amend-
ment and implementing statutes, became mostly dormant, until around
the mid-1900s when the spiritual heirs of the nineteenth-century aboli-
tionists began to realize many of their forebears’ aspirations.
Nothing of the sort manifested itself with regard to Roma in Europe.
With the outbreak of World War II, the Nazis undertook a program to
exterminate the Roma, paralleling their “final solution” for the Jews. Al-
though information is incomplete, one estimate is that the Nazis killed at
least 1.5 million in the Roma Holocaust (known in the Roma language as
the Baro Porrajmos, or “great devouring”), a number that does not include
Roma exterminated by Nazi allied states.14
After the Nazis were defeated in World War II, most Roma residing
in Eastern Europe fell under Soviet domination. Roma got jobs, housing,
and education. However, their jobs, which required little or no educa-
tion, were often in inefficient, government-controlled heavy industry.
Communist regimes, intending to destroy Roma lifestyle and force assimi-
lation,15 put an end to Roma wanderings and incorporated them into
socialist economies. When the Soviet Union dissolved, so did its economy
and those of its satellite nations. The Roma were unequipped to survive
in the market systems that followed, and they fell upon exceedingly hard
times.
B. Roma Demographics
In recent years, there have been numerous studies of the Roma. The
heightened attention reflects economic as well as humanitarian concerns.
Throughout the region, Roma birthrates are higher than those of the
majority populations, among whom emigration is substantial. Absent a
change in economic conditions, continued Roma population growth
means that an increasingly larger portion of Eastern Europe will be un-
skilled and uneducated.16
14. Id. at 34, 48; see also Zoltan D. Barany, Memory and Experience: Anti Roma
Prejudice in Eastern Europe 11 (Woodrow Wilson Int’l Ctr. for Scholars, Working Paper
No. 50, 1998) (estimating between 200,000 and 1,500,000 Roma were killed during the
Holocaust and attributing uncertainty to facts that Roma rarely kept records and
governments prohibited gathering information about ethnicity).
15. Carol Silverman, Persecution and Politicization: Roma (Gypsies) of Eastern
Europe, 19 Cultural Survival Q. 42 (1995).
16. See United Nations Dev. Programme, The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe:
Avoiding the Dependency Trap 25–26 (2002), available at http://roma.undp.sk/
online.php (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (relating trend in Roma birth rates to
socio-economic status).
Despite the attention the issue is starting to receive, much basic in-
formation about Roma populations remains unavailable. For example,
wherever and whenever I inquired about the population of Roma, the
initial response was one of uncertainty. Estimates of the Roma popula-
tion in Europe include seven to nine million,17 and eight to twelve mil-
lion,18 among others. This uncertainty about even basic demographic in-
formation reveals a huge data gap—one that must be filled in order to
engineer and implement a plan to integrate Roma children into school
systems.
One reason for the uncertainty is that most Eastern European coun-
tries do not inquire into or track ethnicity, making official statistics about
Roma unreliable.19 In addition, many Roma decline to answer surveys or
lie to surveyors, fearful that the information will be used to discrimi-
nate—or worse (as during the Nazi era). Consequently, one must rely on
sources like NGOs, such as the Roma Education Fund (REF), for credible
information.
Reasonably reliable population figures, for the countries I visited,
are:
17. Dena Ringold, Mitchell A. Orenstein & Erika Wilkens, Roma in an Expanding
Europe: Breaking the Poverty Cycle, at xiv (2005).
18. Arno Tanner, The Roma of Eastern Europe: Still Searching for Inclusion (2005),
at http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=308 (on file with the
Columbia Law Review).
19. See Roma Educ. Fund, Needs Assessment: Summary Report 4 (2005), available at
http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/documents/REFNeedsAssessment.pdf (on file with
the Columbia Law Review) [hereinafter Roma Educ. Fund, School Report], for a discussion
of the obstacles to data collection:
Census data significantly undercount Roma because of the common practice of
relying on self-identification. Administrative data on Roma education are also
frequently lacking because of privacy legislation which prohibits the collection of
data based on ethnicity. For example, Czechoslovakia stopped collecting data on
students by ethnicity in 1990, and Hungary followed suit in 1993.
Even where administrative data are available, the data may not be complete
or accurate. A qualitative study in Bulgaria found that administrative data failed
to capture significant numbers of Roma children who had never attended school
because Roma households were not registered or because of gaps in school
databases. Given the serious limitations of data, a combination of multiple data
sources and qualitative information tends to be the most pragmatic approach.
Id. (footnote omitted).
Total Roma Population Roma Population

Country Population (census) (expert estimates)
Bulgaria20 7,761,049 370,908 (4.8%) 600,000–800,000
(7.7%–10.3%)
Hungary21 10,077,000 190,046 (1.9%) 400,000–600,000
(4%–5.9%)
Romania22 21,680,974 535,140 (2.5%) 1,010,000–2,500,000
(4.6%–11.5%)
Czech Republic 10,501,19723 140,00024 (1.3%) 160,000–300,00025
(1.6%–3%)
The lack of demographic information often prevents targeted efforts

to meet the needs of distinct populations. It is nearly impossible to assess
whether or not programs designed to aid Roma citizens are actually work-
ing. Throughout this Report, I rely on studies, educated estimates, and
my personal observations when hard and fast data are unavailable.26
20. 1 Open Soc’y Inst., Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma 29 (2007),
available at http://www.eumap.org/topics/minority/reports/roma_education/reports/
report/vol1.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review) [hereinafter Open Soc’y Inst.,
Equal Access]. “While Bulgarian law permits the collection of personal data with
appropriate safeguards, official statistics on education are unreliable, as they rely on
schools to report data and there are incentives for schools to inflate their enrolment
figures.” Id. at 18.
21. Id. at 200–01. The Hungarian law regulating data collection is Act LXIII of 1992
on the Protection of Personal Data and Public Access to Data of Public Interest, available at
http://abiweb.obh.hu/dpc/index.php?menu=gyoker/relevant/national/1992_LXIII (on
file with the Columbia Law Review).
22. Open Soc’y Inst., Equal Access, supra note 20, at 342–43. R
23. Czech Statistical Office, Total Population 1950–2008, at http://www.czso.cz/eng/
redakce.nsf/i/total_population_1950_2008 (last updated June 22, 2009) (on file with the
24. NationMaster, Czech Language Statistics, at http://www.nationmaster.com/
country/ez-czech-republic/lan-language (last visited Jan. 25, 2010) (on file with the
Columbia Law Review). Note that this is the estimate for Roma speaking members of the
population.
25. Roma Educ. Fund, Advancing Education of Roma in the Czech Republic 9
(2007), available at www.romaeducationfund.hu/documents/Czech_report.pdf (on file
with the Columbia Law Review). This number reflects the fact that Czech Roma are
extremely unlikely to declare their Roma identity.
26. The uncertainty produced by difficulty in ascertaining the racial/ethnic identity
of Roma provides insight into one aspect of the modern American affirmative action
debate. Groups opposing affirmative action have promoted legislation that would prohibit
gathering racial statistics. In 2003, California voters defeated the Racial Privacy Initiative, a
project promoted by affirmative action opponent Ward Connerly, that would have
prohibited the state from compiling information describing anyone’s racial identity. Andy
Barlow & Troy Duster, Racial Privacy Initiative: An Invitation to Racial Discrimination, S.F.
Chron., May 10, 2002, at A33. If enacted, this type of legislation would hinder efforts to
enact civil rights measures, particularly those allowing for or requiring affirmative action
(just as it has done in Eastern Europe).
C. Social and Economic Conditions

1. The Roma Underclass. — A 2006 United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) study concluded: “The Roma more than anyone
else lost out in the transition to the market economy in the countries of
Central and South Eastern Europe. Their unemployment rate is 100 per-
cent in some rural areas and the Roma’s dependence on government
benefits is widespread.”27 While there are variations among countries,
regions, and levels of education, Roma unemployment in Bulgaria, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia averages forty percent,
while less than ten percent of non-Roma in a recent study expressed diffi-
culty finding employment.28 As a result, Roma poverty rates are stagger-
ing.29 Many factors contribute to this condition, including lack of educa-
tion, few employment opportunities for unskilled laborers, and racism.
In Hungary, two-thirds of the jobs that Roma “had occupied under
the socialist system were wiped out during the transition.”30 Some Roma
27. Niall O’Higgins & Andrey Ivanov, Education and Employment Opportunities for
the Roma, 48 Comp. Econ. Stud. 6, 6 (2006). The execrable conditions under which a very
high proportion of Roma live should not obscure the fact that among them there is a very
small middle class of graduates of institutions of higher learning, government officials,
artists, and musicians. See generally Chad Evans Wyatt, Roma Rising (2005), a richly
illustrated volume which documents the achievements of over 100 Roma in the Czech
Republic.
28. See United Nations Dev. Programme, supra note 16, at 33. R
29. In Romania, the country with the largest Roma population, 75.1% of Roma live in
poverty and 52.2% live in severe poverty, compared to non-Roma, of whom 24.4% live in
poverty and 9.3% live in severe poverty. Delia Grigore, President, Roma Centre Amare
Romentza, Speech at the Closing Conference of the STEP IN Project: The Situation of
Roma in Eastern Europe and the Situation for Education of Roma in Romania (Oct.
19–20, 2006), available at http://www.caritas-europa.org/module/FileLib/DeliaGrigore_
RromaChildrenSchoolEducationRomania.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
A 2008 World Bank survey summarized the situation of Roma in “marginalized
communities” as not having benefited from the buoyant labor market and suffering
continued severe and multiple forms of labor market exclusion. While “[u]nemployment
[in the Czech Republic] has fallen to below 5 percent in early 2008 and the employment
rate is approaching the [European Union’s] Lisbon target of 70 percent by 2010,” only 27
percent of working age Roma in the marginalized localities are employed, compared with a
national average of 66 percent. World Bank, Czech Republic: Improving Employment
Chances of the Roma 1, 4, 8 (2008), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
ECAEXT/Resources/258598-1224622402506/CZ_Roma_Employment_Full_Report.pdf
(on file with the Columbia Law Review); see also UNICEF: 13 Pct of Roma Children Finish
School, Reuters, May 18, 2007, at http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?nav_
category=102&mm=5&dd=18&yyyy=2007 (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (“Roma
are the largest minority group across the Balkans, but most of them spend their life in
poverty, illiterate, underfed and marginalized by society.”).
The Reuters article detailed a report that showed most Roma live under the poverty
line: 78% of Roma in Albania and 66% in Romania live on less than $4.30 a day. Some
53% of respondents reported going hungry on a regular basis across the region. UNICEF,
Breaking the Cycle of Exclusion: Roma Children in South East Europe 20–21, 42 (2007),
available at http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/070305-Subregional_Study_Roma_Children.pdf
(on file with the Columbia Law Review).
30. United Nations Dev. Programme, supra note 16, at 32. R
whom I met looked back on communism with a sense of loss. They spoke
of having had a guaranteed place to live and an assured income. One
Roma woman, a schoolteacher, said it was a “paradise.” Certainly, eco-
nomic conditions for Roma were more favorable.
Today, many Roma families rely on state welfare payments to survive.
A multi-country survey by the UNDP found that a region-wide average of
46.8% of Roma families receive social assistance, 15.7% receive unem-
ployment benefits, and 56.8% receive child support payments.31 This
causes tension with non-Roma, who are often far from affluent and do
not receive welfare. They resent Roma, whom they see as being sup-
ported by their tax money.32 Further, these costs take on particular sig-
nificance considering the growth of the Roma population.33 In Romania,
for instance, “the total fertility rate (births per woman) for Roma is 2.6,
compared to 1.2 for Romanian.”34 Similarly, in Bulgaria, the average
ages of the majority and the Roma populations are already markedly dif-
ferent. As a result, there is an ever-increasing need for support in the
Roma community.
A recent Business Week article explains the potential economic conse-
quences of the Roma underclass:
The costs start with jobs. Either because of discrimination
or lack of education or skills, Roma unemployment is dispropor-
tionately high in Central and Eastern Europe, reaching 70 per-
cent in some countries.
At the same time, majority populations are advancing to-
ward wheelchairs faster than tricycles. Labor markets will be
short tens of thousands of workers in the coming decades, so
smart governments should be trying to capitalize on their inex-
pensive, available Romani work force. But most aren’t. Instead,
countries such as the Czech Republic are recruiting foreign
workers to fill the gaps.35
31. Id. at 94.

32. See Open Soc’y Inst., Current Attitudes Toward the Roma in Central Europe: A
Report of Research with Non-Roma and Roma Respondents 14 (2005), available at http://
www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/articles_publications/publications/attitudes_20050901/
romasurvey_2005.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review) [hereinafter Open Soc’y Inst.,
Current Attitudes] (quoting one non-Roma as asking “Why should I have such a
responsibility [to help the Roma] if I can’t improve my own life first?”); United Nations
Dev. Programme, supra note 16, at 42 (“[E]conomic frictions between Roma communities R
and income-generating non-Roma populations (especially in countries with high social
security tax rates) are often behind allegations that ‘employed’ non-Roma populations
‘raise Roma children.’”).
33. See United Nations Dev. Programme, supra note 16, at 25–26. R
34. Id.
35. S. Adam Cardais, Eastern Europe’s Roma: ‘Tacit Apartheid,’ BusinessWeek.com,
July 28, 2008, at http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2008/gb20080728_
953451.htm (on file with the Columbia Law Review). The World Bank has found that “social
exclusion of about 50,000 Roma living in marginalised localities alone may have resulted in
losses of hundreds of millions of Euros in 2008 . . . [b]ecause the productive contribution
of Roma to the economy is a lot lower than it could be.” Tamar Manuelyan Atinc, The
Because Roma are ill-equipped to contribute to the economy in propor-

tion to their numbers, the region will suffer unless measures are taken to
upgrade Roma productivity.
There are few studies that attempt to quantify these costs. But, in
Hungary, a 2006 Roma Education Fund study found that the long-term
benefits of greater investment in Roma education would result in a bene-
fit from 30,000 to 70,000 euros per student.36 In Bulgaria, an Institute for
Market Economics 2007 study found that greater government investment
in Roma would lead to a net benefit of more than 82,000 euros for each
student and “if investment in the education of 30,000 Roma children is
made now, it would lead to more than EUR 2.468 billion net budget ben-
efits.”37 Furthermore, a 2007 Open Society Institute study estimates that
if Bulgarian schools were integrated, “over 10 years Bulgaria would gain
the equivalent of 7 billion to 16 billion euros from full integration and . . .
the return on investment would outweigh the cost by a ratio as high as 3-
to-1.”38 In the Czech Republic, the World Bank recently estimated that
the economic burden of the Roma annually costs the country at least 16
billion crowns, or around 600 million euros.39
A single indicator shows the gravity of a complex problem: Perhaps
one percent of Roma have a college education. We can trace the roots of
this statistic: Very, very few Roma have successfully completed schooling
that leads to college; very, very few have literate parents; very, very few
come from families that earn a decent living; very, very few enjoy good
health or live in conditions that would enable them to study effectively.40
2. Roma Health. — There is little data on Roma health conditions. A
2006 article in The Lancet reports:
[t]he published literature on Roma health from 1985 to the pre-
sent includes about 200 English language articles, half of which
are about genetics or phylogenetics rather than medical issues.
Only a few addressed public health. A slightly older review
Cost of Marginalisation, E!Sharp, May 26, 2009, at http://www.esharp.eu/Web-specials/

The-cost-of-marginalisation (on file with the Columbia Law Review). To these losses must be
added the cost of welfare. Id.
36. Gábor Kertesi & Gábor Kézdi, Expected Long-Term Budgetary Benefits to Roma
Education in Hungary 7 (2006), available at http://www.itweb.hu/partners/
RomaEducationFund/documents/Kertesi-Kezdi-BudgetaryBenefits.pdf (on file with the
37. Inst. for Market Econ., Expected Long-Term Budgetary Benefits to Roma
Education in Bulgaria 5 (2007), available at http://ime.bg/uploads/3625f8_Final_June_
2007.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
38. Cardais, supra note 35. R
39. Michal Komarek, Child Write-Offs, Transitions Online, Nov. 26, 2009, available at
http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=349&
NrSection=3&NrArticle=20998 (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
40. See Roma Educ. Fund, School Report, supra note 19, at 4–16 (discussing state of R
Roma education).
noted more articles on the gypsy moth or the gypsy variant of

Drosophila than on Roma health.41
Still, it is clear that Roma health outcomes are poor. For example,
the overall mortality rate among infants of Romanian parents is approxi-
mately 27.1 per 1000; for those born in Romania of Hungarian parents it
is approximately 19.8 per 1000, while for Romanian Roma the figure is
more than triple, at 72.8 per 1000 live births.42 Similarly, Roma men and
women generally live ten to fifteen fewer years than non-Roma from the
same region.43 Reasons include diabetes, coronary artery disease, obesity,
limited access to medical care, substandard housing conditions, and inad-
equate nutrition.44 Additionally, many Roma suffer from illnesses tracea-
ble to their living conditions. For example, both tuberculosis and iron-
deficiency abscess, common diseases in developing nations, are ten times
more prevalent among Roma than the national average would suggest.45
The incidence of malignant tumors is also higher. These physical ail-
ments are compounded by mental afflictions. Approximately eight per-
cent of Roma suffer from illnesses of psychological origin.46
The vast majority of Roma cannot afford prescription medications,
so they tend to use cheap organic dissolvents and other psychoactive sub-
stances in an attempt to cure their physical and psychological ailments.
As a result, drug-related illnesses are four times more frequent among the
Roma than the rest of society.47
3. Roma Housing. 48 — The forced settlement of Roma in Central
and Eastern Europe during the Middle Ages partially explains their cur-
rent distribution in impoverished enclaves. Until the mid-nineteenth
century in Romanian Valachia and Moldavia, they were slaves confined to
mahalas—restricted areas where, for the local boyar or bishop, they prac-
ticed crafts and trades with skills that were in great demand. After the
Second World War, the Soviet Union controlled Eastern Europe and
made some effort to assimilate Roma who survived the Nazi Holocaust.
Assimilation failed, but some collectivist measures did benefit them. New
heavy industries employed thousands, and impersonal blocks of flats
41. Kent A. Sepkowitz, Health of the World’s Roma Population, 367 Lancet 1707,
1707 (2006) (citation omitted).
42. Id.
43. Id. at 1708.
44. Id.
45. Dimitrina Petrova, The Roma: Between a Myth and the Future, 70 Soc. Res. 111,
145–46 (2003).
46. Id.
47. Id. at 146.
48. The following discussion of Roma housing draws heavily on one of the few studies
of the subject, Samuel Delepine, Housing of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe: Facts
and Proposals, in Conference Report, International Conference on the Implementation
and Harmonization of National Policies for Roma, Sinti and Travelers (2006), available at
http://www.osce.org/item/21545.html (on file with the Columbia Law Review). It also
includes my personal observations.
housed Roma alongside the rest of the working population, providing the
Roma with electricity and running water for the first time.
After the Berlin Wall fell, many Roma families suffered when the
manufacturing industry in the region collapsed. Unemployment was
widespread. Many Roma were forced to part with their properties, and
others stood by, powerless, as their neighborhoods fell into disrepair.
Many old mahalas were uprooted, and makeshift hovels began to occupy
the borderline between urban and rural environments. Roma who
moved from the city to these shantytowns intermingled with Roma from
the countryside who had come in search of a higher standard of living.
As non-Roma moved out, the Roma became the majority in many of these
overcrowded peripheral areas.
Today, most Roma live in Roma neighborhoods in towns and cities
along the edges of somewhat “gypsified” enormous estates. These areas
make no contribution to local economic life and have few or no links
with key dynamic urban areas. Here, Roma generally reside in one-story
rural-type houses constructed out of makeshift, flimsy, salvaged materials.
Most Roma settlements have no electricity, running water, doors, or even
glass in the windows. Many houses appear partly—or completely—gut-
ted. The roads and streets are made of dirt, which often turns to mud.
Many of the communities lack a sewage system; a hole in the ground
serves as a toilet outside some houses. One almost never encounters a
garden or private space of any kind. This disrepair probably reflects the
fact that many Roma lack secure title to their dwellings.49
The Roma residents of these communities lack clean clothes and ba-
sic hygienic supplies. Perhaps because many settlements are illegal, the
government does not pick up trash. In some places garbage at the road-
side has been there so long that it has become compacted, sometimes
forming what appears to be a thick wall. And, as in many developing
nations, dogs and pigpens are found on the streets. But, TV antennas are
everywhere. These inaccessible and little-known Roma shantytown
“neighborhoods” are gradually increasing in size. All cities and towns of
any size in Romania, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, and Slovakia have at least one.
I also visited the homes of Roma who were middle class civil servants,
professionals, school teachers, and the like. These resembled the dwell-
ings of those similarly situated in Western Europe or the United States. It
is not unheard of to happen upon Roma houses, high-rises, or commu-
nity centers that appear to be neat and well maintained. There are even a
small number of luxury houses built by some of the very few wealthy
Roma.
49. James A. Goldston & Mirna Adjami, The Opportunities and Challenges of Using
Public Interest Litigation to Secure Access to Justice for Roma Minorities in Central and
Eastern Europe 29 (July 2008), available at http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/
20080924043559_large.pdf (unpublished preliminary draft, on file with the Columbia Law
Review).
Within cities, as with the more rural enclaves, segregation is the

norm. Once a few buildings within a neighborhood are occupied by
Roma residents, the entire area is recast as a “Roma neighborhood.” In
these inappropriately named “Roma neighborhoods,” a small number of
blocks form Roma enclaves inside an extremely poor area occupied by a
wide range of different ethnic groups.
One such enclave can be found in Ferentari, a large neighborhood
in the southern part of Bucharest. Here, a number of extremely run-
down blocks of flats were abandoned by soldiers from nearby barracks
and workers from a local company that closed down many years ago.
Staircases are in ruins. Basements are awash with filthy water from burst
sewage pipes. Only the undersized flats themselves are looked after by
the Roma families (all employed) who have taken shelter there.
It is hard for many Westerners to imagine the conditions in which
these Roma live. In addition to being in disrepair, the buildings are
highly unsanitary. Household waste is no longer collected. Refuse litters
the ground and is burnt from time to time, filling the whole area with
toxic fumes. Unofficial connections to the municipal power lines create
unsightly and dangerous tangles of electric cables. Since the families can-
not tap into the water supplies, the apartments themselves are without
running water.
The ongoing restructuring of town centers in Eastern Europe is
gradually eliminating the slums taken over by Roma families. However,
the restructuring varies in speed and efficiency. While Prague and
Budapest hide their Roma populations far away from the gaze of tourists,
Bucharest and Sofia still have derelict buildings throughout the urban
area squatted in by Roma families. When these buildings are renovated,
Roma are evicted and left with no choice but to move to shantytowns.
D. Education
The Roma Education Fund recently prepared a thorough survey of
Roma education. Like other studies of Roma, it suffers from a paucity of
hard data, but it clearly depicts Roma education as markedly inferior:
Across countries, 70–80 percent of Roma populations have less
than a primary school education, while very few have completed
primary and secondary education. Some Roma have no educa-
tion at all and less than 1 percent of Roma continue on to
higher education. . . . In Bulgaria, according to the 2001 census,
81 percent of Roma had a primary school education or less.
. . . Differences between types of Roma are also impor-
tant. . . . [T]he share of Roma with less than basic education was
23 percent for the Romungro Roma (whose native language is
Hungarian), 42 percent for the Bayash (native language
Romanian), and 48 percent for the Wallach Roma (native lan-
guage is Roma).
. . . [T]here is very limited information on enrollments and
attendance of Roma students. . . . A 2000 survey of poverty and
ethnicity found that primary school enrollment rates for Roma

in Bulgaria were 33 percent lower than for non-Roma, while in
Romania, the difference was 20 percent. In Hungary, where a
larger share of Roma continue on to secondary school, the gap
in primary enrollments was . . . less than 2 percentage
points . . . .
. . . In some cases, students may enroll at the beginning of
the year but not actually attend school. In addition, enrollment
rates indicate only whether children are enrolled in school—
and not whether they are enrolled in the appropriate level. A
significant share of Roma begin compulsory education late. . . .
Pre-school enrollment rates for Roma are very low across
countries—estimated at 1 percent of children in Slovakia and 3
percent in Serbia and Montenegro. . . . By 1997, less than 20
percent of Roma children were thought to attend. In Hungary,
where pre-school is compulsory for all children at age 5, 11 per-
cent of Roma did not attend school in 1997.
Because of the low rates of completion of primary educa-
tion, few Roma make it on to secondary school, and even fewer
complete secondary school. . . . With rare exceptions (such as
Hungary), not more than 20–25 percent of Roma continue edu-
cation after compulsory education. In other countries, the rate
is less than 10 percent, in comparison with 60–90 percent in the
population as a whole. Those Roma who do go to secondary
school most frequently enroll in vocational training schools, and
only 1–3 percent attend more general secondary schools which
allow students to continue on to university.
. . . [T]he share of Roma participating in university and
other post-secondary education is negligible at 2 percent in
Hungary and less than 1 percent in the other countries.
. . . The share of Roma not continuing primary education
beyond fourth grade varies across countries, from 15–20 percent
in Bulgaria to 69 percent in Montenegro . . . . Hungary is an
exception, where dropouts are a more serious issue at the secon-
dary level.50
50. Roma Educ. Fund, School Report, supra note 19, at 8–9 (citations omitted). For R
other studies comparing Roma to non-Roma education in Bulgaria, see Open Soc’y Inst.,
Equal Access, supra note 20, at 28–50. In Bulgaria, for the total national population, a R
survey of the highest level of education completed broke down as follows: 8.7% (primary);
27.28% (basic); 43.74% (secondary); 17.01% (higher education, including college). The
comparable percentages for Roma broke down quite differently: 28.28% (primary);
41.83% (basic); 6.46% (secondary); 0.24% (higher education, including college). Id. at
40. The illiteracy rate for the national population is 1.76%, but 14.88% for Roma. Id.
For Romania, as with other countries, there are no official statistics, so one must
engage in some guesswork. It is clear, however, that the proportion of Roma children in
school diminishes as they grow older, with the most substantial decrease occurring around
the time students would enter sixth grade. At age 7, 95% of Romanian children and 83%
of Roma children are enrolled. By age 12, 88% of Romanian children and 72% of Roma
children are enrolled. At 15, 88% of Romanian but only 55% of Roma children remain
Further, school segregation throughout the region is widespread,

but its nature, causes, and solutions are not easily explained. It is difficult
to say with precision where segregation exists; whether it is a result of
policy or adventitious; whether it exists within individual classrooms or
only among them; how it may be undone; and so forth. It is maddening
to try to ascertain precise facts, made even more obscure by an absence of
records of who is Roma, by the denial by many Roma of their ethnicity,
and by flat contradictions among apparently knowledgeable sources.
Segregation in Eastern Europe, unlike in the United States prior to
Brown, has not been required by statute. Rather, it often has been cre-
ated by a mix of local official policies—which in the United States would
be called “state action”—and more informal forces, such as housing pol-
icy, neighborhood homogeneity, and the like—which in the United
States would be called “de facto” segregation. While generally not illegal
in the region, de facto segregation has been prohibited by statute in
Bulgaria.51
Segregation in Eastern Europe takes three principal forms. First,
some cities or areas have separate schools restricted to Roma or non-
Roma by local practices or tacit understanding. Non-Roma schools tend
to be located near non-Roma neighborhoods and often are said to be full
when Roma seek to enroll. Despite the extra space in non-Roma schools
created by the falling non-Roma population, Roma children are often
discouraged from enrolling, or simply denied admission when they apply
enrolled. Id. at 354. Preschool enrollment is 66.1% for the country as a whole. For Roma,
it is only 20%. Id. at 346.
While 66.1% of Romanian children enroll in preschool, as many as 80% of Roma
children do not. Id. As a result, when Roma children enter kindergarten (the first
compulsory grade), they begin behind their Romanian peers (who have been to
preschool). Id. Most Roma students never make up this ground, and so continue to lag
behind their non-Roma peers, leading to intraschool segregation. While preschool is
nominally free, high poverty rates and the cost of clothes, food, and school materials tend
to keep Roma children out. Id. at 404–05. Later, Roma children who find remunerative
work drop out.
The population of Roma who have no education is 34.2%, compared to 5.5% of the
general population. Id. at 355. Further, 25.6% of Roma aged over ten years are illiterate,
compared to 2.6% of the general population. Id. Finally, 10.8% of the general population
have had higher education. For Roma, the percentage is only 0.8%. Id. at 357. Several
Roma rights workers told me that Roma college students also conceal their ethnicity, so the
actual number may be higher still.
While school attendance is compulsory, such requirements are not enforced and it is
almost guaranteed that a significant number of Roma children will not enroll at all because
their parents do not have identity papers. Even enrolled Roma have low attendance rates
because of poor or nonexistent roads to Roma communities and lack of public
transportation. Id. at 407. To the extent that schools lack course offerings for the many
Roma children who do not speak Romanian, the gap is even greater. Id. at 414–15.
51. See Bulgarian statutes discussed infra note 207 and accompanying text (including R
one requiring Ministry of Education to “take the necessary measures not to allow any racial
segregation” in schools). But see infra notes 103–106 and accompanying text (discussing R
President Václav Klaus’s veto of key Czech antidiscrimination bill).
(even though the general rule in Eastern Europe is that any child may
attend any school, with priority given to those who live closest). Some-
times, after successful integration, “white flight” occurs, and a school
which has admitted some Roma students becomes segregated once
again.52
Second, school officials spuriously diagnose Roma children as having
“light mental retardation,” and then send them to “special” or remedial
schools.53 A disproportionate number of pupils enrolled in such schools
are Roma.54 The result is entrenched segregation and inferior educa-
tion. Even though many Roma parents are aware that their children do
not belong in these schools, some enroll them for the free meals, cloth-
ing, and school supplies unavailable at standard schools.
Some schools adopt a third form of segregation: separate classrooms
or sections of classrooms.55 This may be called “intraschool segregation”
(sometimes referred to as “within-school” segregation). Similarly, Roma
children are often segregated into special education classrooms as an al-
most inevitable result of poor academic and social preparation.56
Romani CRISS, a Romanian NGO, also has encountered “social seg-
regation,” under which a few non-Roma Romanian pupils from poor fam-
ilies are placed in Roma schools or classes as a disciplinary measure. In
most Eastern European countries there is also a form of segregation
called “private learner status,” in which children are enrolled but do not
attend school every day except for consultation and examinations.57 Pri-
vate learners are disproportionately Roma.
All these forms of segregation are further entrenched because many
Roma parents want to continue the tradition of sending their children to
the same school they had attended.
E. European Union Law

A vast body of European law prohibits discrimination against the
Roma.58 Individual E.U. member states have transposed their require-
52. Open Soc’y Inst., Equal Access, supra note 20, at 213–14. R
53. See id. at 219 (explaining overrepresentation of Roma in schools for students with
special needs).
54. This practice was highlighted in a recent case before the European Court of
Human Rights. See D.H. v. Czech Republic, App. No. 57325/00, 47 Eur. H.R. Rep. 3
(2007) (finding illegal discrimination against Roma occurs when they are
disproportionately enrolled in special schools).
55. Open Soc’y Inst., Equal Access, supra note 20, at 215. R
56. Id. at 216.
57. E-mail from Judit Szira, Senior Advisor, Roma Education Fund, to author (Oct.
16, 2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review); see also Open Soc’y Inst., Equal Access,
supra note 20, at 218–19. R
58. The European Union provisions that deal with protection of minorities, as well as
recommendations for further legislation, are set forth in E.U. Network of Indep. Experts
on Fundamental Rights, Thematic Comment No. 3: The Protection of Minorities in the
European Union (2005), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/cfr_cdf/doc/
ments into domestic law. As a result, both the Framework Convention of

1995, which was joined by five countries with large Roma populations,
and the Race Equality Directive59 provide broad rights of equality to na-
tional minorities, including the Roma.
The Framework Convention does not, however, establish justiciable
individual rights. Member states must implement the Convention’s prin-
ciples through national legislation and governmental policies. Like the
Framework Convention, E.U. directives do not generally create enforcea-
ble rights for individuals; instead, they create an obligation on the part of
member states to implement the directives’ requirements within their do-
mestic law.60 In exceptional circumstances, however, the doctrine of “di-
rect effect” allows an individual to invoke the provisions of a directive,
provided that it “grants an individual right and creates for member states
‘a specific unambiguous obligation’ to their nationals.”61 Thus, if a mem-
ber state fails to implement the directive, individuals may nonetheless in-
voke it against their state in the national courts.62
The Race Equality Directive prohibits direct and indirect discrimina-
tion in education. Through this directive, the European Commission or
a member state can sue a non-implementing state in the European Court
of Justice.63 Such a step, however, requires a certain amount of political
will. Given the almost total lack of Roma participation in national polit-
ics, member states have, unsurprisingly, not taken such action in cases of
discrimination against Roma.
At the international level, nonbinding resolutions have called for in-
creased integration of Roma. For example, in February 2005, nine
thematic_comments_2005_en.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review). For an early
argument as to why European law protection is necessary, see Edo Banach, The Roma and
the Native Americans: Encapsulated Communities Within Larger Constitutional Regimes,
14 Fla. J. Int’l L. 353, 388 (2002).
59. Council Directive 2000/43, 2000 O.J. (L 180) 22 (EC), available at http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:180:022:0026:EN:PDF (on file with
the Columbia Law Review).
60. See Raphael Won-Pil Suh & Richard Bales, German and European Employment
Discrimination Policy, 8 Or. Rev. Int’l L. 263, 287–91 (2006) (discussing E.U. directives as
form of antidiscrimination law).
61. Gráinne de Búrca & Oliver Gerstenberg, The Denationalization of Constitutional
Law, 47 Harv. Int’l L.J. 243, 257 n.46 (2006) (quoting Case 26/62, N.V. Algemene Transp.-
en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie de
Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 1, 7).
62. See Ursula R. Kubal, Comment, U.S. Multinational Corporations Abroad: A
Comparative Perspective on Sex Discrimination Law in the United States and the
European Union, 25 N.C. J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 207, 215 (1999) (“[I]f a Member State has
not yet adopted implementing national legislation or has done so improperly, individuals
may bring claims to enforce the directive against their Member States in their national
court systems.”).
63. See European Union, The Court of Justice, EUROPA, at http://europa.eu/
institutions/inst/justice/index_en.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2010) (on file with the
Columbia Law Review) (discussing Court of Justice’s composition, functions, and
procedures).
Eastern European countries joined in a program and declaration called

the Decade of Roma Inclusion.64 The declaration states:
[W]e pledge that our governments will work toward eliminating
discrimination and closing the unacceptable gaps between
Roma and the other members of society, as identified in our
Decade Action Plans.
We declare the years 2005–2015 to be the Decade of Roma
Inclusion and we commit to support the full participation and
involvement of national Roma communities in achieving the
Decade’s objectives and to demonstrate progress by measuring
outcomes and reviewing experiences in the implementation of
the Decade’s Action Plans.65
While this program manifests political resolve, it does not equip victims of
discrimination with a practical means of righting grievances.
F. Legal Remedies
Not long after the European Union adopted the Race Equality
Directive, Roma rights groups began a litigation campaign against school
segregation that has resulted in about a dozen court cases.66 Because
current laws, if fully enforced, would almost certainly prohibit school seg-
regation, this litigation campaign seeks to have courts either acknowledge
these existing laws or force lawmaking bodies to draft new substantive
laws fully protecting the right of Roma students to attend integrated
schools. The results have been mixed: Even as courts find for the Roma
plaintiffs, they fail to enforce effective remedies against the offending
schools. Therefore, apart from slight acquiescence to the rulings by some
64. Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015, Decade Declaration (Feb. 1–2, 2005),
available at http://ncedi.government.bg/decade-Image1.pdf (on file with the Columbia
Law Review) [hereinafter Decade Declaration]. For texts of the various decade action
plans and general information on the Decade, see Open Soc’y Inst., Decade of Roma
Inclusion 2005–2015, at http://www.romadecade.org (last visited Feb. 10, 2010) (on file
with the Columbia Law Review).
65. Decade Declaration, supra note 64. R
66. On the origins of the campaign, see Goldston & Adjami, supra note 49, at 4–21. R
Three European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions deal with school segregation:
D.H. v. Czech Republic, App. No. 57325/00, 47 Eur. H.R. Rep. 3 (2007), Sampanis v.
Greece, App. No. 32526/05 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2008), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/
tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=32526/05%20%7C%2032
526/05&sessionid=50450662&skin=hudoc-en (on file with the Columbia Law Review), and
Ors̆us̆ v. Croatia, App. No. 15766/03 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2008), available at http://cmiskp.
echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=15766/03&
sessionid=50450594&skin=hudoc-en (on file with the Columbia Law Review). One case in a
national supreme court, Chance for Children Found. v. Town of Hajdúhadház, Legfelsöbb
Bı́róság [Supreme Court], Pvf.IV. 20. 936/2008/4 (Hung. 2008), is published only in
Hungarian. A handful of lower court cases have been decided throughout the region, all
in national languages, most of which I have had translated. I am unaware of any source
containing all the cases that deal with Roma school segregation. I have come upon these
cases by searching the web and through Roma rights lawyers and activists with whom I’m
acquainted.
schools and school districts, the legal victories have not translated into
tangible gains for the Roma.
1. Litigation in European Courts. — The litigation campaign’s princi-
pal success has been the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR)
November 2007 decision in D.H. v. Czech Republic.67 In D.H., plaintiffs
challenged the use of “special schools” which had been used to enforce
segregation in the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic did not claim a
right to segregate students; rather, it denied that it segregated on racial
grounds.68 Its defense was that the placement of Roma children in sepa-
rate “special” schools was justified because (1) the Roma students placed
in those schools were mentally impaired; (2) their parents had consented
to the placements;69 and (3) plaintiffs relied on flawed statistical analysis
to show disparate impact.70 The court rejected all three of these argu-
ments, pointing out that both a disproportionately large number of spe-
cial school students were Roma, and a disproportionate number of Roma
students were placed in special schools (now renamed “practical
schools”).71 The language and tone of the court’s decision amounted to
a thorough condemnation of discrimination against Roma school chil-
dren, regardless of the form of that discrimination.
D.H. applied Article 1472 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 173 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. The court noted widespread
anti-Roma discrimination in education,74 and responded to the Czech
Republic’s claim that parents had consented to their children’s place-
67. D.H., 47 Eur. H.R. Rep. 3.

68. Id. ¶ 26 (noting Ministry of Education denied allegations of discrimination).
69. Id. (“[T]he special schools concerned pointed out that all the applicants had
been enrolled . . . with the consent of their representatives.”).
70. Id. ¶ 148 (summarizing government’s argument against validity of statistical data
provided by plaintiffs).
71. Id. ¶ 193 (“[E]ven if the exact percentage of Roma children in special schools . . .
remains difficult to establish, their number was disproportionately high. Moreover, Roma
pupils formed a majority of the pupils in special schools.”).
72. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art.
14, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953) [hereinafter
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights]. Article 14 provides: “The enjoyment of
rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination
on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other
status.”
73. Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms art. 2, Mar. 20, 1952, 213 U.N.T.S. 262 (entered into force May 18, 1954)
[hereinafter Protocol No. 1]. Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 provides: “No person shall be
denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation
to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such
education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical
convictions.”
74. D.H., 47 Eur. H.R. Rep. ¶ 166 (noting position by multiple human rights bodies
that “no objective and reasonable justification could legitimise the disadvantage faced by
Roma children in the field of education”).
ment in separate schools by holding that the right to be free from dis-
crimination may not be waived.75 It employed a disparate impact stan-
dard,76 under which courts invalidate practices having a disproportionate
effect on members of a protected group unless a close relationship to
performance of the relevant task or job validates the challenged practice.
In D.H., the intelligence tests being used excluded almost all Roma from
ordinary schools and assigned them to schools for mentally impaired chil-
dren. However, the Czech Republic was unable to show that the tests
reliably determined whether a child required such education. As a result,
the court invalidated the tests as a standard for placement in the “special”
or “practical” schools.
Despite invalidating the tests, the court did not take the further step
of requiring the defendant schools to correct their errors, make the
plaintiffs whole, or even cease inflicting the same harm on others. After
seven years of litigation, plaintiffs won only an order requiring the defen-
dant to pay =C 4,000 to each plaintiff and the costs of the action.77
After D.H. was decided, many European lawyers and Roma rights ad-
vocates referred immediately and primarily to Brown v. Board of
Education.78 They hailed the decision as Brown’s European equivalent.
Brown, however, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which had held racial segre-
gation constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment.79 This distinction is subtle, but important: Where
Brown directly confronted the legal underpinnings of segregation in or-
75. Id. ¶ 204 (“[N]o waiver of the right not to be subjected to racial discrimination
can be accepted.”).
76. The one American case cited was Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971),
a case interpreting section 703 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2
(2006). Griggs held that Title VII prohibits using employment standards that, while neutral
in terms, have a disparate impact on a minority group, unless the practice is justified by the
nature of the task. Griggs, 401 U.S. at 432. Duke Power had refused to hire Griggs, who
was black, as a coal handler because he had not attained a minimum IQ score or had a
high school diploma. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 292 F. Supp. 243, 245–46 (M.D.N.C.
1968), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 420 F.2d 1225 (4th Cir. 1970), rev’d, 401 U.S. 424
(1971). Neither qualification was necessary for handling coal, and blacks were less likely
than whites to meet them. Griggs, 401 U.S. at 430–31.
77. D.H., 47 Eur. H.R. Rep. ¶ 217.
78. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Curiously, the European court did
not mention Brown. When counsel for D.H. referred to it during oral argument, the court
told him that it was not interested. The reason could not have been disinclination to
wander beyond what the court absolutely had to say. Brown was twelve pages long; D.H.
ran for eighty-seven pages. Was it that high U.S. officials had disparaged “old Europe,” see
‘Old Europe’ Hits Back at Rumsfeld, CNN.com, Jan. 24, 2003, at http://www.cnn.com/
2003/WORLD/europe/01/24/france.germany.rumsfeld/ (on file with the Columbia Law
Review) (“German and French politicians and media across the political spectrum have hit
back angrily at criticism by U.S. officials that the two countries belonged to ‘old Europe’
and were isolated in their opposition to war in Iraq.”), and at least one member of the U.S.
Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, spoke contemptuously of citing foreign law in deciding
cases in the U.S. Supreme Court?
79. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 552 (1896).
der to change the law, D.H. was an attempt to compel the Czech Republic
to apply favorable law already in place.
The Czech government’s response to D.H. has been a series of stud-
ies, but no action. Its initial report unsurprisingly stated that “Roma chil-
dren often display low rates of scholastic achievement . . . . It is also possi-
ble to infer that Roma children living in socially excluded environments
or in environments at risk of social exclusion are most harmed by these
low rates of scholastic achievement.”80 The government continues to
await the outcome of further studies before acting.
A 2010 Report by Amnesty International, conducted in the wake of
D.H., sums up the current status of Roma children in the Czech
Republic.81 It found:
Romani children are disproportionately represented in for-
mer special schools, now called “practical” elementary schools,
and classes teaching a curriculum for pupils with “mild mental
disabilities.” In some parts of the Czech Republic Romani chil-
dren account for more than 80 per cent in those schools;
Criteria for the placement of pupils in such schools are
opaque, the oversight of placement decisions is inadequate, and
mechanisms for integrating children erroneously placed in
these schools remain ineffective. Assessments of Romani chil-
dren fail to factor in cultural and linguistic differences, and
there is a lack of adequate safeguards in relation to placement
in these schools and for the review of placements;
Frequently Romani children are placed in practical elemen-
tary schools not because they have any mental disability, but be-
cause they come from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and
confront discriminatory attitudes. The reintegration of these
children into mainstream education has not been a priority for
the school system;
Meanwhile Romani children attending mainstream elemen-
tary schools face other forms of discrimination and segregation.
80. Report of the Government of the Czech Republic on General Measures Related to
the Execution of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Case No.
57325/00—D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic (2009), at http://www.msmt.cz/socialni-
programy/zprava-vlady-ceske-republiky-o-obecnych-opatrenich-k-vykonu?lred=1 (on file
with the Columbia Law Review). Thus far, an amendment to the existing School Act,
designed to ensure students with special needs are able to access the help they need within
a normal school setting, has been proposed. E-mail from Gwendolyn Albert, to author
(Feb. 11, 2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review). Additionally, the government has
conducted research into the number of “practical elementary schools” and the distribution
of Roma in them. Id. There have also been plans to establish a Center for Inclusive
Education (CPIV), which will provide a “support team” for schools, assisting them in
designing inclusion programs and accessing E.U. funding for them. Id. The CPIV is also
supposed to produce a report on inclusion in general. Id.
81. Amnesty Int’l, Injustice Renamed: Discrimination in Education of Roma Persists
in the Czech Republic 4 (2010), available at http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/
attachments/3555_RomaChildren_CzechRepublic.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law
Review).
The mainstream elementary school system remains ill equipped

and unwilling to provide adequate support for the education of
pupils who come from different ethnic and social backgrounds,
as well as of students with different abilities. Segregation contin-
ues in Roma-only elementary schools (those predominantly or
exclusively attended by Romani children) and in Roma-only
classes, where they often receive an inferior education. The fail-
ure to introduce measures in mainstream elementary schools to
support integration of Romani children results in stark choices
for parents between segregated and inferior education, and a
difficult, often discriminatory and non-supportive schooling en-
vironment in mainstream elementary schools.82
Unsurprisingly, teachers in the special/practical schools constitute
an interest group that is fighting to keep those schools open. They have
written to the Minister of Education to urge that their schools (and their
jobs) be retained.83 At the same time the Ministry has issued a statement
asserting that it has added millions of crowns to support Roma pupils.
But Roma rights advocates say that this is a one-time injection of E.U.
funds “for equal opportunities in education . . . not just for promoting
equal opportunities for the Roma, but for every other minority, for wo-
men, for the disabled, etc.”84 They believe that the more “politically ac-
ceptable options will receive funding most easily and will have the great-
est chance of seeing this funding continue past 2013. The Roma are
never a politically acceptable target group.”85
In Sampanis v. Greece,86 the ECHR, in its second major case dealing
with Roma school segregation, ruled that allowing Roma to attend a non-
Roma school, but placing them in a separate annex, violated Article 14
(prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol
No. 1 (right to education) as well as Article 13 (right to an effective rem-
edy) of the European Convention.87 In Sampanis, non-Roma parents pro-
testing the integration of their children’s schools barred Roma children
82. Id.
83. E-mail from Gwendolyn Albert to author (Feb. 12, 2009) (on file with the
Columbia Law Review). Practical school teachers, administrators and an Education Ministry
official in charge of practical schools are resisting closing the schools or assigning large
numbers of Roma children to regular schools. E-mail from Gwendolyn Albert to author
(Feb. 25, 2010) (on file with the Columbia Law Review); see also Official: Most Roma Placed
in “Special” Schools Rightfully, Prague Daily Monitor, Feb. 24, 2010, at http://prague
monitor.com/2010/02/25/official-most-roma-placed-special-schools-rightfully (on file
84. E-mail from Gwendolyn Albert to author (Feb. 25, 2010) (on file with the
85. Id.
86. Sampanis v. Greece, App. No. 32526/05 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2008), available at http://
cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=3252
6/05%20%7C%2032526/05&sessionid=50450662&skin=hudoc-en (on file with the
87. Id. ¶ 97. As of July 1, 2009, the Roma children had not returned to the town
school.
from entering. When the school relented and sent the Roma to a prefab-
ricated annex a few miles away, the protesters covered it with racist graf-
fiti and burned it to the ground. In a related incident, a Roma pupil was
attacked. As a result, many Roma children withdrew from classes. The
court required the defendant school to pay =C 6,000 to each plaintiff and
the costs of the action, but, as in D.H., did not require the school admin-
istration to do anything to end the segregated conditions.
On March 16, 2010, in Ors̆us̆ v. Croatia,88 the Grand Chamber of the
European Court of Human Rights decided that Croatia violated the
Convention by segregating fifteen Roma children on the ground that
they were not competent in the Croatian language. It ordered payment
of =C 4,500 damages to each plaintiff, plus a joint award of =C 10,000 to all
plaintiffs for costs and expenses. But, as in similar cases, it issued no or-
der to require Croatia, or the schools involved in the case, to desegregate.
Importantly, when courts assess damages in a case like this, the per-
son (or entity) who pays may not be the one who made the initial deci-
sion to segregate the schools. If the official or officials who made the
initial decision to segregate are not required to pay the damages, which
are instead paid by the municipality or successor officials, the legal conse-
quences of the decision to segregate are unlikely to serve as an effective
deterrent to those tasked with making similar choices in the future. Even
if the courts later decide that such officials violated the law, someone else
will pay the price.
2. Litigation in National Courts. — Victors in national courts fare no
better when it comes to obtaining meaningful remedies. For example,
after eight years of litigation the Supreme Court of Hungary finally de-
cided Chance for Children Foundation v. Town of Hajdúhadház.89 In the only
88. App. No. 15766/03 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2010), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/
tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Orsus&sessionid=496708
03&skin=hudoc-en (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
89. Chance for Children Found. v. Town of Hajdúhadház, Legfelsöbb Bı́róság
[Supreme Court], Pvf.IV. 20. 936/2008/4 (Hung. 2008). A summary of the facts of the
case and its background was furnished by András Ujláky, President of the NGO Chance for
Children Foundation, which sponsored the case:
Hajdúhadház is a provincial town of about 12,000 inhabitants of whom about
3500 are Roma. . . . Roma lost their jobs when local agricultural cooperatives and
nearby heavy industries providing menial jobs closed. They are overwhelmingly
uneducated, some illiterate. The town has two primary schools (teaching
children between 6 and 14): Földi with 928 pupils of which 236 are Roma and
Bocskay with 917 children of which 397 are Roma. Both schools operate main
buildings for overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) majority children and two [to]
three separate buildings for Roma children. We claim that not only are most of
the Roma children enrolled in the separate buildings they are also provided with
a different, far inferior curriculum. The local Roma community leaders (who are
quite unusually represented in the Municipal Council) demanded desegregation
for more than 11 years. We sued the Municipality and two schools of
Hajdúhadház in a public interest case (i.e. we have no individual plaintiffs). We
used public statistics, municipal documents and an expert opinion as evidence
and benefited from the reversal of the burden of proof. The case now ended in a
decision by a national Supreme Court dealing with Roma school segrega-

tion, Hajdúhadház was found to have illegally segregated Roma students.
However, the court failed to require the defendant “white” (non-Roma)
school to desegregate.
The “white” school and Chance for Children, the NGO representing
the plaintiffs in the case, are currently negotiating a desegregation plan,
for which the plaintiffs are trying to raise funds.90 But, in anticipation of
this integration, white students have been transferring from
Hajdúhadház’s all-white school to schools in other towns.91
In a second case, Chance for Children Foundation v. Local Council of
Miskolc, a Hungarian intermediate appellate court (the Debrecen
Appeals Court) upheld a judgment requiring the merger of school catch-
ment areas in Miskolc in order to end segregation in that town.92 How-
ever, the opinion rejected plaintiff’s plea for an order requiring that the
school actually desegregate, concluding that “a judgment containing such
a provision would be uncontrollable and impossible.”93 It added that
“the latter claim possesses more of public law content, with which the
tools of civil law are ill-suited to comply.”94 Nevertheless, as a result of
this ruling some Roma children now attend the non-Roma school. It is
expected that more will attend in the future, despite the fact that the
court did not require defendant schools to do anything. Similarly, in
European Roma Rights Centre v. Ministry of Education and Science, a Bulgarian
very famous and full victory. We are waiting for the proposed measures for
desegregation.
In the meantime CFCF agreed with a local Roma NGO to jointly hire
consultants for planning a comprehensive long term desegregation program,
aiming to provide the Roma children (as well) with quality education (and look
for funding for the planning work). The court case was sponsored/funded by
OSI (core funding for our activities) and the Sigrid Rausing Trust (specifically for
this case) who did not however participate in the preparatory and legal work.
E-mail from András Ujláky, President, Chance for Children Found., to author (Nov. 7,
2008) (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
90. E-mail from Lilla Farkas, Plaintiff’s Counsel, to author (Aug. 13, 2009) (on file
91. Id.
92. Chance for Children Found. v. Local Council of Miskolc, Pf.I.20.683/2005/7
(Debrecen App. Ct. 2005), available at http://www.cfcf.hu/miskolc1_en.html (on file with
93. Id.
94. The opinion states that “Plaintiff [the NGO Chance for Children] requested the
court to oblige Respondent local Council of Miskolc [of which defendant school board was
a constituent part] . . . to implement an integration program by involving central and
member schools.” Id. The court also rejected the request on several grounds, including
that the “claim submitted in this form could not have been identified with any of the
sanctions listed in Article 84 of the Civil Code.” Id.
trial court held that the school in question had segregated, but ordered
no relief, not even payment of costs.95
In neither of the above cases nor, indeed, any school segregation
case in the region that I know of, have courts shown awareness of Article
13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that
“[e]veryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are
violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority.”96 In-
stead, courts have awarded nominal (in view of the severe consequences)
damages and otherwise left the parties to drift.
In response to courts’ failure to order effective remedies, the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has called upon mem-
ber states to create “efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of
judgments of Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1764 (2006)—
Implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human
Rights.”97 This would seem to require member states, or at least defend-
ants who lose school segregation cases, to end school segregation. Never-
theless, the Recommendation bows in the direction of national indepen-
dence by acknowledging that “the respondent state remains free to
choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under
Article 46 of the Convention to abide by the final judgments of the
Court.”98 It concludes with a nod (but no more) to Article 13: “[W]here
required by a significant persistent problem in the execution process,
[the respondent state must] ensure that all necessary remedial action be
taken at high level, political if need be.”99
Recently, the Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF) began seek-
ing orders requiring termination of injury in segregation cases. By
prohibiting segregation, such orders would effectively require desegrega-
tion.100 It is too soon to tell whether this strategy will be effective.
Despite the absence of court orders requiring compliance with judg-
ments, it would be wrong to assert that the law has been without effect.
In Hajdúhadház and Miskolc, defendants allowed some Roma children to
enter the white schools. However, many non-Roma students responded
to these early, minimal desegregation efforts by transferring to other non-
Roma schools. This is reminiscent of a phase in U.S. school desegrega-
95. European Roma Rights Ctr. v. Ministry of Educ. & Sci., Case No. 11630/2004
(Sofia Regional Ct. 2005), available at http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu/InfoPortal/
caselawDownloadFile.do?id=9 (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
96. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, supra note 72, at art. 13.
97. Committee of Ministers to Member States on Efficient Domestic Capacity for
Rapid Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Recommendation
CM/Rec (2008) 2 (adopted on Feb. 6, 2008), available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.
jsp?id=1246081&Site=COE (on file with the Columbia Law Review) [hereinafter Committee
of Ministers Recommendation].
98. Id.
99. Id.
tion when southern segregated schools transitioned to “freedom of

choice” plans, which, instead of requiring integration, permitted students
to attend the school of their choice. The result was substantial segrega-
tion brought about by the momentum of prior racial assignments. The
U.S. Supreme Court, during a period in which it firmly insisted on deseg-
regation, struck down such arrangements.101 No similar steps have been
taken by any European court.
II. VISITING THE REGION

To investigate firsthand the state of Roma education, I visited
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic in 2003, 2007, and
2008. I interviewed more than sixty people, including government offi-
cials, teachers, Roma rights activists, journalists, and lawyers.102 Three
summer human rights interns from Columbia Law School visited the re-
gion following my 2008 trip; three others visited in summer 2009 to
gather additional information. Some of my observations, and those of
the students, follow. Their reports contain useful material I have not
seen elsewhere. Below are excerpts from, and observations about, these
reports. Perhaps atypical as legal writing, this format seems to be the best
way to utilize this unique access to facts about Roma education.
A. Czech Republic
I arrived in the Czech Republic on April 19, 2008. At that time, it
was the only E.U. member state yet to enact an antidiscrimination statute
transposing E.U. Race Directive 43/2000 into domestic law. (Absent ex-
traordinary circumstances,103 E.U. Directives must be re-enacted, or
“transposed,” within nations in order to be enforceable.) Soon after-
wards, the Czech Republic finally passed such a law, but President Václav
Klaus vetoed it in May 2008, declaring it “useless, counter-productive and
of low quality and its consequences very problematic.”104 He also stated
that existing legal protection against discrimination in the Czech Repub-
101. Green v. County Sch. Bd., 391 U.S. 430 (1968).

102. Jessica Greenberg (full disclosure, she is my granddaughter), a student at
Columbia College, took notes of all my interviews to which this Report refers. Information
and quotations drawn from these interviews are hereinafter cited as “Jessica’s Notes” and
remain on file with the Columbia Law Review. An article about the project, including
photographs, appeared in Columbia College Today. See Press Release, Columbia Law Sch.,
Professor Jack Greenberg Turns His Attention to the Plight of the Roma (July 14, 2008), at
http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2008/july2008/Roma (on
file with the Columbia Law Review).
103. See supra note 60 and accompanying text (discussing member states’ obligation R
to implement such Directives).
104. Letter from Dimitrina Petrova, Director, The Equal Rights Trust, to Miloslav
Vlèek, Chairperson of the Chamber of Deputies, Czech Parliament (May 30, 2008),
available at http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Microsoft Word - letter to
Speaker of the Czech Chamber of Deputies.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
lic was adequate.105 With its President taking one position and Parlia-
ment another, the Czech Republic’s policy towards Roma school segrega-
tion was, at best, conflicted.
The Parliament overrode Klaus’s veto on June 17, 2009.106 Today,
the antidiscrimination law is enforced by the Ombudsman Head, Otakar
Motejil, said to be the most popular political figure in the Czech
Republic. Should he proceed against school segregation, some think the
effect would be substantial. But whether he will remains uncertain.
Underneath the political division between Parliament and the
President, public animosity towards Roma civil rights remains strong.
One factor contributing to the anti-Roma sentiment is a high level of neo-
Nazi activity in the Czech Republic.107 As a result, the Czech Republic is
an inhospitable place for Roma. Soon after Canada lifted visa require-
ments for Czech travelers in November 2007, Czech Roma, most of whom
sought asylum, began fleeing there. In 2008, 853 Roma arrived in
Canada from the Czech Republic. In the first seven months of 2009, 673
Roma completed that same journey.108
Although the Czech Republic has yet to take meaningful steps to-
wards compliance with D.H., the Roma I met greeted the decision as a
sign of better times to come. One Roma woman who worked in the
Education Ministry considered it to be “an incredible breakthrough.”
She noted that “other states in the region, such as Germany, are now
taking steps to review their practices.”109
I spoke with Miroslava Kopicova, who, at the time, was the education
advisor to Czech Prime Minister Miroslav Topolánek and Director of the
National Training Fund. Today, she serves as the Czech Education
Minister. During our conversation, I asked her why the Czech govern-
ment did not simply integrate the schools. She replied: “We are reluc-
tant to make regulations here. This is the general approach of society
because for so many years under communism we were told what to do, so
105. Id.
106. Czech Parliament Overrides Anti-Discrimination Law Veto, Monsters and Critics,
June 17, 2009, at http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1484
190.php (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
107. See Czech Republic Becoming a Paradise for Racists and Neo-Nazis, Former Ku
Klux Klan Head to Visit, Romea.cz, Apr. 11, 2009, at http://romea.cz/english/index.php?
id=detail&detail=2007_1187 (on file with the Columbia Law Review). During my visit, one
Roma schoolteacher said: “Neo-Nazi protests are allowed and lots of crimes are committed
against the Roma. Roma go and hide, don’t fight back, and get the feeling they have no
protection from the state. It is demoralizing.” Jessica’s Notes, supra note 102, at 6. In R
February, 2010, a Czech court banned the far-right Nazi Workers’ Party. Dan Bilefsky,
Czech Court Bans Far-Right Party, N.Y. Times, Feb. 18, 2010, at A12.
108. Lesley Ciarula Taylor, Refugee Advocates Criticize Minister: Fear Crackdown
Looms After Influx of Roma from Czech Republic, TheStar.com, July 4, 2009, at http://
www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/660846 (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
109. Jessica’s Notes, supra note 102, at 1. R
now we would rather discuss and advise.”110 She placed responsibility for
segregation on Roma parents:
I have seen goodwill but it usually isn’t enough because of lack
of motivation of the Roma to become integrated. We still give
the tests to the children, but they don’t really matter: the stu-
dents can pick where they want to go to schools. The special
schools are bad for the Roma children because no differentia-
tion goes on between how to teach the retarded and the Roma.
However, parents often like these schools because they have
smaller classes and more attention can be given to each child.
They think their children will achieve more there than in the
back of the normal class.111
Vera Czesana, head of the National Observatory and an official at the
NGO National Training Fund, partly blamed Roma parents for the low
enrollment of Roma children in preschool. She said that, while “the so-
cially disadvantaged can get support . . . Roma families prefer to keep
their children at home. The parents don’t work, and they like spending
time with their kids.”112 Ms. Czesana had little hope for heightened
Roma activism on the issue, a sentiment echoed by a number of the
Roma educators and civil rights leaders with whom I spoke.
Along with such disheartening assessments, there is another senti-
ment held by some Roma—particularly the most disadvantaged—that I
heard on more than one occasion: Communism had been a “paradise,”
with housing, work, and welfare for Roma.113 Many Roma long for the
employment opportunities that state industries had brought to their
communities.
Despite the fond memories, the Roma experience under commu-
nism may contribute to the lack of Roma activism today. Olga Fecova, a
Roma educator, observed that “under communism it didn’t pay to get a
higher education. There was no point because you’d make about the
same amount of money anyway. So for the general society it’s taking a
long time to sink in how this kind of community works.”114 As a result,
she continued, “only ten percent of the people go on to higher educa-
tion. . . . People are still learning how to function in a market econ-
omy.”115 As a result, there are only a handful of Roma leaders capable of
sustaining a movement.
110. Id. at 17.

111. Id. at 17–18.
112. Id. at 18.
113. In a discussion with Olga Fecova, she said:
Under communism Roma were in the school system, Roma got apartments, Roma
got jobs. When communism ended the Roma had to sell every bit of property
they had acquired . . . . These days are good for millionaires . . . and everyone
else is just weeds. There is lots of homelessness among the normal people.
Id. at 7.
114. Id. at 5.
115. Id.
One of the few Roma who has heeded Ms. Fecova’s call for participa-
tion in higher education is Gabriela Hrabanova. When I interviewed Ms.
Hrabanova, she was a Roma student attending the Anglo-American
College of International Relations and working on “The Decade of Roma
Inclusion” as Director of ATHINGANOI, a Roma student organization.
Ms. Hrabanova is now Director of the Office of the Government Council
for Roma Community Affairs. She stressed the need for Roma to become
involved in politics, especially in local governments, which run schools
and “sign grants.” She said: “It is very undemocratic that there aren’t
many Roma in the government. It makes it seem like there are no Roma
[in the country], but there are. Parties are afraid of losing votes by put-
ting Roma on the ballot.”116 Unlike the non-Roma officials, Ms.
Hrabanova did not blame Roma families for the lack of educational at-
tainment in the Roma community.
Kyle Kolb,117 a Columbia student who visited the Czech Republic in
2009, reported signs of willingness among some non-Roma to embrace
nonsegregation. However, this may have only been courageous pioneer-
ing by a disempowered minority. The evidence on the ground indicates
that even initial moves toward desegregation have not been sustained.
Kyle visited the Pøemysla Pittra (P. Pittra) school in Ostrava. The
school was founded in 1993 as a multicultural school, with a goal of fifty
percent Roma enrollment. From the beginning, Roma parents eagerly
enrolled their children. White flight quickly occurred. When Kyle vis-
ited, sixteen years after the school’s founding, only three of the 300 stu-
dents in attendance were non-Roma.
Similar efforts to integrate other schools have been unsuccessful, in
part due to resistance from non-Roma parents, and in part because many
majority schools are at full capacity. A recent effort to integrate two
Roma students into a majority primary school resulted in five majority
students being pulled out by their parents. The school director does not
want the school to continue as a Roma school but feels powerless to ei-
ther stop white flight or build sufficient community support for
integration.118
Another school director tried to integrate education in Valas̆ské
Meziøı́èı́. The plan was to start in the fall of 2009 with one white track
and one Roma. The Roma track would work to bring students up to stan-
dard, at which point the two tracks would be abolished and the students
mixed. After negative media and NGO attention, the town cancelled the
program. Deputy Minister of Education Klara Laurenèı́kova stated that
the school had an admirable intent, but was going about it in a discrimi-
natory manner. Next fall, the school will try again. Its first grade class
116. Id. at 14.

117. For his complete report, see Kyle Kolb, 2009 Report on Czech Republic (2009)
(on file with the Columbia Law Review).
118. For further detail, see id. at 59–61.
will have sixteen students, ten of whom are Roma. If no problems arise,
integration will continue, grade by grade.119
Roma rights advocate Michael Èermák identified and explained an-
other approach to small-scale school integration. He described tacit
agreements often formed between mainstream schools and Roma par-
ents. Instead of dealing with a discrimination claim and attendant public-
ity, the school quietly accepts one or two Roma students. While this does
not lead to full-scale integration, it does provide benefits for those few
Roma students lucky enough to attend the non-Roma school. And, given
the small, contained numbers, it is less likely to cause the white flight
experienced elsewhere.120
Schools attempting to integrate often try to keep their programs se-
cret. Svitavy-Laènov, a formally all-white school that is actively seeking to
integrate, attempts to head off white flight by keeping the program hid-
den from majority parents and the media. The school has been success-
fully integrated for four years without major conflict. Students and staff
both seem to thrive, despite keen awareness of the difficulties integration
creates.121
The story of Svitavy-Laènov, however, is unique and may be depen-
dent on the town’s demographics. The school is located in the town of
Svitavy (population 20,000), which lies between Prague and Olomouc.
The school was started four years ago by a private citizen, Radka Renzová,
largely out of her own willpower and determination. She gathered politi-
cal backing for the project after the town’s prior school closed. Because
the mayor did not want socially-disadvantaged children to be a problem
for future generations, he supported the integration program. With the
mayor’s support, Mrs. Renzová started the school anew. Unlike practi-
cally every other integrated school, no NGO is backing the project. While
it does receive some outside grants, the school gets most of its funding
from the same place as other public schools: the government.122
Despite its success, many in the town have stigmatized the school as a
“Romani school.” All involved believe this stigma, and the general public
opinion towards Roma, has become much worse since national discourse
has focused on the question of ending segregation. If the school can
fight back successfully, it could serve as a model for other integration
efforts in the area. At this point, however, it is unclear whether simply
keeping a low profile is a viable strategy for achieving integration.
Radka Renzová’s fear that white flight could hamper progress at
Svitavy-Laènov is grounded in experience. In Brno (the Czech Republic’s
second largest city), a non-Roma school merged with a neighboring
Roma school in order to reduce administrative costs. Non-Roma parents
119. Id. at 67.

120. Id. at 64.
121. For substantially further detail about Kyle Kolb’s visit, see id. at 51–81.
122. Id. at 74.
signed a petition opposing the measure and threatened to pull their chil-
dren if the city went through with the plan. The director had to consult
with the city council, which was opposed integration, about the problem.
For financial reasons, the merger went ahead and, within the first few
months of integration, the school lost over 200 non-Roma students.123
NGOs have created other programs with the potential to act as
change agents. For example, the Férová Škola (FS) school certification
program is working towards a more inclusive education system. Started a
year ago by Michael Èermák, while he was working at the League of
Human Rights, FS hopes to reward schools that do not discriminate by
certifying them as “fair.” A school is “fair” if it does not automatically
send all Roma, mentally or physically handicapped, and non-Roma mi-
nority children to practical schools. But, no desegregation has so far oc-
curred as a result of this program.
Ms. Olga Kusá, who works for FS, argues that, to be successful, pro-
grams designed to increase integration cannot be labeled as for “Roma
integration.” Instead, they must be part of a larger program for all chil-
dren with special education needs. This both facilitates marketing the
program to non-Roma and secures benefits for all students in need. Ban-
ning special schools does not seem realistic to Ms. Kusá. Instead, she
advocates a more comprehensive approach designed to ensure that stu-
dents receive a good education.124
After the Czech Parliament passed a no-confidence vote against the
Prime Minister’s majority coalition in March 2009, there has been politi-
cal upheaval. Until things settle down, and perhaps not even then, there
will be few signs of progress on Roma integration. Nevertheless, Mr.
Èermák hopes that, in ten years, the Czech Republic will be fully
integrated.
B. Hungary
In 2002, Hungary amended its Public Education Act in order to en-
courage integration.125 Since that time, it has enacted requirements that
schools integrate, as well as set benchmarks by which to measure integra-
tion. On April 22, 2008, I went to Budapest in order to assess the pro-
gress of these, and other, integration efforts.
Despite the strong initial steps, Roma rights activists say that the po-
tential scope of Hungary’s integration program has been watered
down.126 This is in part because the educational administration is decen-
tralized, which means that each segregated school among Hungary’s
123. Id. at 62–63.

124. Id. at 70.
125. Jessica’s Notes, supra note 102, at 21. Hungary’s school integration and related R
laws are discussed and collected in Roma Educ. Fund, School Integration, supra note 2, at R
35–40, 133–47.
126. E-mail from Judit Szira, Senior Adviser, Roma Educ. Fund, to author (Oct. 16,
2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review); e-mail from András Ujláky, President,
3,000 school districts must be dealt with separately. As a result, national

education administrators, scholars, and Roma rights groups have been
unable to easily determine where all of the segregation exists.127 This has
made targeting specific districts and schools much more difficult.
Another barrier to integration comes from a fear of white flight. To
qualify for government subsidy under the Public Education Act, integra-
tion has to be initiated by local governments. But political leaders often
fear the financial repercussions created by objecting non-Roma. This is
because schools in the region are funded on a per capita basis;128 white
flight costs school administrators the income provided by white students.
To date, Hungary’s most important measures have been to appropri-
ate funds to implement desegregation. In 2003 the country began allo-
cating additional funds to schools for each socially-disadvantaged child
that they enroll.129 While the measure does not specifically target Roma
children—under state law, officials are not supposed to know who is
Roma and who is not—it has the effect of encouraging Roma integration.
This is because Roma make up approximately half of all socially-disadvan-
taged children in Hungary.
Big cities and villages looking for desegregation funding may also
apply to national agencies responsible for distribution of E.U. funds. A
2008 decree directed that the money from a generous desegregation sub-
sidy could be used for a wide range of purchases, including for clothes,
shoes, and bathing suits.130 Before receiving this funding, the municipal-
ity must have a plan for enhancing equal opportunities in public
education.131
In May 2008, the Hungarian Parliament took the additional step of
requiring all local school authorities to formulate equal opportunity
plans.132 This law also encourages poor children to attend kindergarten
Chance for Children Found., to author (Oct 16, 2009) (on file with the Columbia Law
Review).
127. Open Soc’y Inst., Equal Access, supra note 20, at 226–36 (describing Hungary’s R
educational program). NAACP lawyers who launched the attack on segregation faced a
similar situation in that once a school was equalized in a physical sense, it became nearly
impossible to keep up with changes.
128. At this writing, Bulgarian schools were not so funded. But, I am told, there are
plans to convert to that basis in the near future.
129. Open Soc’y Inst., Equal Access, supra note 20, at 231–32 (discussing subsidies R
through National Network of Educational Integration’s OOIH program).
130. Cf. id. at 273–77 (discussing per pupil grants).
131. Hungarian law requires a plan for enhancing equal opportunities in public
education if a municipality is to receive money from a tender for educational purposes
financed by the E.U. or the Hungarian government. On Equal Treatment and the
Promotion of Equal Opportunities, Act no. CXXV of 2003, para. 35, available at
www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/E.C.12.HUN.3-Annex3.pdf (on file with the
Columbia Law Review). In order to receive this money, a school need not have
desegregated, but it must have a plan for desegregation.
132. U.S. Dep’t of State, 2008 Human Rights Report: Hungary (2009), available at
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119083.htm (on file with the Columbia
by paying parents 20,000 Ft ($105) upon enrollment and 10,000 Ft

($52.50) for each semester. While free, public preschool133 is available
for the two years prior to kindergarten, kindergarten attendance incurs
expenses for transportation, school-suitable clothing, and food. This law
aims to alleviate some of those hardships for poor families, and therefore
increase the likelihood that Roma children will attend school beginning
in kindergarten.
Furthermore, there are a number of means for proceeding against
educational institutions which discriminate on racial or ethnic grounds.
The National Public Education Evaluation and Examination Centre
(OKEV), the Equal Treatment Authority, the Commissioner for
Educational Rights, the Educational Mediation Service, any one of four
Parliamentary Commissioners, and other governmental bodies, including
the Constitutional Court, are all supposed to be supporting an end to
racial and ethnic discrimination.134 However, I have not encountered
any official action taken against segregation. Even the Hajdúhadház and
Miskolc cases were initiated privately, and not supported by any official
body (although they had some influence on individual conduct). Simi-
larly, while it remains a crime in Hungary to discriminate against a child,
there has been no report of a fine having been levied for such an offense.
1. Budapest. — In Budapest I met Szilvia Pallaghy Hegyi, Head of the
Unit for Equal Opportunity at the Ministry of Education. She reported
that about 800 of Hungary’s 3,000 schools are enrolled in the national
program that allocates funds to schools attempting desegregation. Sur-
prisingly, there has been some push back from the Roma community,
which has concerns about cultural assimilation. In response, Ms. Hegyi
confirmed that Roma culture would be preserved, for “there are multicul-
tural activities in school” and funds are available for “special classes in
Romanes and Roma history.”135 Based on her expertise, Ms. Hegyi has
concluded that “Roma [in Hungary] are not assimilating.”136 She further
asserted that the government programs have provided needed funds in
support of school integration.
The inevitable disagreement was not long in coming. Next, I met
Szilvia Nemeth, a researcher at Tarki-Tudok (a Budapest research insti-
tute) who has conducted a study, not yet published, which contradicts Ms.
Hegyi’s assertions. Nemeth claimed that almost none of the municipali-
Law Review) (“On May 2, the National Assembly adopted a law requiring local authorities
operating schools to draw up an equal opportunity plan against segregation.
Noncompliant schools were prohibited from bidding for EU funds. Local governments
which submit a plan but fail to fulfill their obligations must return EU funds.”).
133. Roma preschool enrollment remains low, which a government official I met
attributed to a parental preference for keeping young children at home, but cost likely also
plays a role.
134. See Roma Educ. Fund, School Integration, supra note 2, at 144–47 (discussing R
role and authority of these organizations).
136. Id.
ties that have taken government money to desegregate have actually used
it for that purpose.137
When Nemeth’s study was described to a member of the National
Integration Network, she responded:
I have a positive outlook on the situation. I think it’s mostly
going well. . . . It’s very likely that [Szilvia Nemeth] talked to a
teacher that has a bad attitude towards the changes and because
the program is new we need to wait longer before seeing big
changes. I think all the schools in the program are actually de-
segregating. . . . Like cooperative learning, the students come
together a lot better and individual competency levels are up (as
seen by testing). . . . White parents fear that if the poor Roma
are integrated [then] the white performance will go down. Yet
the opposite is happening.138
It is nearly impossible to tell who is correct. There is no administra-
tive center to carry out desegregation or gather information about it. I
visited Gábor Kézdi, an economist at Central European University and a
widely cited scholar who studies Roma education. He agreed that there is
no way to know for sure how much integration exists in Hungary and
whether it is effective.
Kézdi conducted his own small-scale study to determine whether gov-
ernment money was being used to desegregate. He examined a small
intensive program of 5,000 students and their parents from sixty schools
across the country. Contrary to Nemeth’s study, Kézdi concluded that
schools that obtain funding to integrate usually do use it for that purpose.
And, according to Kézdi’s study, the program is working. Non-Roma stu-
dents in integrated schools show reduced stereotyping and anti-Roma
sentiment, while integrated Roma children have higher self-esteem and
better grades.139
Professor Kézdi and Eva Surányi recently wrote a more extensive
description and evaluation of school desegregation in Hungary.140 The
following is an excerpt:
[T]he program increases the level of integration within
schools, and it leads to a shift in the direction of student-cen-
tered education, higher levels of student autonomy and a wide-
spread use of cooperative group work. The study finds that stu-
dents of the program schools achieve somewhat higher grades,
their reading skills are also somewhat better, and they are more
likely to pursue further education in secondary schools that pro-
vide a graduating examination . . . than peers in control schools.
The effects on cognitive and academic development are largest
for the Roma students; it is positive, if often modest, for all stu-
dent groups.
137. Id. at 23.

138. Id. at 25.
139. Id. at 23.
140. See generally Roma Educ. Fund, School Integration, supra note 2. R
The effect on non-cognitive skills is also positive and larger

than on cognitive skills and achievements. Program school stu-
dents have more internal locus of control (they are more likely
to believe that they themselves are responsible for their suc-
cesses or failures), they have more positive self-esteem (espe-
cially in terms of general, external, and school-related items of
self-esteem[)]. Some of the effects are larger for Roma, others
for non-Roma students, but again, they are positive for all stu-
dent group[s] analyzed. Ethnic prejudice against the Roma is
also positively affected by the program. Non-Roma students of
program schools see the Roma in a less stereotyped way, they
keep a smaller social distance from them, and they think less in
terms of social hierarchy. Finally, students of program schools
are characterized by lower levels of social dominance orienta-
tion and social anxiety.141
Notwithstanding recent gains, Kézdi concludes, as shown in the graph
below, that ethnic segregation of Roma has “sped up” since 1992.142
FIGURE 1. BETWEEN-SCHOOL ETHNIC SEGREGATION IN HUNGARY,

1980 TO 2006
Segregation index
.3
.2
.1
0
1980 1989 1992 2006
National Within small regions, average

Within towns/cities, average
141. Id. at 129–30.

142. Gábor Kertesi & Gábor Kézdi, Segregation in the Primary School System in
Hungary: Causes and Consequences 44 (2005), available at http://www.romaeducation
fund.hu/documents/Kertesi_Kezdi_Segregation_REF_2.doc (on file with the Columbia
Law Review).
Furthermore, Roma continue to be severely underrepresented in the

most prestigious gymnasia. There is some evidence that Roma secondary
school students are more likely to drop out or transfer to lower prestige
schools.143 And, fewer than two percent of Roma students have been go-
ing to university (affirmative action has increased the Roma proportion
to three percent).
Bernard Rorke, head of OSI’s Roma Participation Program, was not
surprised by the lack of evidence of desegregation that I found. He be-
lieves that some schools are desegregating only on paper. When I contin-
ued my inquiry into whether Roma activism might produce change, he
listed language and geographic isolation as two of the main barriers to
forming the social movement necessary to bring about change. Not only
is it difficult to sustain a movement across ten countries, but Roma in
different countries remain unconnected due to language barriers. At a
meeting with the National Integration Network, for instance, it was
pointed out that “[t]here is a group of Roma that speaks Romanes, an-
other that speaks another Romany language, and a third that speaks
neither, just the language of the country.”144 As a result, talk of a Roma
“movement” is wishful thinking: There is no singular movement.
2. Miskolc. — In Miskolc, not far from Budapest, an all-Roma school
and an all-white school had been located close together. Chance for
Children sued to put an end to the segregation.145 The court decided
that illegal segregation existed. The schools responded by merging the
two schools into one. But the merger was in name only: Roma children
continued to attend the building they had attended prior to the decision,
and non-Roma continued to attend school in the other building. András
Ujláky, President of Chance for Children, reported that when the Roma
and non-Roma schools “merged,” they left the catchment areas un-
merged. Later, the schools’ leadership corrected what they called the
“technical mistake” and merged the catchment areas, but not the entire
student bodies. Over the past term, at least one group of Roma students
was permitted to attend classes, made up mostly of Roma children, at the
formerly all-white school. The Roma school remains in place, and
Chance for Children has an ongoing case, which “is dragging very slowly,”
to close it down. Meanwhile, the municipality decided not to start a first
grade class at the Roma school during its 2008–2009 school year. If this
continues, “the Roma school will vanish in a few years time.”146
143. Gábor Kertesi & Gábor Kézdi, A roma és nem roma fiatalok középiskolai
továbbtanulása [Secondary education of Roma and Non-Roma children], in Társadalmi
Riport (Tamás Kolosi & István G. Tóth eds., 2008).
145. Chance for Children Found. v. Local Council of Miskolc, Pf.I.20.683/2005/7
(Debrecen App. Ct. 2005), available at http://www.cfcf.hu/miskolc1_en.html (on file with
146. E-mail from András Ujláky, President, Chance for Children Found., to author
(June 29, 2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
3. Hajdúhadház. — Following a Supreme Court of Hungary decision

that declared school segregation in Hajdúhadház illegal,147 the parties
entered into negotiations regarding the implementation and financing of
a desegregation plan. András Ujlaky, President of Chance for Children
and plaintiff in this case, wrote:
We applied for funds to prepare the plan. We do not think that
the Municipality has the vision, the motivation and the profes-
sional capability to devise such a plan. While being involved in
preparing the plan, regularly talking to the Municipality we
could maintain our involvement and present a good practice
from identifying the problem through winning the court case to
actually achieve the purpose of the exercise. . . . [W]e agreed
with a few people to prepare a long term comprehensive deseg-
regation and school improvement plan for the town and applied
for funds (initially just for the plan) to REF (Roma Education
Fund). Hajdúhadház, of course, will never have the funds to
fulfill the plan, but we would undertake to help them fund rais-
ing from other sources subject they cooperate in planning.148
4. Szeged. — Szeged is an apparently prosperous university town, 200
kilometers from Budapest at the Serbian-Romanian border. Its popula-
tion of 160,000 includes 8,000–10,000 Roma, who live in two settle-
ments.149 Szeged began to desegregate in September of 2007 with the
help of $36,000 in financial assistance from the Roma Education Fund.
Thus far, desegregation has been limited to two Roma per classroom.
The decision to desegregate had been made a year before I visited.
It was evident that students in the upper grades were having the most
difficulty. After seven or eight years in the Roma school they were too far
behind to transition smoothly into the integrated school. Most were
happy to be in an integrated school, but needed considerable time to
catch up. It also appeared that the older students, and their parents,
were far less academically motivated than families of younger children.150
A Roma rights activist who has visited the schools in Szeged worried that
students in the sixth grade or higher will end up going back to special
schools.151
On the other hand, when integration begins early in a child’s aca-
demic career, the likelihood for success increases and these students
seem to acclimate quite quickly, academically and socially. This view is
supported by the experience of the principal of a newly integrated school
147. Chance for Children Found. v. Town of Hajdúhadház, Legfelsöbb Bı́róság

[Supreme Court], Pvf.IV. 20. 936/2008/4 (Hung. 2008).
(May 23, 2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (emphasis omitted).
150. Id.
151. Id. at 36.
who said that she had never had a problem with Roma students who
started in the first grade.152
This principal had worked to support the development of social rela-
tionships between the Roma and non-Roma children and had provided
two school mentors to help facilitate the transition of Roma into their
new academic setting. One of the mentors assists children with basic skill
development, providing each child with two hours of tutoring per week.
The second mentor works directly with two students.
A total of eleven schools in Szeged have participated in the desegre-
gation process. Much of its success is due to the small scale of the pro-
gram and the proactive steps taken by the school district to allay the fears
of non-Roma parents. For example, meetings prepared non-Roma par-
ents to deal with issues Roma children might present. As a result, there
has been no white flight.
I discussed the genesis of Szeged’s integration with Peter Czirok of
LIFE Association, other Roma rights professionals, and representatives
from the mayor of Szeged’s office.153 Its origin illustrates the complexity
of the political, organizational, and familial relationships that may under-
lie integration programs.
I had heard that the integration program originated with the
Minority Self-Government (MSG).154 Mr. Czirok set me straight. “First,”
he said, “I just want to say that my organization is a totally different one
[from the MSG] and we have different views. I am not a member so it’s
hard to say anything about it.”155 He added: “We can give them the
credit for coming up with the idea, but my organization gathered the
152. Id. at 32.

153. Id. at 33–34.
154. Hungarian law provides for establishing Minority Self-Governments, which serve
as parallel political authorities in all communities where there are significant numbers of
members of minority groups. Thirty people from a minority group must register and vote
in an election.
While not designed primarily for Roma, or originally intended as a tool for
integration, Hungary’s minority self government (MSG) system has become one
of the more controversial mechanisms for protecting Romani rights, and
promoting civic and political participation. . . . [T]he MSG system in Hungary
allows for any of the country’s 13 recognized minorities to establish local,
regional, and national self-governments . . . . parallel to mainstream institutions,
[that] have the right to make decisions in the areas of local education, language
use in public institutions, printed and electronic media, and the protection of
their traditions and culture. The local MSG representatives have the right to
provide input on all public policy matters through guaranteed access to local
council committee meetings . . . . In 2006, 1,118 local Romani MSGs were formed.
Nat’l Democratic Inst., The Hungarian Minority Self-Government System as a Means of
Increasing Romani Political Participation 4–5 (2006), available at www.accessdemocracy.
org/library/2163_hu_roma_self_assessment_100106.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law
Review) [hereinafter Nat’l Democratic Inst., Hungarian Minority System] (footnote
omitted).
155. The following discussion about minority self government is taken from Jessica’s
Notes, supra note 102, at 32–34. R
signatures for the petition.” He deprecated the MSG, asserting that “in
reality students took the initiative to integrate the schools. But the munici-
pality asked the Roma minority self-government to officially ask for it so
that the Roma community wouldn’t turn to them angrily and say ‘Hey!
Why are you closing our schools?’”156
The tension between the MSG and LIFE was palpable. Mr. Czirok
stated that “[t]he minority self-government is rich and doesn’t really work
for the good of the people.”157
I asked how members of the MSG are chosen:
If they live in a big family, they can easily get enough votes.
Also, not many Roma are politically active. There are 4000
Roma living in Szeged, but they don’t register to vote. [Others
claim the Roma population is 8000 to 10,000]. Only 200 regis-
tered. There are no literacy tests or other barriers stopping
them. There are two national Roma groups. The left wing one
is MCF Hungary Gypsy Forum and the right wing, pseudo-Nazi,
group [others say that, while right wing, it is not extremely so] is
Lungo Drom [“long way” in Romanes]. In my opinion, there is
no use for the Roma Minority Self Government. Here’s an ex-
ample of corrupt behavior: When we were trying to close the
ghetto school, the Minority Self Government played it two-faced.
They said they supported closing the school, but then they were
trying to convince parents to oppose it.158
According to Mr. Czirok, the MSG is opposed to closing the all-Roma
schools because “many children registered there but many do not attend.
And since a school gets per capita money, they got lots of extra money for
children that weren’t really there.”
While Czirok believes that the Roma MSG stands in opposition to
integration, Viktoria Mohacsi, a member of the European Parliament be-
tween 2004 and 2009, holds a different view. During her time in
Parliament, Mohacsi, who is Roma, stood at the forefront of the Hun-
garian government’s efforts at integration. She credits the MSG for that
country’s relatively advanced pro-integration policy.159 Thus, no consen-
sus exists over who is most responsible for the advancement of integra-
tion efforts in Hungary.
Mr. Czirok went on to suggest that Roma support of the integration
efforts varies according to their economic circumstances. “The very poor
ones can’t even figure out what they’re going to eat today so they can’t
think about tomorrow. Many times their kids leave the [eighth] grade
not knowing how to read and write.”160
5. General Observations. — Hungary passed an Ombudsman Act in
1993. I met with the Ombudsman (Parliamentary Commissioner for the
156. Id. at 34.

157. Id.
158. Id.
159. Id. at 39.
160. Id.
Rights of the National and Ethnic Minorities), Erno Kallai, and his associ-
ate educational specialist.161 I quickly discovered that his position is
purely advisory: The real power remains with the legislature. Mostly the
NGOs or the minority governments, not individual Roma, bring
problems to the Ombudsman. Kallai prepares cases and returns them to
NGOs, with which he has a close link, for further action.
Kallai told me that desegregation is proceeding slowly. One reason
he identified was a lack of commitment from the society to end segrega-
tion: “It’s just political experiments right now; the society isn’t backing it.
The Hungarian educational system is decentralized. The same ideas are
not applied everywhere. Defining and carrying out aims in the educa-
tional system is the task of the municipality. That’s the reason for uneven
success.”162
As to whether, on the whole, integration has been successful, Kallai
could not point to any serious breakthroughs: “The government is trying
to do something, but society is not behind it or not informed. The major-
ity think integration is only in the interest of the minority and do not
understand that it is in fact in the interest of the whole society.”163
Kallai sees integration as an issue for political debate. He believes
that disadvantaged children in a class should not exceed a certain num-
ber because teachers cannot handle too many: “Mainstream parents
don’t like their children to go to school with the Roma because the level
of education drops.”164 As a result, integration remains a political quag-
mire. Kallai believes that “the Miskolc mayor understands that integra-
tion is necessary, but because he is pushing for it he will almost certainly
lose popularity.”165
Orsolya Szendrey, a consultant for the Roma Education Fund, is an
independent expert who used to administer structural funds in Hungary.
She said that important laws have been passed, but no one knows if they
are being implemented correctly:
The Hungarian education system is decentralized and main-
tained by local authorities. The state has very little control. Af-
ter communism, Hungary tried to create a very liberal system
that gave local communities a great deal of power and freedom.
While perhaps a good idea in theory, it has actually been
harmful.166
Financial incentives are not monitored strictly. Although they make
the schools better for the Roma who attend, they do not seem to help
Roma integrate and excel. And, since the semi-integrated schools receive
financial benefits regardless of the completeness of the integration, there
161. Id. at 35–37.

162. Id. at 36.
163. Id.
164. Id. at 37.
165. Id.
166. Id. at 37–38.
is little reason for them to accept sufficient numbers of Roma students to

force the closing of the all-Roma school.
The extent of integration in Hungry remains unclear, as does sup-
port for integration found at various levels of the government. Still, there
are indications that more information will be available in the future.
Orsolya informed me that over the past year approximately 800 cities
have received and returned documents that may provide some answers.
Initial data indicate that some of the Roma Education Fund’s projects are
beginning to have some effect, and, in February 2009, the Roma Educa-
tion Fund stretched its data collection from central Hungary to six addi-
tional regions.
In addition, the Ministry of Education has trained eighty experts to
do compliance analysis. These experts went to 400 cities to complete doc-
uments with the municipalities. If a municipality has over forty percent
disadvantaged children, it gets an expert for free. If a municipality does
not agree to integrate, or has any problem with integration, it will not
receive E.U. money.
Since September 2007, the Education Integration Network has had
contracts with schools that get integration funding.167 According to the
Network, there is no organized or parliamentary opposition to
integration:
The prime minister supports it and even set up a Round
Table Education program to consult about it. Maybe parlia-
ment does not understand what is going on. They may have
thought it was just another document. After they see that inte-
gration is happening, there may be more debate and
opposition.168
In Budapest, Rumyan Russinov, the Deputy Director of the Roma
Education Fund, assessed the status of regional desegregation:
I wouldn’t say it’s not doing well. In Bulgaria it’s gone from the
bottom up, starting with the people and with the grass roots or-
ganizations. Here in Hungary, it’s gone top to bottom, starting
with the government. . . . Hungary is decentralized. The Roma
are not engaged in Hungary like they are in Bulgaria. There are
no activists. It’s not a disaster here. It’s successful, a good be-
ginning. A good example is Szeged.169
Mr. Russinov had further observations:
Local authorities have more power than the national govern-
ment. They have the right to refuse a policy and money from
the central government. The Catholic Church is a big problem,
playing a very conservative role and putting up barriers to inte-
gration. [It] supports the highest strata and has a lot of influ-
167. Id. at 38.

168. Id. at 39.
169. Id. at 28.
ence. Like the universities, the Church also supports “elite”

schools.170
This statement was echoed by Mr. Czirok, who also pointed out that both
the universities and the Church supported segregated schools out of a
fear that integration would cause them to lose their “elite” status.
Mr. Russinov also explained that:
[A]nother factor is the increase in stratification of society. After
communism, where everyone was more or less middle class,
stratification showed up in schooling. It is much more present
in Hungary than in Bulgaria. What needs to happen here is that
grassroots movements need to be more active, and Roma par-
ents need to be more concerned and motivated and encourage
their children to go to school and do their homework. There
needs to be all three parts: the Roma children, the Roma par-
ents, and the schools, all working together . . . .171
To compound these problems, opening new schools is difficult be-
cause building owners often refuse to rent space to Roma. Nevertheless,
a few schools have sprouted up. One day we visited the Ambedkar
school, a successful charter school (government-funded “private school”)
for approximately fifty Roma between the ages of sixteen and thirty.172 It
is a religious school, maintained by a church. Another school like it is
nearby.
These schools are necessary because many regular high schools still
refuse to take Roma students. Janos Orsos, a Roma head of the commu-
nity Jhai Bhim, provided an example. Janos had called a school about
admitting his nephew, but did not mention that he was Roma. Whom-
ever he spoke to said it was a great school that would be happy to take his
nephew. A few days later Janos went to the school for a meeting. They
asked him who he was and what he wanted. When Janos explained that
he was the man who had called a day or two earlier, the school made
excuses for not being able to take the boy: He was too old, he had to start
at a lower grade, and all the classes were full, etc.173
I asked Mr. Russinov what the white population thought about the
desegregation efforts. According to him, in Bulgaria there is more toler-
ance between the ethnic groups and not as much negativity towards the
Roma as there is in Hungary:
We don’t love each other, but we tolerate each other and can
live together. Forty-six percent don’t want desegregation, but
there isn’t a lot of white flight. There is no love, but a level of
acceptance. You don’t see it in the surveys, but you see it in
reality. Two communities can work together. The stronger the
Roma participation and initiative, the better the results.174
170. Id.
171. Id.
172. Id. at 30.
173. Id.
174. Id. at 29.
I remarked that in the United States, white participation in the civil

rights movement was very important. A powerful part of the Democratic
Party had fought for civil rights. Harry Truman was elected with an over-
whelming percentage of the black vote. Hubert Humphrey (later Vice
President and candidate for President), one of the most influential
Democratic leaders, was a strong civil rights advocate. He responded that
white participation in Hungary is passive. While certain intellectual cir-
cles might discuss and deal with the issues, the main society does not.175
On the printed page, Hungary is second to none in opposing segre-
gation and promoting integration. It has encouraged desegregation
through ministerial guidance and special budgetary allocations. But
when I visited in 2007, I was told that no school district had accepted
desegregation funding that year because of a fear of white flight. Accord-
ing to Lilla Farkas, the principal litigator against school segregation in
Hungary, local governments do not take advantage of central budgetary
funding for desegregation, at least not at the primary school level.176
Furthermore, official reports about desegregation are questionable
because the government has not inspected schools to find out whether
they are segregating. Ms. Farkas believes that the Ministry of Education
sees itself as a rule maker, not as a monitoring or enforcing entity. She
observes that the fundamental difference between the United States and
Eastern Europe is that “we have the legislation on desegregation, but the
state organs fail to enforce or implement it.”177 She believes that the
government acts as though it suffers from a “legitimacy deficit” traceable
to the political changeover from communism.
6. Student Intern Observations. — My 2007 and 2008 visits to Eastern
Europe focused on government officials, Roma rights leaders, scholars,
and some of the few schools that were in the process of desegregating.
The Columbia student interns went to many more schools. Most of those
schools were maintaining the racial status quo, although some were be-
ginning to desegregate at the time.178 The proportion of Roma at the
schools visited by the interns varied from 20% to 99%. A number were
40% Roma. While it would be impossible to detail all the students’ find-
ings here, some conspicuous observations convey the essence of their
reports.
The interns found Budapest’s Deak Diak primary school (405 stu-
dents, 20%–25% disadvantaged, presumably Roma), located in heavily
Roma District VIII, to have been successfully integrated (at least for the
175. Id.
177. Id.
178. Minsun Lee, 2009 Report on Budapest 82, 86 (on file with the Columbia Law
Review). Desegregation was difficult because of persistent opposition. Id. at 87. (noting
desegration was hampered at one school because the principal appeared to be not
personally committed to integration).
present). It was attended by many non-Roma from outside the District

who enrolled under the national free choice plan. The principal was con-
cerned, however, about the tipping point: He believed that Roma enroll-
ment above one-third might lead to white flight.
At Leövey Klára Trade School of Economy (615 students, 20%–30%
Roma), another District VIII school, the student interns found pervasive
intraschool segregation. They attributed this to differing levels of
achievement in primary school as well as the school’s location in a prima-
rily Roma area.
The principal blamed the segregation on both prejudice in the non-
Roma community and Roma traditions and customs. She observed, “on
the one hand they want to integrate but at the same time they want to
preserve their identity.” According to her, a “dilemma . . . emerges from
the Roma way of thinking.” She believed that their desire to integrate
often conflicts with their goal of preserving Roma identity. Still, the
school has made no special efforts to facilitate integration.179
The specter of white flight was said to maintain District VIII Lakatos
Menyhért Elementary School at ninety-nine percent Roma. Community
leaders feared that integration, which would require Roma students to be
shifted to other primary schools in the district, would lead to white flight
from those schools.180
While the interns met faculty and principals who enthusiastically sup-
ported integration,181 the overall picture is mixed: Progress towards inte-
gration is spotty, teachers and school administrators are not universally
behind integration, and the interrelatedness of the racial composition of
neighboring schools would seem to necessitate some sort of centralized
management of integration at the municipal, if not the national, level.
This could point to a role for Roma self-government, but whenever that
subject arose, the reaction was negative.
C. Romania
In July 2007, the Romanian Ministry of Education, Research, and

Youth issued an order “regarding the prevention and elimination of
school segregation of Roma children.”182 In extraordinary detail it de-
scribes and prohibits practices that lead to Roma segregation and dis-
crimination, while also providing means to combat segregation and pro-
mote integration. These few excerpts show its seriousness:
Art. 2 (2) of Annex No. 1 to the Ministerial Order reads:
179. Jennifer Sokoler, 2008 Report on Hungary 98–99 (2008) (on file with the
180. Id. at 106.
181. Id. at 114.
182. Ministerul Educaţiei, Cerceţǎrii si Tineretului, Ordin Nr. 1540 (2007) [Ministry
of Education, Research, and Youth, Order No. 1540], available at http://www.edu.ro/
index.php/articles/8318 (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
School segregation of Roma pupils is the physical separation of

Roma pupils in groups/classes/buildings/schools/other facili-
ties, so that their percentage, out of the total number of pupils
in the school/class/group, is disproportionate in rapport to the
percentage that the school-age Roma children represent out of
the total of the school-age population in the respective territo-
rial-administrative unit.
Art. 3 (3) creates an exception for Roma-language and bilingual
classrooms, stating:
There is no segregation when there are made groups/classes/
schools out of mainly or exclusively Roma pupils with the view of
teaching Romani language or in a bilingual system (e.g.
Romanian-Romany/Hungarian-Romany).183
Art. 5 calls for specific actions to be taken to rectify segregation, such
as:
Forming mixed groups/classes in the preschool, primary and
secondary school. The organisation of mixed classes is
mandatory, starting with school year 2007–2008, for the 1st and
5th grades. For the other classes, the mixed organising is done
progressively.
Art. 6 details enforcement measures explaining that:
The pre-university school units and county school inspectorates
will analyse the cases in which the percentage of Roma children
out of the total of pupils in the school is disproportionate in
rapport to the percentage that school-aged-Roma children re-
present out of the total of school-age population from that terri-
torial-administrative unit and they shall initiate a plan of measures
in view of desegregation. 184
The 2007 Ministry order has been in effect for almost three years. So
far, enforcement has a long way to go. A 2008 survey of school segrega-
tion in Romania by Romani CRISS, the leading Roma rights NGO in
Romania, reported a high incidence of segregation, taking various
forms.185 Without official statistics, as in Hungary and elsewhere, such
183. Section II (3) is the only exception provided by law. It makes clear that “mother
tongue” education (widely used by the Hungarian minority) is not segregation. Id.
184. Id. at Annex 1 (emphasis added). Under this order, persons who consider
themselves discriminated against are entitled to administrative, administrative-judiciary,
and judiciary procedures. NGOs whose objective is to protect human rights, or whose
interest is to fight discrimination, can act as plaintiff if discrimination is manifested in their
field of work and injures a community or a group of people. At the request of a natural
person who has been a victim of discrimination they may also act as a plaintiff.
If an anti-segregation judgment is issued, it can be enforced in accordance with the
general civil or criminal procedural rules. There are, however, no specific procedural
rules for the enforcement of an anti-segregation judgment. There is also no mechanism
for enforcement of a large-scale anti-segregation judgment, although the Ombudsman
would be most suited to pursue remedies reaching beyond individual plaintiffs.
185. Roma are segregated in 67% of the schools in the sample (ninety schools), either
at the school or class level. The 2007 Ministry order is not applied in 63% of the total
number of schools in the sample (seventy-seven schools), in part this is due to the
privately conducted studies are all that we have, but they are sufficient to
demonstrate the pervasiveness of segregation.
Marian Mandache of Romani CRISS says the Order is merely a paper
tiger. According to him:
Romani CRISS has documented tens of segregated schools and
identified patterns of segregation in classes, buildings, schools
and special schools. . . . [S]egregation by school is common and
usually exists when a school is in the vicinity of a compact Roma
community . . . . School buildings that are mainly or exclusively
Roma often are in bad shape, teaching material is outdated,
running water and heating systems are missing or in poor
state . . . . [Q]uality of education is much lower, teachers to a
higher degree [are] unqualified and inexperienced. They
change more often. White flight, the significant distance be-
tween hamlets of the same village, [and] reluctance to close
schools, which would entail firing teachers, are among the obsta-
cles in combating this type of segregation.186
Stop Prejudices Against Ethnic Roma (SPER), a Romanian govern-
mental program, reports that, before adoption of the new order, “25% of
Roma pupils learn[ed] in classrooms with a majority of Roma children,
and 28% learn[ed] in classes [with about] half Roma children . . . . The
remaining 47% learn[ed] in classrooms with a majority of non-Roma.”187
They conclude that the “[p]robability of educational segregation is in-
creased by residence in a poor district and in an ‘unkempt’ neighbor-
hood, but not [merely] by residence in Roma districts or neighborhoods.
It is also increased by urban residence and decreased by household
wealth.”188
ignorance of schools’ staffs. Sixty percent of the segregated schools are located at a
distance between one and three kilometers from schools of similar grade level, meaning
integration would be feasible. Therefore, for most of the segregated schools, isolation of
Roma communities is not the cause of school segregation.
The facilities in all-Roma segregated schools are poor. Eighteen percent of them lack
running water, and 57% don’t have central heating. Additionally, 56% lack specialized
laboratories and 37% are without a school library.
In the segregated schools every fifth teacher is unskilled, and in the schools with
segregated classes of Roma every seventh teacher is unskilled. In the segregated schools
57% of the teachers are commuters.
Every third teacher in the segregated schools and every fifth teacher in the schools
with segregated classes has changed his/her work place during the last school year. The
rate of success of Roma pupils in segregated schools at the capacity exam in the last school
year was 14%. In 28% of the segregated schools, the rate of success at the capacity exam
was 0%.
186. E-mail from Marian Mandache, Attorney, Romani CRISS, to author (July 6,
187. S.P.E.R., Come Closer: Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present-Day
Romanian Society 174 (Gábor Fleck & Cosima Rughiniç eds., 2008), available at http://
www.sper.org.ro/pdf/cercetare/engleza/final_reports/Come_Closer.pdf (on file with the
188. Id.
Dezideriu Gergely, a lawyer at National Council for Combating

Discrimination (NCCD), reports that, notwithstanding widespread segre-
gation and a clear, legal (albeit unenforced) requirement to integrate,
only a few of its cases—approximately three percent—deal with school
segregation. Each of those few cases has been heard before an adminis-
trative body, rather than a court. Mr. Gergely has not seen any segre-
gated schools or classes in Bucharest, but says that does not mean they do
not exist.189
Another difficulty in ending segregation is that, while the vast major-
ity of Roma approve of desegregation, a vocal minority are opposed. This
is particularly true where opposition among non-Roma is strong and
raises fear of violence against Roma children. In at least one case in
which NCCD forced desegregation, both Roma and non-Roma parents
threatened to take their children out of school. NCCD has also encoun-
tered an argument against desegregation not heard elsewhere: Roma stu-
dents need to stay in compact groups in order to perform well.
Even within desegregated schools, the socio-economic status of most
Roma works against them. Many teachers teach sparingly during regular
school sessions and make their best effort as paid tutors after school, a
service that most Roma cannot afford. As with many aspects of Roma
education, no hard numerical measures are available on the extent of this
practice, but it seems to be a significant factor in the academic under-
achievement of Roma students in Romania.
Outside of Bucharest, in big cities like Brashov and small suburbs
like Glina, segregation is much more dramatic.190 The difficulty there is
not merely educational; it involves the complexity of the Roma socio-eco-
nomic situation. When the NCCD tried to desegregate Brashov, for ex-
ample, there was widespread white flight.191 Integration attempts by
189. Jessica’s Notes, supra note 102, at 41–43. One of the NCCD decisions involved R
the town of Cehei. Following is an extract from the reported decision:
There are two buildings that belong to the Cehei School. The main building
hosts grades I–VIII that are exclusively comprised of Romanian children. Since
the beginning of the second semester of academic year 2002–2003 the main
building also hosts grades VII–VIII comprised of Roma children. The annex
building hosts grades V–VI which are comprised of Roma children. This division
in different grades has not been done in accordance with the children’s academic
achievements over the years. The Roma children in classes V–VIII are from Pusta
Valea, Salaj county. Regarding grades I–VIII that comprise Romanian children
from Cehei, the educational staff stated that these grades include a very small
number of Roma children, also from Cehei, who deny being Roma. Educational
facilities in the main building are better than in the annex building. The Board
of Directors Rules: Cehei school will be sanctioned with a warning.
Nat’l Council for Combating Discrimination, Decision No. 218 (June 23, 2003) (on file
191. Id. at 42.
PHARE192 were also unsuccessful. Part of the difficulty comes from the
lack of support from Roma parents.
I met with the National Agency for Roma, or NAR.193 It is a govern-
mental organization, but serves as a dialogue partner with Roma groups
and lobbies on behalf of Roma interests. We discussed integration at
Cetatea de Balta in Alba, where socio-economic forces overwhelmed edu-
cational considerations. The village closed a ghetto school, remodeled
the white school, then put Roma in the white school, resulting in a popu-
lation of about 50 Roma and 200 white students.194 As a result, white
parents threatened to kill Gruia Bumbu, NAR’s President. Teachers were
also upset. The team that administered the desegregation had to talk
with every parent and teacher in order to explain the desegregation pro-
cess and attempt to assuage fears.
The success of the integration at Cetatea de Balta was ephemeral at
best. Although PHARE was able to provide needy children with food and
clothing thanks to =C 50,000 in funding, the financial support quickly
dried up. In less than six months, the team left and stopped funding the
integration efforts. As a result, forty percent of the Roma children left
the integrated school.195
There is also intraschool segregation in Bucharest, but it is hard to
prove. If the school knows a visitor is coming, they hide it. This kind of
deliberate obfuscation is commonplace. The order that outlaws segrega-
tion requires that a school prepare a plan to desegregate, and schools
generally do. But, many schools simply do not implement the plans.196
Similarly, Roma rights workers informed me that many schools have
parallel Roma and non-Roma classes. These classes are mixed just before
an inspector comes to check on integration, and then resegregated
shortly thereafter. Much of the pressure to keep the classes separate
comes from the non-Roma parents.
As to residential segregation, usually there is one big village with
three or four schools, one for grades one through eight, and a few others
in the outer regions of town for grades one through four. Within these
towns, Roma generally live in segregated communities. As a result, dis-
tance frequently makes getting to a good school difficult. Even if busing
were available, access would remain tenuous because the children would
have to wake up much earlier to attend school. There are transport costs
192. Although originally created by the European Union in 1989 as Poland and
Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies (PHARE), it has since expanded
to other countries.
193. I met with Gruia Bumbu, President and State Secretary; Cerasela Banica,
Director; Plebis Florea, expert; Buceanu Mariana, expert; and Daniel Radulescu.
195. A family of five, for example, with both parents unemployed, receives thirty
euros per month in welfare. Children must beg or try to get a job to contribute to family
income.
as well. This problem is magnified in the countryside, where the distance

between communities and schools is greater, but can be fixed by closing
the ghetto schools and replacing them with schools that are geographi-
cally accessible to both Roma and non-Roma students. This remedy, how-
ever, remains unpopular because teachers lose jobs.
Complicating the geographical limits to busing is a unanimous senti-
ment that two-way integration (Roma to non-Roma schools, non-Roma to
Roma schools) would be completely unacceptable.197 (In America, black
children would not participate in one-way integration, which places the
entire burden of travel on them and implicitly disparages black neighbor-
hoods.) This may, in part, be a recognition that the all-Roma schools are
in such a state of disrepair that no students, Roma or not, should be
forced to attend them.
To see an integrated classroom in action, I visited Vilor High School,
a vocational school where students learn how to be a waiter, cook, ven-
dor, etc. Enrollment at the school is open to anyone who lives in
Bucharest. The school’s Roma population is approximately five percent,
nearly mirroring their population in the city. The Roma students who
enroll, however, are there partly as a result of an affirmative action quota
system which reserves twenty-four places for Roma in each grade, ninety-
six places in all (out of a total school population of 1,600 students). One
hundred students study Romany language and Roma history, classes in
which some non-Roma are also interested.
I asked why the class was made up almost exclusively of girls. The
answer was that girls are more open to trying new things. I inquired
whether it is typical to have five percent of the student population made
up of Roma. The vice principal did not think so. He said that many
Roma came to the school specifically because of its vocational training
programs, which appealed to Roma seeking a job directly out of high
school. Roma appear less attracted to regular high schools, in part be-
cause they are poor and need to prepare themselves for employment
more quickly than their non-Roma peers.198
During my discussion with Vilor High School officials about the state
of Roma segregation, there was an interesting colloquy between a school
teacher and the vice principal:
Roma Teacher: I have taught in other schools and seen that
integration is indeed possible. The children eat together, play
together, work together.
Vice Principal: I think that Romania is a place where people
respect the law heavily. I have never seen segregated classes.
And I think and hope it doesn’t happen. [An REF staff member
who was with me then informed her of the reality of segregated
schools.] I don’t believe in the power of words. I believe in
good practices and leading examples. Politicians are all about
197. Id. at 46.

198. Id. at 48.
words, but I am a woman of action. The minority needs to take

steps forward and the majority needs to take bigger steps for-
ward and they need to meet in the middle, both putting in ef-
fort. Otherwise it won’t work. The minority cannot only de-
mand and say “I need . . . you must give me . . . .” [T]hey need to
mobilize and do something themselves.199
I met several times with Leslie Hawke, an American expatriate. Hav-
ing completed a Peace Corps enlistment, she lives in Bucharest, where
she founded Asociatia Ovidiu Rom, a nonprofit which concentrates on
supporting Roma education by raising funds to contribute to the meager
budgets of Roma schools. She also supports publicity campaigns within
Romania designed to combat prejudice and extol the importance of edu-
cation.200 Ms. Hawke has a fundamental disagreement with other Roma
rights groups in that she believes that there is no school segregation of
Roma. Instead, she sees predominately non-Roma and Roma schools as
merely a product of residential segregation. Her assertion is partly true,
but partly a matter of semantics. She would say an all-Roma school is not
segregated even though its students could, without excessive travel, at-
tend a completely non-Roma school. Moreover, her view does not take
account of widely reported intraschool segregation. The remedy she fa-
vors is better education for Roma at the schools they now attend. This
view was widely held in the United States before Brown and remains the
view of some American civil rights advocates today.201
Ovidiu Rom has recently completed a fundraising campaign within
Romania, principally among Romanians and Romanian businesses, for
support of Roma education. Among its activities has been the enlistment
of Romanian and international celebrities to advocate among Roma on
the importance of education.202
I continued my inquiries about Roma activism in order to get a sense
of whether there was more of a religiously-based political movement in
Romania than in other countries. Florin Nasture, an REF staff member,
remarked that there are Pentecostal and Baptist churches. But, accord-
ing to Nasture, there is no community or unity between them or within
them; they are “selfish” organizations.203 As a result, there is no religious
base from which the Roma can organize. Nasture said it is hard to gather
people for a protest. He explained:
199. Id.
200. E-mail from Leslie Hawke, Co-Founder, Ovidiu Rom Ass’n, to author (Aug. 27,
201. See, e.g., Derrick Bell, Dissenting, in What Brown v. Board of Education Should
Have Said 185–200, 205–07 (Jack M. Balkin ed., 2002) (“More important than striking
down Plessy v. Ferguson is the need to reveal its hypocritical underpinnings by requiring its
full enforcement.”).
202. E-mail from Leslie Hawke, Co-founder, Ovidiu Rom Ass’n, to author (Aug. 7,
2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (quoting from Romanian TV guide).
We need an MLK [referring to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.]. We

have no vision and there is a lack of participation. We are con-
tinuously dependent on other people’s willingness to help us.
Plebis [Florea] ran for EU Parliament. She didn’t win. She
thinks that projects can only solve isolated problems and the
real way out of the disaster is to be “upstairs.” That is where the
decisions are made, in parliament. The civil society is nationalis-
tic, or bad. The mentality has to change. This is a long
process.204
D. Bulgaria
In 1999, Bulgaria adopted the Framework Program for Equal
Integration of Roma into Bulgarian Society.205 It stressed the need for
integrated schools, but did not enact or define any concrete measures.
Instead, it merely assigned children to schools within the municipal
school district in which they lived. A child who lived in a Roma commu-
nity would go to a Roma school in that community. As a result, the
framework was ineffective in securing integration and, given residential
segregation, is now largely seen as outdated.206
Today, Roma children in Bulgaria can attend schools some distance
from where they live. This alone offers the possibility of ending school
segregation based on residential segregation, but lack of transportation
and a kind of “family tradition” have kept most Roma students from at-
tending schools outside of their isolated communities.
In 2003, the national government passed a comprehensive law
against discrimination under which the Ministry of Education “shall take
the necessary measures not to allow any racial segregation” in schools.207
The Ministry established national curricula and educational levels and
204. Id.
205. Bulgarian Council of Ministers, Framework Program for Equal Integration of
Roma in Bulgarian Society (1999), available at http://www.ncedi.government.bg/en/
RPRIRBGO-English.htm (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
206. Open Soc’y Inst., Equal Access, supra note 20, at 52. R
207. Law on Protection Against Discrimination, SG 68/2006, ch. 2, § 2, art. 29 (2004),
available at http://www.stopvaw.org/sites/3f6d15f4-c12d-4515-8544-26b7a3a5a41e/up
loads/anti-discrimination_law_en.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review). Under this
law, directors of schools are required to “take effective measures.” The law establishes an
independent Commission for Combating Discrimination. Victims of discrimination may
file complaints before the Commission or a regular court. The Commission may impose
sanctions, and issue recommendations to revoke discriminatory laws. Although some
Roma rights advocates believe the Commission may provide a better forum for vindicating
Roma rights to integrated education, there do not appear to have been any education-
related actions before the Commission.
Other statutes are also potentially available for combating segregation, but none
appear to have been used for that purpose. In 2005, Bulgaria enacted an action plan for
the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015. Republic of Bulg., National Action Plan, Roma
Inclusion Decade 2005–2015 (2005), available at http://ncedi.government.bg/en/
NAP_REPUBLIC%20OF%20BULGARIA.htm (on file with the Columbia Law Review). It
does not provide concrete mechanisms, nor is it binding on the government.
became responsible for ensuring compliance. The Ministry appoints

Regional Inspectorates who, ideally, could help eliminate segregation in
schools they monitor. But, in the summer of 2008, an observer found
that these inspectorates generally ignored school segregation.208 Since
2004, Bulgaria has also had a strong antidiscrimination law that prohibits
direct and indirect discrimination.209 But, again, it appears to lie
dormant.
Injured parties may challenge racial and ethnic discrimination, in-
cluding segregation, in the courts or through a commission, which hears
close to 1,000 cases each year. In October 2005, Romani Baht, the lead-
ing NGO in Bulgaria that promotes school desegregation, won a school
case, European Roma Rights Center v. Ministry of Education & Science, in Sofia
District Court against the Bulgarian Ministry of Education, the Sofia
Municipality, and Sofia School 103.210 The list of sponsors of the case—
Romani Baht, the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), the U.K.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office—is noteworthy for the absence of
the Bulgarian government, a feature made all the more conspicuous in
light of the U.K.’s participation.
Like dozens of similar schools, Sofia School 103 was exclusively
Roma. The court accepted that the segregation had been caused by the
residential segregation of an all-Roma neighborhood, obstacles to enroll-
ment in other schools, and fear of racist abuse by non-Roma children.
Even though none of these factors were directly traceable to actions
taken by the school district, the court held that the defendants had vio-
lated the prohibition of racial segregation and unequal treatment, and
thus had acted contrary to Bulgarian and international law.
In reference to the court’s opinion, Dimitrina Petrova, Executive
Director of the ERRC, said, “After a period of fifty-one years, the soul of
[Brown v. Board of Education] crossed the Atlantic and was reborn in
Europe. For the first time, a civil court in a European country, Bulgaria,
found that separate by coercion means unequal.”211 But the case is more
noteworthy in that it failed to order the desegregation of School 103.
Furthermore, the court did not award damages or plaintiffs’ fees and ex-
penses. In its refusal to order relief, the court’s decision resembles D.H.,
Sampanis, and Ors̆us̆ in the European Court of Human Rights, and the
208. See, e.g., Christopher Wlach, 2008 Report on Bulgaria 22–58 (on file with the
209. See Law on Protection Against Discrimination, supra note 207. R
210. European Roma Rights Ctr. v. Ministry of Educ. & Sci., Case No. 11630/2004
(Sofia Reg’l Ct. July 22, 2005), available at http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu/InfoPortal/
caselawDownloadFile.do?id=9 (on file with the Columbia Law Review). The case was filed by
the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and funded by the United Kingdom Foreign
and Commonwealth Office.
211. Press Release, ERRC, Desegregation Court Victory: ERRC Prevails in Court
Against Bulgarian Ministry of Education on School Segregation of Roma, at http://
www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2411 (last updated Feb. 28, 2006) (on file with the Columbia
Law Review) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Miskolc case in Hungary. Two other Bulgarian lower court cases may fur-
ther discourage Bulgarian Roma from turning to the courts. Both seem
to have been dismissed on somewhat vague and probably pretextual
grounds.212
After the decision, the Ministry of Education renovated School 103,
now said to be one of the “nicest” schools in Bulgaria. The renovations,
however, did not lead to integration. In fact, the court’s opinion, despite
its inspirational language, has had no direct effect on segregation.
When I visited the office of Romani Baht, they reported that some
Bulgarian schools accept Roma students and that those who begin attend-
ing integrated schools in first grade do well. But, those who switch
schools later have problems adjusting. As was the case throughout the
region, older Roma students, having been educated for more years in
inferior institutions, are considerably further behind their peers than
those who have only been educated in higher-quality schools.213
Romani Baht offers bus transportation, paid for by the Roma
Education Fund, to facilitate Roma students’ attendance at integrated
schools. It buys books and school supplies for Roma students in the first
through sixth grades, and offers them breakfast and extracurricular activ-
ities. Since September 2007, the local Sofia municipality has taken re-
sponsibility for Roma inclusion (Romani Baht fought for three years for
this result).
In addition, Romani Baht provides school mediators, usually one or
two per school, who help kids feel more comfortable in class, allay the
fears of Roma and white parents, assist teachers in relating to their stu-
dents, and help Roma children with their homework. The mediators also
keep track of drop-outs, behavior, and grades of all students. They pre-
212. Stefanova v. Blagoevgrad County, Case. No. 20041210100012 (Blagoevgrad Dist.

Ct. Aug. 16, 2004); see also Found. Romani Baht v. Dist. Inspectorate of Educ. to the
Ministry of Educ. & Sci., Case No. 20041210100017 (Blagoevgrad Dist. Ct. Feb. 24, 2005).
In the first case, three parents sued the city of Blagoevgrad for intraschool segregation:
Roma students were housed in one section of the school because they did poorly on a
language test. The court found the plaintiffs had no legal grounds for suit and dismissed
the claims. It ordered the parents to pay defendants’ attorneys’ fees. In the second case,
Romani Baht sued a school and the Ministry of Education alleging segregation and
discrimination. They apparently didn’t allege any specific action that caused the
challenged segregation, only that defendants were responsible for it and had been
discriminating against Roma students. The court dismissed the case, primarily because of
plaintiffs’ failure to state specific actions or non-actions of the defendants, but also on a few
other procedural grounds.
213. Summer schools prepare the Roma children for the relative rigor of the
integrated schools by improving their math and language skills, as well as offering the
opportunity to become accustomed to the necessary discipline.
Romani Baht staff informed me that one-third of Roma drop out of segregated
schools. But the proportion of Roma student drop-outs in integrated schools is less than
the overall drop-out rate of Sofia. Baht staff attributed many of the drop outs to the
schools’ inability to reach Roma students. They said that, to bring about Roma equality,
Bulgaria will have to promote Roma culture, raise self-esteem, and shorten the educational
gap between Roma in integrated schools and Roma in segregated schools.
sent this information to Baht to provide a clear picture of how integration

is running.
Other programs are run by the Center of Integration of the Ministry
of Education. The Ministry finances projects for the purpose of “creating
a multicultural environment.”214 It currently has more than 120 projects:
sports, music, literature, and school mediation, to name a few.
Despite these efforts, school segregation persists, driven in large part
by residential segregation. While white Bulgarians are increasingly mov-
ing to Sofia, Roma remain in outlying villages, leading to all-Roma neigh-
borhoods and schools. Surrounding Sofia, the situation is not much bet-
ter. For example, in Kransnapulian, a suburb of Sofia, there are 601
Roma children in five integrated schools, while 1,300 Roma attend segre-
gated schools.215
Toni Tashev, country facilitator for the Roma Education Fund, and
Krassimir Kanev, chairman of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and
board member of the ERRC, said that, while NGOs actively promote de-
segregation (as in Vidin and other towns) and the official Bulgarian pol-
icy is desegregation, not much is happening. The state and international
donors direct funds to Roma and the government maintains a “Center
for Educational Integration for Ethnic Minorities.” However, it is unclear
how the money for education is actually spent.
Thus far, the focus has been on preschool projects. In Bulgaria, chil-
dren may receive noncompulsory preschool education from ages three
through six. For Roma to succeed in integrated schools, it is important
that they attend preschool, as most non-Roma children do. According to
a 1995 study by the World Bank, only twelve percent of Roma were in
preschool compared to a national average of sixty-five percent.216 One
reason for this difference is that preschool, which incurs expenses for
clothes, transportation, and food, costs more than Roma parents can pay.
Children who miss preschool miss the acculturation that comes with
handling reading and writing materials and interacting in classroom set-
tings. As a result, they lag behind classmates in academic achievement
and become segregated by academic performance. This is exacerbated
by the fact that Roma children are not likely to have parents or siblings
who can help with school work.
Despite the importance of early childhood education and the clear
need among Roma for financial assistance to pay for preschool, the gov-
ernment has limited social welfare payments to eighteen months. In
January 2008, it cut welfare by 11,000 people. Those who are cut also lose
free medical insurance. The policy is based on the belief that cutting
welfare will force people to go to work, but many Roma cannot find work.

215. Data collection on Roma segregation is difficult because many Roma do not
identify themselves as Roma.
216. UNICEF Innocenti Research Ctr., Education for All? 35 (1998).
As a result, many Roma can no longer afford to send their children to

preschool.
It is also difficult for Roma children to attend kindergarten, even
though it is free. In a very poor town, such as Sliven, perhaps fifty of the
1,000 Roma children who should attend are actually able to, partly be-
cause there is not enough space, and partly because of discrimination.
Additionally, in order to attend school, a child must be officially regis-
tered with the government, which requires a verifiable address. This
places a unique burden on the Roma, many of whom do not have a gov-
ernment-recognized address because their communities have been built
illegally. As a result, many Roma children are not officially registered and
so are not allowed to attend school. Some of the barriers to kindergarten
attendance should be alleviated soon, as the government and the World
Bank plan to spend =C 42 million to establish new kindergartens in Roma
and non-Roma communities.217
Christopher Wlach, one of the Columbia law students who spent ten
weeks in Eastern Europe in 2008, visited ten Bulgarian school districts (all
but one of the districts in the country that are desegregating).218 He
reports that Roma children who have enrolled in non-Roma schools are
doing well academically, some exceedingly well. A number are at the top
of their classes. Almost all Roma in desegregated schools are doing bet-
ter than children in all-Roma schools. He also confirms that those stu-
dents integrated into formerly all-white schools at an early age do better
than those integrated after the first or second grade.
Although overall integration is going well, there have been minor
conflicts between Roma and non-Roma parents, and there has been some
anti-Roma discrimination. For example, some teachers have restricted
Roma children’s use of computers. Resistance also comes from the for-
mer all-Roma schools. Because schools are funded on a per pupil basis,
integration’s drain on segregated school enrollment leads to decreases in
funding, which, in turn, provokes opposition from them and some Roma.
With a single exception—the town of Lom—NGO-administered de-
segregation consists of integrating a few Roma students, usually two or
three per class, but occasionally four or five, into formerly all-white
schools. The Roma students are simply withdrawn from the all-Roma
school and sent to a nearby formerly non-Roma school. The NGOs ad-
ministering the programs justify these small numbers with various ratio-
nales, including that more Roma would form cliques, promote intras-
chool segregation, and alarm non-Roma parents who would then
withdraw their children. Additionally, there is fear that poorly prepared
217. World Bank, Report No. 38604-BG, Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed
Loan in the Amount of Euro 40 Million (US $59 Million Equivalent) to the Republic of
Bulgaria for a Social Inclusion Project, Oct. 8, 2008.
218. He visited schools in Vidin, Montana, Lom, Berkovitsa, Pazardzik, Kyustendil,
Sliven, Plovdiv, Stara Zagora, and Sofia.
Roma children will drain teaching resources away from non-Roma stu-
dents and white flight would follow, creating a newly segregated school.
Notwithstanding these arguments for limited desegregation, demand
among Roma for non-segregated education may be reaching a point at
which it cannot be denied much longer. For example, in Plovdiv, around
eighty Roma parents recently sought desegregation for their children,
but only about sixty could be accommodated under the limitations cur-
rently in place. In response to this growing pressure, all but one of the
ten districts Wlach visited are desegregating with assistance and funding
by an NGO. NGOs also provide invaluable assistance by furnishing after-
school sessions to help Roma with their schoolwork.219
With some small exceptions, neither national nor local governments
fund desegregation. The European Union has contributed to perhaps
only one town. Among municipalities, only Lom’s government provides
substantial financial support for integration. A few other governments
have donated gasoline for busing, or promised to donate next year, but
only in Lom is the support significant.
Lom differs from other towns in that one of the non-Roma schools
has 30% Roma enrollment. One of Lom’s Roma schools has 10% non-
Roma enrollment. One hundred and twenty Roma attend the best high
school in Lom and one high quality preschool is half Roma. This excep-
tionalism is perhaps explained by the fact that half of Lom’s population is
Roma and Roma occupy positions in the local government—a fact that
distinguishes Lom’s government from local governments elsewhere in
Bulgaria.
Ryan Keats, a Columbia student who visited Bulgarian schools in
Spring 2009, reported that despite the success of integration in Lom and
elsewhere, many Roma and non-Roma insisted that successful integration
depended on keeping the Roma student population low. Keats also saw
no reason to think that local government would be equipped to take over
from NGOs in the immediate future, and worried that local government
dependence on these organizations might create problems in the future.
He wrote:
The desegregation process and nuanced interaction between
Roma and Non-Roma in Pazardzhik stands as a good sample for
the current situation in Bulgaria, especially in regards to the
NGO based desegregation efforts. While the grass roots deseg-
regation efforts have proven to be the driving factor in Bulgaria,
and have achieved notable gains in a relatively short period of
time, there are striking limitations to their efforts. The current
integration scheme is based around universal agreement that
more than twenty-five percent of Roma in any one class, and
thus any one school, significantly diminishes the benefits of the
integration. The inability to integrate non-Roma into the neigh-
219. See Christopher Wlach, 2008 Report on Bulgaria 34 (2008) (on file with the
Columbia Law Review) (highlighting efforts of Nangle 2000 NGO in Berkovitsa).
borhood schools, the large Roma population in many regions,

and the declining Bulgarian population all paint a grim future
for full integration under this system. Additionally, the NGOs
currently play an invaluable role in the efforts by busing stu-
dents to school and providing supplemental education to over-
come systemic educational limitations. These efforts, lauded by
everyone involved as fundamental to successful integration, are
contingent upon continued funding, which must be frequently
renewed. As a result, the NGOs are becoming a permanent fix-
ture in Bulgaria’s education process. This has worrying implica-
tions about the country’s ability to autonomously integrate its
school system; stronger national legislation, and financial sup-
port from the municipalities themselves seem to be crucial steps
to the future viability and progress of these efforts.220
III. THE LESSONS OF U.S. DESEGREGATION
Similarities between Roma and African American school segregation

suggest consulting U.S. experience, but not uncritically adopting its rem-
edies. We should not assume that United States correctives, which have
not been wholly successful, should be transferred wholesale to Europe.
For example, desegregation in the United States was, at the beginning,
characterized by “all deliberate speed.” It is now crippled by a near im-
penetrable barrier between city and suburb and a recently imposed
Supreme Court prohibition of affirmative action, even when voluntarily
adopted by communities.221 While outside the scope of this report, de-
segregation efforts in the United States could profit by emulating the
Eastern European experience, for example, in using mediators to ease
integration and by not insisting on an unrealistic “state action” require-
ment as a prerequisite for relief.
Desegregation in the United States was challenged from the very mo-
ment the Court ruled in Brown. The “all deliberate speed” formula
(which allowed time only to perform administrative tasks) nominally pro-
hibited delay. But, “massive resistance” reached a near insurrectionary
level, sustaining delay in many guises: interminable litigation, convoluted
transfer procedures, threats of violence, and actual violence. These and
other tactics persisted, despite being denounced from on high, for years.
In response, over a period of approximately fifteen years, the courts tight-
ened the screws, bit by bit, until 1969 when the Supreme Court decided,
in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, that there must be deseg-
regation at once.222 A great deal of desegregation followed rapidly.
220. E-mail from Ryan Keats, student intern, to author (Aug. 11, 2009) (on file with
221. See generally Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S.
701 (2007) (striking down voluntary race-conscious desegregation plans).
222. 396 U.S. 1218, 1220 (1969) (“[T]here is no longer the slightest excuse, reason,
or justification for further postponement of the time when every public school system in
One might have supposed that the sudden and widespread desegre-
gation which Alexander required would stimulate even more opposition.
In fact, opposition to desegregation diminished markedly between 1956
and 1977, even as desegregation increased. In 1956, roughly one in seven
Southern whites supported school integration.223 In 1969, Alexander or-
dered schools to integrate “at once” and there was widespread compli-
ance.224 By 1977, 72.9% of southern whites supported it.225 As Erica
Frankenberg points out:
In the year of the Brown decision, more than four-fifths of
southerners believed the decision was wrong; four decades later,
only 15% still believed the Supreme Court had been wrong. In
1959, 72% of white Southerners objected to even a few black
students in white schools and 83% objected to white children
attending schools that were half black. By 1975, these percent-
ages had fallen to 15% and 38%, respectively.226
The period of sharply increased integration corresponds with more
favorable attitudes among whites about integration. Did integration in-
crease because attitudes towards it were more favorable? Or did attitudes
wax more favorable because there was more integration?
Alexander can be seen as a Supreme Court rebuke to President
Nixon, whose Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare had asked the
courts to postpone deciding whether the defendants were obliged to de-
segregate promptly. Assuming that the President expressed what the
public felt about desegregation at the time of Alexander, it is likely that
Alexander—and compliance with it—influenced public opinion, not the
other way around. The reaction may have been an instance of the nor-
mative power of the actual. In other words, what is, is right.
In Eastern Europe, the relationship between change on the ground
and change in beliefs is not as clear-cut. A 2005 Open Society Institute
survey of attitudes towards the Roma in general and integration in partic-
ular, conducted with focus groups in eight Eastern European countries,
suggests high levels of prejudice, but also some unevenness.227
Attitudes varied from country to country and incorporated some
Roma concern about loss of cultural identity.228 Nevertheless, most
the United States will . . . receiv[e] and teach[ ] students without discrimination on the
basis of their race or color.”).
223. Paul B. Sheatsley, White Attitudes Toward the Negro, Daedalus, Winter 1996, at
217, 220.
224. Alexander, 396 U.S. at 1222.
225. John G. Condran, Changes in White Attitudes Toward Blacks: 1963–1977, Pub.
Opinion Q., Winter 1979, at 463, 463–66.
226. Erica Frankenberg, Chungmei Lee & Gary Orfield, A Multiracial Society with
Segregated Schools: Are We Losing the Dream? 16 (2003), available at http://www.civil
rightsproject.ucla.edu/research/reseg03/AreWeLosingtheDream.pdf (on file with the
Columbia Law Review) (citation omitted and emphasis added).
227. See generally Open Soc’y Inst., Current Attitudes, supra note 32. R
228. Id. at 18–19.
Roma and non-Roma survey respondents guardedly supported Roma in-

tegration, recognizing it as the only sustainable solution to the current
problems facing the Roma.229 But for most non-Roma respondents, inte-
gration implies assimilation, with the Roma adjusting their values, priori-
ties, and behavior (not necessarily culture) to conform to the standards
of mainstream society.230 This implication may be the reason that some
Roma resist full integration and assimilation: They fear that they will be
expected to relinquish their “values, language, and tradition” as well.231
Non-Roma say it is better to have desegregation, but express discom-
fort with the idea of more Roma in their apartment buildings, schools,
and neighborhoods.232 Nobody can know now whether, if there were
widespread and rapid Eastern European desegregation, the response
would be similar to that in the United States: acceptance of the actual as
normative. However, even if there were acceptance, it is unclear whether
desegregation would continue at the same level, or eventually wane as it
did in the United States.
The survey reports that “[d]isdain drives the views that non-Roma
have of Roma”233 and that “[a] few groups (the majority of respondents
from the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, along with some respondents
from other countries) described the Roma as a largely homogenous
group that is completely responsible for its own problems.”234 By con-
trast, “the vast majority expressed more complex and often more con-
flicted views of the Roma and the problems that they face.”235 At the
same time:
The majority of respondents from most countries are ready to
accept the Roma into all areas of their day-to-day lives—from
the schools their children attend to the workplace to their
neighborhoods. Many respondents from Hungary and Slovakia
qualified their support for Roma integration to include only “ac-
ceptable Roma” (primarily those people they already know and
are familiar with in their everyday lives), contrast[ed] to “non-
acceptable Roma” (the traditional nomadic Roma about whom
they consistently expressed fear and distrust) . . . . A notable
exception were respondents from the Czech Republic, many of
whom actively rejected Roma integration, even if continued seg-
regation meant the relegation of the majority of Roma children
229. Id. at 3.
230. Id.
231. Id.
232. Id.
233. Id.
234. Id. at 10.
235. Id. (“Virtually all respondents reported negative associations toward the Roma as
a whole, along with a consistent litany of negative characteristics to describe them.”).
These negative associations include beliefs about hygiene, work ethic, criminality,
dishonesty, aggressiveness, and illiteracy. Id.
into special schools for children with learning disabilities and

Roma workers into menial, low-paying jobs.236
A 2009 poll in Hungary produced almost identical results.237
A. Desegregation in Higher Education

Desegregation in the United States began with higher education and
moved to elementary and high schools after Brown in 1954. It took from
1936 to 1963—a period that included the civil rights movement—until
every Southern state enrolled at least one black student at a white institu-
tion of higher learning. After a successful 1936 suit in Maryland state
court,238 black applicants won cases against all Southern states239 except
Arkansas, which surrendered after threat of suit.
Most integration was uneventful and involved a very small number of
black students. However, in 1956, when Autherine Lucy entered the
University of Alabama under court order, a racist mob drove her from
campus. The school subsequently suspended her and she did not return
for some time.240 In 1962, President Kennedy called out armed forces to
enforce a court order to admit James Meredith to the University of
Mississippi.241 Violent opposition caused two deaths (some called this
the last battle of the Civil War), but Meredith entered and began classes.
He graduated and went to Columbia Law School. In 1963, Governor
George Wallace of Alabama blocked entrance to the University of
Alabama to two black applicants who attempted to enter under court or-
der, but Wallace eventually yielded to federalized National Guard
troops.242 The students enrolled, following which Ms. Lucy enrolled
once more, completed her studies, and graduated, as did her daughter.
236. Id. at 13–14.

237. See MTI, Poll Finds Vast Majority of Hungarians Openly Anti-Roma,
Caboodle.hu, Mar. 6, 2009, at http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/
single_page/article/11/poll_finds_v/?cHash=2e19aba07b (on file with the Columbia Law
Review) (noting eighty percent of Hungarians surveyed were prejudiced against Roma).
238. Pearson v. Murray, 182 A. 590 (Md. 1936).
239. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635–36 (1950) (University of Texas Law School);
McLaurin v. Okla. State Regents of Higher Educ., 339 U.S. 637, 641–42 (1950) (University
of Oklahoma Graduate School of Education); Sipuel v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of
Okla., 332 U.S. 631, 633 (1948) (University of Oklahoma Law School); Missouri ex rel.
Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 352 (1938) (University of Missouri Law School); Pearson,
182 A. at 590 (ordering African American student to be admitted to University of Maryland
Law School). Typically, these cases were followed by others against other divisions of the
universities, or other state institutions, which did not consider themselves bound by the
cited cases. See, e.g., Bruce v. Stilwell, 206 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1953).
240. For a brief telling of Ms. Lucy’s story, see Robert Caro, Autherine Lucy at the
University of Alabama: How the Mob Won, 37 J. Blacks Higher Educ. 124, 124–25 (2002)
(“The university’s trustees reacted by suspending not the rioters but her, ‘for her own
safety’: had they not done so, they said, there was the possibility of a lynching.”).
241. Meredith v. Fair, 328 F.2d 586, 589 (5th Cir. 1962).
242. The students were Vivian Malone and James Hood. See United States v. Wallace,
218 F. Supp. 290, 291 (N.D. Ala. 1963) (“[T]he governor of a sovereign state has no
authority to obstruct or prevent the execution of the lawful orders of a court of the United
The last Southern state yielded in 1963 when Harvey Gantt entered Clem-
son College, a South Carolina state university, under order of the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals.243
By 1963, twenty-seven years had elapsed since the Maryland case—
hardly a history the Roma would want to repeat. Not until the 1970s did
blacks begin enrolling in substantial numbers in southern, formerly all-
white, institutions of higher education. Today, there is substantial inte-
gration among most U.S. colleges and universities, with affirmative action
at most selective schools.244
Desegregation of higher education in the United States illustrates
how the potentially simple task of transitioning a few minority students
into a small number of formerly all-white schools can nevertheless take a
long time. Why? First, prejudice was so strong and deep that no school
agreed to admit its first black student until it was compelled to do so by
judicial decree. To a considerable extent, the prejudice existed outside
the schools, not entirely within them. Those who conducted higher edu-
cation in the South valued the approbation of peer institutions elsewhere
in the country, where opposition to segregation ran high. Those who feel
anti-Roma prejudice concerning elementary and high school education
typically do not seek the approval of elites who disparage such sentiment.
Nor is such sentiment openly expressed.
Furthermore, law suits were limited by the availability of lawyers and
funding. Only one small organization—the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense Fund—was
bringing suits. If there had been others—or if the government had been
behind the effort—the process would have been concluded much earlier.
In 1964, Congress enacted laws prohibiting recipients of federal funds,
including all universities, from discriminating on the basis of race,245 and
enforcement was greater than that currently being experienced in
Eastern Europe.
B. Desegregation in Elementary and High Schools

Lower school desegregation built on the doctrine of the higher edu-
cation cases, particularly Sweatt v. Painter 246 and McLaurin v. Oklahoma.247
In 1955, Brown II set a timetable for desegregating elementary and high
schools.248 It required a “prompt and reasonable start,” allowed time
States.”). They were admitted pursuant to an order in Autherine Lucy’s 1956 case, which
was reopened to address their exclusion. Id.
243. Gantt v. Clemson Agric. Coll. of S.C., 320 F.2d 611 (4th Cir. 1963).
244. For a chronicle of affirmative action’s rise at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, see
generally Jerome Karabel, How Affirmative Action Took Hold at Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton, 48 J. Blacks Higher Educ. 58 (2005).
245. See generally The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241.
246. 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
247. 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
248. 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
only for administrative changes (pupil and teacher assignments, bus

routes, etc.), prohibited delay based on opposition, and concluded with
the famous oxymoronic phrase, “with all deliberate speed.”249 Most
Southern districts ignored everything but “deliberate speed.” While a few
deep Southern districts desegregated promptly, by 1963–1964 “the num-
bers were still minuscule, with only 1.2 percent of blacks attending
schools with whites.”250 And, some of the few districts that integrated
during this period retreated to segregation in the face of racist mobs.251
Both the United States and Eastern Europe began desegregation
gradually. In Eastern Europe, there has been a nearly uniform limit of
two or three Roma per classroom in formerly all-white schools (although
those schools that have been desegregated for some time occasionally
have Roma student populations between twenty and forty percent). In
the United States, while “all deliberate speed” permitted delay only for
administrative reasons, some schools delayed by using “stair step plans”
(integration of one grade at a time, beginning with the first grade and
working up, year by year), which could take ten years to integrate the
entire school. Other districts had minority to majority transfer plans (stu-
dents in a racial minority could transfer out, i.e., whites in a mostly black
school could transfer to a mostly white school; there also might be pres-
sure on minority blacks to transfer). In these instances, administrative
hurdles made the transfer of black students to all-white schools quite dif-
ficult. Still other districts employed freedom of choice plans, under
which students could attend any school in the district that they desired.
Nevertheless, administrative hurdles and community pressures kept these
schools segregated as well. It took more than fifteen years of litigation to
invalidate these schemes.
Many school districts averted integration through pupil assignment:
School districts assigned children to the school they “ordinarily” would
attend, that is, blacks to black schools, and whites to white schools. Al-
though any student might transfer to another school, she would first have
to navigate lengthy and complex administrative procedures. Even then,
transfers were granted rarely. Everyone knew that pupil assignment laws
were adopted not to facilitate desegregation, but to impede it. For years,
the Supreme Court played along with this deception by refusing to review
challenges to these assignment regimes.252
249. Id. at 300–01.

250. Charles T. Clotfelter, After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School
Desegregation 24 (2004).
251. See Jack Greenberg, Crusaders in the Courts 200–01 (1994) [hereinafter
Greenberg, Crusaders] (describing protest mobs in Milford, Delaware and other districts).
252. See, e.g., Covington v. Edwards, 264 F.2d 780 (4th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361
U.S. 840 (1959) (finding proper administrative remedies were not exhausted); Carson v.
Warlick, 238 F.2d 724 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 910 (1957) (same);
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 162 F. Supp. 372 (N.D. Ala.), aff’d, 358 U.S.
101 (1958) (finding pupil placement law offered legal machinery for orderly admission of
qualified students).
Desegregation in the United States was hobbled from the outset by

“massive resistance,” as school districts did not even pretend to comply
with Brown. A Southern “Congressional Manifesto” signed by all but
three Southern congressmen and Senators denounced the Supreme
Court for Brown and other decisions, as did state chief justices and attor-
neys general. State-funded Sovereignty Commissions fought integration
with a wide array of tactics, including newspaper advertisements in the
North. School districts with prejudiced electorates did not desegregate
until compelled. Some communities closed public schools and white par-
ents created private “segregation academies” for their children to attend.
The white community was able to discourage would-be plaintiffs from
challenging these schools by instilling in them a fear of reprisals and vio-
lence, withholding supplies and credit necessary for their livelihood, and
utilizing other forms of intimidation. For many years, no white lawyers in
the South would file desegregation suits.253
Very few black lawyers were in the region; some states only had one.
Because desegregation cases were large, complicated, and expensive,
even those few local lawyers available could not handle them without as-
sistance. A local black lawyer, practicing alone, or with one or two associ-
ates, needed the assistance of the small, not richly funded, NAACP Legal
Defense Fund. (The Department of Justice was not authorized to file de-
segregation suits until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.) Realizing this, state
officials attacked civil rights organizations in an attempt to cut off the
support necessary to bring desegregation cases. State legislatures
harassed civil rights advocates through baseless investigations. Civil rights
lawyers faced disbarment.
Scattered violence attended desegregation in a handful of states, in-
cluding Delaware, Kentucky, and Arkansas,254 where federalized National
Guard protected nine black children at Little Rock High School.255
Border states desegregated more quickly: “By the 1963–1964 school
year, only 7 percent of districts that enrolled both whites and blacks were
still segregated, and more than half of all the region’s blacks in public
253. Michael J. Klarman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights 352 (2004) (“Only an
organization that represented blacks as a group, such as the NAACP, could capture the
benefits, and thus offset the costs, of desegregation litigation. Moreover, few white lawyers
would have dared to take such cases.”).
254. On Delaware, see Greenberg, Crusaders, supra note 251, at 200; on Arkansas, see R
id. at 228–43 (“Soldiers were on the Central High School campus every day to keep the
peace, until . . . the Defense Department removed the army and left the federalized
National Guard in charge.”); on Kentucky, see John M. Trowbridge & Jason Lemay, Sturgis
and Clay: Showdown for Desegregation in Kentucky Education 7–9 (2006), available at
http://kynghistory.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/4AF62952-3762-472D-A52A-D18F8122C5C5/0/
sturgisandclayky1956.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (describing national guard
efforts to restrain anti-segregation mobs).
255. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 1–2 (1958) (“Due to actions by the Legislature
and Governor of the State opposing desegregation, and to threats of mob violence
resulting therefrom, respondents were unable to attend the school until troops were sent
and maintained there by the Federal Government for their protection . . . .”).
schools attended school with whites.”256 To describe a district as no

longer segregated meant only that there was some desegregation, not
necessarily full desegregation. Nevertheless, residential segregation kept
many urban schools mostly or completely black or white.257
In 1969, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education required deseg-
regation “at once.”258 Soon after, civil rights lawyers, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), and the Department of Justice
began enforcing that decision. In 1971, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Board of Education ordered integration by busing and authorized as-
signing children to schools by means of racial quotas.259 Charles
Clotfelter describes what followed as “a breathtaking transformation of
public education in many communities in the South.”260 In 1968, 78% of
black students had attended schools that were 90% or more minority; by
1972 that share had fallen to 25%.261
As more African Americans moved to cities and suburbs became
whiter, busing children across the city-suburb school district line became
the only feasible integration method. However, by this time political re-
sistance to desegregation had led to the appointment of judges hostile to
integration and the courts began wavering in their commitment to Brown.
In 1974, Milliken v. Bradley held that courts may not require desegrega-
tion across school district lines unless there had been an “interdistrict
violation,” which usually meant that adjacent districts had colluded to cre-
ate segregation (something quite difficult to prove).262 As a result, deseg-
regation began to taper off.
C. Social and Political Environment of U.S. Desegregation
One can better understand the development of race relations law by

reflecting on Justice Holmes’s observation: “The life of the law has not
been logic; it has been experience.”263 Brown in large part was a product
256. Clotfelter, supra note 250, at 24–25. R

257. Id. at 27.
258. 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969).
259. 402 U.S. 1, 31–32 (1971).
260. Clotfelter, supra note 250, at 26. R
261. Id.
262. 418 U.S. 717, 752–53 (1974).
263. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law 1 (Boston, Little, Brown & Co.
1881). The remainder of the passage is as follows:
The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories,
intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which
judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the
syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law
embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries, and it
cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of
mathematics.
Id.
of transformations which originated in World War II.264 But the transfor-

mations of that time were different for Roma and African Americans.
That war, and the Soviet domination that followed, disabled the Roma
from then until today. Possibly twenty-five percent of all European Roma
perished during the Holocaust.265 Following defeat of the Nazis, Soviet
domination of Eastern Europe stunted Roma capacity to function in the
market economy that emerged.
The movement towards equality for African Americans in the United
States, on the other hand, has a long history. The foundation of
American civil rights law is the Reconstruction Amendments and civil
rights legislation adopted after the Civil War. In modern times, the end
of World War II was marked by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and a U.S. commitment to fight racism. It was a time of African
American migration from the oppressive South to industrial jobs in the
more egalitarian North. It was during this period that living standards for
African Americans began to increase. In 1940, black males’ wages aver-
aged around 43.3% of white males’ wages. Ten years later, in 1950,
blacks’ wages had increased by over a quarter, averaging 55.2% of whites’
wages.266 In 1940, only 8% of black males had an income above the me-
dian white male income. By 1950, that number had risen to 12%.267 In
that same decade the number of blacks in the middle class rose from 22%
to 50%.268
This time period also saw other important advancements for African
Americans. While they were largely excluded from the ballot box in the
Deep South, elsewhere many became involved in politics. Harry Truman
was elected with an overwhelming portion of the black vote.269 He then
desegregated the armed forces, appointed the first black federal judge,
and issued the Report of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights, a
blueprint for subsequent civil rights legislation that was enacted over the
next two decades. He supported the Brown plaintiffs in the Supreme
Court, which not only implemented the abolitionist-inspired Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments, but also satisfied the needs of American
Cold War foreign policy.270
264. See Jack M. Balkin, Framework Originalism and the Living Constitution, 103 Nw.
U. L. Rev. 549, 575 (2009) (“Brown v. Board of Education responded to changing views about
race following World War II in ways that congress could not until the middle of the
1960s.”).
265. U.S. Holocaust Mem’l Museum, Genocide of European Roma (Gypsies),
1939–1945, in Holocaust Encyclopedia, at http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?
ModuleId=10005219 (last updated May 4, 2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
For estimates of the number of Roma deaths, see supra note 14 and accompanying text. R
266. James P. Smith & Finis R. Welch, Black Economic Progress After Myrdal, 27 J.
Econ. Literature 519, 522 tbl.2 (1989).
267. Id. at 523 tbl.3.
268. Id. at 524 tbl.4.
269. David McCullough, Truman 862 (Touchstone 1993) (1992).
270. See Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American
Democracy 90–91 (2000) (noting that in Brown “the Justice Department argued that
African Americans lived within an environment of supportive institu-

tions. The black church was a home for the NAACP, political groups,
and labor unions. Black churches were linked to one another through
national organizations, such as the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference. These organizations gained strength both from their ties to
the community and the inspirational effect of the Brown decision. Fur-
thermore, the network of black colleges, which Southern states built as a
sop to separate-but-equal, educated black students nonetheless. These
students grew up to become leaders in the movement for racial equality.
When in 1960 black college students demanded service at white-only
lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina, students throughout the
South joined their sit-ins in solidarity. In 1961, Freedom Rides, spon-
sored by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), challenged bus lines
that seated blacks only in the back of the bus. The first ride was sched-
uled to arrive in New Orleans on May 17, Brown’s anniversary. However,
when the bus carrying black Freedom Riders seated in the front seats
reached Montgomery, Alabama, it was attacked by white racists. The lo-
cal police then arrested the Riders. The NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund defended them, as it did the sit-in demonstrators.271
In previous years, such demonstrations had been isolated. In the
1960s, fueled by television, and imbued with the post-World War II spirit
of freedom, they spread like wildfire, attracting recruits from black col-
leges and universities. Large numbers of white students, as well as adults,
joined.
The names and events that shaped this movement are so iconic that
mere mention is enough to grasp what the demonstrators stood for: the
Montgomery bus boycott, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., the March
from Selma to Montgomery, the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (SCLC), the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
(SNCC), Black Panthers, Malcolm X, the NAACP, and the Leadership
Council on Civil Rights.
At the crest of the movement, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both unimaginable five years
earlier. A ready-made network of churches was home to demonstrators.
A powerful wing of the Democratic party, led by Hubert Humphrey—
Vice President under Lyndon Johnson and 1968 Democratic candidate
for President—made civil rights its primary cause. Alexander v. Holmes
crucial national interests were . . . implicated” because “segregation . . . damaged U.S.

prestige abroad and threatened U.S. foreign relations”).
271. The following, in chronological order, are only some of the demonstration cases
decided during this period: Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961); Briscoe v. Louisiana,
368 U.S. 157 (1961); Hoston v. Lousiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961); Edwards v. South Carolina,
372 U.S. 229 (1963); Avent v. North Carolina, 373 U.S. 375 (1963); Shuttlesworth v. City of
Birmingham, 376 U.S. 339 (1964); Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 146 (1964); Robinson
v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153 (1964); Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964); Hamm v. City of
Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964); Blow v. North Carolina, 379 U.S. 684 (1965); Walker v. City
of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967).
County Board of Education followed in 1969.272 An upsurge in integration

then followed.273
Not to be ignored is Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” which
scored political points by building on white resentment at and resistance
to Brown—a force that did not begin to recede until the election of Bill
Clinton. During this period, and often with the support of the Nixon
White House, Supreme Court decisions blocked efforts by civil rights
claimants to obtain racial equality.274
For the Roma, the European Convention and the Race Equality
Directive are similar to the commitment to equality that Brown made in
the United States. But the near absence of implementation signals that
these rights may be abstractions that no one takes too seriously. Consider
the flat response to and lack of tangible change arising out of D.H.,
Sampanis, Hajdúhadház,275 and Miskolc. Time and again, courtroom victo-
ries have not led to tangible desegregation.276
A possible forthcoming shift toward demanding compliance may be
the February 2008 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of
the European Union “on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution
of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights,” which sets forth
in detail recommendations for “timely and effective implementation of
the Court’s judgments.”277 This strongly suggests that the European
Union may be serious about implementing the human rights principles
of the European Convention. We may be at a decisive moment. Or, the
European Union may continue as it has and acquiesce in doing little or
nothing for years to come. The question is whether the European Union
will require desegregation “at once,” or will continue to permit member
states to delay and offer only half-solutions, or no solution, under what
amounts to an “all deliberate speed” regime.
Should the possibility of implementing desegregation judgments be-
come reality, by national decisions or E.U. requirement, the next ques-
272. 396 U.S. 1218 (1969).

273. Clotfelter, supra note 250, at 26 (stating Court’s post-Brown decisions resulted in R
a “breathtaking transformation of public education in many communities in the South”).
274. See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 247 (1991) (concluding that once
a segregated school becomes “unitary,” a desegregation decree directed at it must be
dissolved, and one-race schools which develop are viewed as de facto segregated and may
not be ordered to desegregate); Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 745 (1974) (holding that
schools may not be required to integrate across district lines absent an “interdistrict”
violation).
(May 23, 2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (“[W]e agreed with a few people to
prepare a long term comprehensive desegregation and school improvement plan for the
town . . . . Hajdúhadház of course will never have the funds to fulfill the plan but we would
undertake to help them fund raising from other sources subject they cooperate in
planning.”).
276. See infra notes 278–288 and accompanying text (discussing tepid response to R
legal victories in state and European Union courts).
277. Committee of Ministers Recommendation, supra note 97, at 2. R
tion will be whether sufficient legal resources will exist—e.g., lawyers,

fact-finders, funds—to bring the cases that will win the judgments. Nearly
all the desegregation that has occurred in the United States has been
litigation-initiated, although public administration often took over. The
Department of Education has resources that courts and private litigants
lack. That could be true in Europe as well.
IV. A ROMA RIGHTS MOVEMENT?

National governments have committed to the European Union that
they will integrate, but for almost a decade they have done little but pass
laws that remain unenforced, conduct studies that provide little usable
data, and turn desegregation over to NGOs on an ad hoc basis. Far from
taking the lead, national governments have almost uniformly allowed re-
sponsibility to rest with thousands of municipalities. Even Hungary,
which has adopted financial incentives to support integration, has not
insisted on compliance.
Major initiatives like D.H. have been the work of NGOs. But NGOs
have limited personnel, minimal funds, and almost no power. Their lim-
ited, albeit sometimes successful, history suggests the desirability of pro-
active national government-led programs, in collaboration with NGOs, to
completely desegregate schools in Eastern Europe. Such joint activity
might derive from agreement among nations or an act of the European
Union itself. That will not happen on its own. The same opposition that
resists integration within municipalities would resist it across municipali-
ties. Therefore, something will have to be done to move national govern-
ments to act. Since the pledges to desegregate were made either directly
to the European Union or by the nations to each other through the me-
dium of the European Union, the European Union will likely have to be
that force.
Eastern European nations have a legal obligation to comply with the
Race Equality Directive, and since repeal of the directive is unlikely, in
theory they can be forced to comply. In the few showdowns which have
developed since the European Union admitted nations which segregated
Roma, segregated schools have not obeyed judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights. They haven’t openly defied the law. They sim-
ply have done nothing. The European Union is in a position to compel
active compliance.
As Roma make up an increasingly larger percentage of the popula-
tion, pressure to comply may come not only from the European Union
but also from national interest in economic well-being. The negative eco-
nomic effects of deficient Roma education will be compounded as the
Roma population continues to grow, unless immediate steps are taken to
integrate Roma students into the education system. This reality may be
reason enough to undertake a government-led effort, with NGO support,
to bring about desegregation. But, more likely a politically more telling
demand will be needed.
The missing link for achieving integration appears to be a forceful

Roma rights movement that would play a role like that of the U.S. civil
rights movement. Is it possible that one might occur? Margita
Wagnerová, a Roma woman whom I visited when she was an official in the
Czech Education Ministry, observed: “There is a lack of awareness of the
possibility of taking action. There is no Roma intellectual elite that
knows how to do these things. They don’t know how to effect change. . . .
There is not enough representation of the Roma in the media explaining
what’s really going on.”278 Ms. Wagnerová’s colleague, Mrs. Tichá, added
that the Roma community is not unified.279
I inquired whether there are Roma activist organizations. Ms.
Wagnerová responded that there are a few individual activists, but no or-
ganization with an activist reputation: “In the 1970s there was a Roma
party in parliament, but it died. They were officially dissolved by the min-
istry. There is a government council for Roma community affairs run by
Roma, but they are passive, never fighting for what they want.”280
I asked the same questions of Kumar Vishwanathan, an Indian physi-
cist teaching in the Czech Republic, who is the Director of the NGO
called Life Together. He replied:
The Roma have different ways of expression. Civil activism is
not high; it’s not like America or India. But that doesn’t mean
they like it. When there was the flood and Roma people lost
their homes, the government didn’t do anything. [The
government] just stuck them in little cabins and left. The Roma
then had to rebuild their own houses. There were no protests in
the street, but there was dialogue. The Roma are more similar
to the Native Americans in the United States than to the
blacks.281
Is there Roma political activity? Yes, said Vishwanathan. “It’s hap-
pening slowly. This is a place of law . . . and the Czechs are proud of
being civilized. If it is shown that there is a need for respect of the law, if
the Czechs are accused of being lawless, then they would try to change.”
He believes that for this to happen, “there must be pressure from the
outside.”282 Margita Wagnerová also responded to this question: “There
is a little movement, such as in South Moravia and Ostrava. There is not
enough representation of the Roma in the media explaining what’s really
going on.”283 Another person replied, “The Roma are brainwashed by
the media . . . they are starting to believe and live up to the stereotypes
out there. When a child is told he is stupid, he is going to stop trying,

279. Id.
280. Id. at 5.
281. Id. at 20.
282. Id.
283. Id. at 4.
thinking it’s no use because he is stupid—and then he will end up

stupid.”284
I asked Ivan Veselý, a prominent Roma intellectual and activist in the
Czech Republic about lessons to be learned from the U.S. civil rights
movement: “Sit-ins, bus demonstrations, marches—is there anything like
that among the Roma?” He replied: “I’m waiting for this. There is social
stratification. There are very poor whites that can’t even send their chil-
dren to good schools. But they feel no connection with the Roma. The
whites just don’t care about the Roma, so there can’t be a movement like
in the U.S.” As an example, he stated that, “since 1989 there have been
lots of racist murders, and nobody really noticed.”285
Jiøı́ Kopal, Chair of the League for Human Rights in the Czech
Republic, was equally pessimistic:
Civic organizations or movements are small and dispersed.
There is no proper fundraising and there is a lot of fraud . . . .
There is no support from society . . . . They don’t see why they
should support the cause or why it is important. It is not part of
Czech culture to give money [to NGOs]—it’s a strange concept
to them.
This lack of fundraising makes long-term organizing difficult because, as
Kopal points out, “there is no long-term funding.” To make matters
worse, “there is a lot of fighting between Roma leaders, and no sense of
community.”286
In Hungary, Bernard Rorke, Director of the Roma Participation
Program of OSI, believes that civil society is passive, and it is difficult to
maintain a movement across ten countries. The Roma in different coun-
tries are not connected and there is no singular Roma movement, either
religious—like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference—or oth-
erwise. Rorke noted, “[atheism] is a central doctrine in Hungary, so a
religious approach to Roma problems is not in the cards.”287
I inquired further into the existence of Roma religious movements.
Florin Nasture, an REF staff member in Romania, replied:
There are Pentecostals and Baptists. There is no community/
unity between them or within them. They are selfish organiza-
tions. It is hard to gather people for a protest. How do we get
the young involved? We need a Martin Luther King.288
In the United States, religious, civil rights, political, and advocacy organi-
zations supported what was called the “movement.” The prospects for a
284. Id.
285. Id. at 11.
286. Id. at 15.
287. Id. at 26. Another observer commented that while the population is largely not
church-going, significant parts of society are still religiously active. The right wing often
uses religious rhetoric, and all parties try to be on good terms with the historic churches.
Id.
288. Id. at 44.
movement based on similar foundations in Eastern Europe appear some-

what dim.
A. Religion 289
To obtain effective support of religious institutions, the Roma would
have to overcome the obstacles of national boundaries and languages, as
well as religious divisions within nations. Consider religion in Bulgaria:
83.7% of Bulgarians identify as Christian; around 12.2% identify as
Muslim.290 Most religious Roma in Bulgaria identify as either Eastern
Orthodox (44%) or Muslim (39%); another 15% are Protestant and a
small number identifies as Catholic or Jewish.291 Many Roma in Eastern
Bulgaria have developed a new identity among the Turkish minority.292
Roma evangelical Protestant communities comprise different sects293 and
make up about 15% of the religious Roma in Bulgaria.294 Evangelical
Roma regularly attend religious services, actively proselytize,295 and have
been growing in numbers since the early twentieth century.296 Estimates
of Roma evangelical churches range from 130 to 400, but these are edu-
cated guesses.297 This diversity makes coordination difficult.
Protestant communities “give the Roma a feeling of being accepted,
of being an equal part of the brotherhood.”298 Therefore, one might
suspect that the evangelical churches could offer a strong base for a
Roma civil rights movement. However, unlike in the United States,
where a large portion of the African American community was active in
the church, only a small percentage of Roma are evangelical. Further-
more, the various religious sects are scattered throughout different geo-
graphical regions and often compete with one another.299 In addition, as
one investigator observes, “[w]e encountered the most passive and neg-
lectful ‘lay’ Roma in this group. They expressed complete indifference to
289. For this discussion of the church, I am indebted to assistance from Minsun Lee
and Christopher Wlach.
290. Nat’l Statistical Inst. (Bulg.), Population by Districts and Religion Group as of
March 1, 2001 (2001), available at http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Religion.htm (on file
291. Ilona Tomova, The Gypsies in the Transition Period 25 (1995).
292. Elena Marushiakova & Vesselin Popov, The Relations of Ethnic and Confessional
Consciousness of Gypsies in Bulgaria, 2 Facta Universitatis 81, 86 (1999), available at http:/
/www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=E8B61E44-5B4A-4C54-8C7B-4B56
E64CF5EF (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
293. See Magdalena Slavkova, Roma Pastors in Bulgaria as the Leaders for Roma
Protestant Communities, in Roma Religious Culture 168, 170 (Dragoljub B. –Dordević – ed.,
2003).
294. Tomova, supra note 291, at 25. R
295. Id.
296. See Slavkova, supra note 293, at 168. R
297. See id. at 168–69.
298. Nonka Bogomilova, God of the Social Outcast (the Religion of the Romas in
Bulgaria), in Roma Religious Culture, supra note 293, at 41, 44. R
299. See Slavkova, supra note 293, at 170–71. R
whether they would find work or not, whether their children go to school
or not, and whether they themselves provide for their children or not.”300
Therefore, the church is unlikely to serve as a foundation for a Roma
rights movement.
Some pastors have attempted to unify some of the diverse Roma
churches, focusing on “help[ing] arouse the interest in education among
the Roma families, which would result, in the long run, in Roma partici-
pation in the life of a civil society on equal terms.”301 Nevertheless, for
the Roma churches to mobilize the wider Roma community, they would
likely have to convert substantially more Roma or adopt a more ecumeni-
cal appeal. Given the diversity of beliefs and languages among the Roma,
this is unlikely to happen.
There is scant authority on Roma religion in the Czech Republic.
Expert estimates place the number of Roma in the Czech Republic be-
tween 160,000 and 300,000,302 a small minority of the Czech Republic’s
10.2 million inhabitants.303 Most Roma in the Czech Republic are
Roman Catholic,304 the country’s predominant religion (although a 2001
government census found that the majority of Czechs—over six million—
are “non-denominational”).305 Various Presbyterian missions have
sought to convert Roma.306 There appears to be no data on what per-
centage of Roma identify as Presbyterian or Protestant. It seems unlikely
that these churches could be a base for a nationwide Roma movement.
According to a 2001 census, approximately 76.7% of Hungarians are
Christian, the majority Roman Catholic.307 A small percentage (0.1%) is
Jewish; the remaining are nonreligious or chose not to disclose their re-
ligion for the census.308 The Hungarian Roma—unofficially numbered
300. Tomova, supra note 291, at 25. R

301. Slavkova, supra note 293, at 170. R
302. For the official number, see Czech Statistical Office, Czech Demographic
Handbook 2007, at tbl.1-17 (2008), available at http://www.czso.cz/csu/2008edicniplan.
nsf/engt/24003E05E7/$File/4032080117.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review)
[hereinafter Czech Nationality Statistics]. For a credible estimate of the actual number,
see United Nations Dev. Programme, supra note 16, at 25. R
303. Czech Nationality Statistics, supra note 302. R
304. Jarmila Balazova, Religion Among the Roma, Kavarna, Feb. 26, 2000, reprinted
in Radio Prague, Roma in the Czech Republic, at http://romove.radio.cz/en/article/
18906 (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
305. Czech Nationality Statistics, supra note 302, at tbl.1-19. R
306. See, e.g., Jim Nedelka, Brave Old World, Presbyterian News Service, Oct. 8, 2008,
available at http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2008/08738.htm (on file with the Columbia
Law Review) (noting travels by Presbyterians to “seek new pathways and partnerships . . .
with member congregations”); The Ecumenical Council of Churches, Committee of Roma
People, at http://www.ekumenickarada.cz/erceng/cl22.htm (last visited Mar. 2, 2010) (on
file with the Columbia Law Review) (reporting recent events by Council’s Committee of
Roma People).
307. Hungarian Cent. Statistical Office, Population Census 2001, at tbl.1.26, available
at http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_26.html (last updated
Sept. 29, 2009) (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
308. Id.
at around 600,000 people—make up around 6% of the population.309

Although Hungarian law does not allow ethnic data to be collected with-
out consent, most Hungarian Roma are thought to be Catholic.310
Hungary is also home to evangelical Roma. Various American
Baptist churches have made evangelical missions to convert Hungarian
Roma.311 The Baptist Union of Hungary has twelve Roma churches in
the country,312 though they do not seem focused on promoting Roma
social mobilization.
According to Romania’s 2002 census, an overwhelming majority of
the country’s total population (86.8%) is Eastern Orthodox.313
Protestants make up 7.5% of the population (aggregating denominations
including Pentecostal and Reformate), while 4.7% is Roman Catholic.314
Officially, the Roma in Romania number around 535,000, approximately
2.5% of Romania’s total population.315 However, unofficial estimates
place this number at 1.8–2.5 million, or 8.3–11.5%.316 Among Romanian
Roma, 81.9% identify as Eastern Orthodox, approximately 10.5% as
Protestant, and 3.8% as Roman Catholic.317
The proportion of Protestant Roma may be attributable in part to
various Christian outreach programs. In 1992, following the collapse of
309. István Kemény & Béla Janky, Roma Population of Hungary 1971–2003, in Roma
of Hungary 70, 73 (István Kemény ed., 2007), available at http://www.mtaki.hu/docs/
kemeny_istvan_ed_roma_of_hungary/istvan_kemeny_bela_janky_roma_population_of_
hungary_1971_2003.pdf (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
310. See, e.g., Gypsy Bible Makes Publishing History, BBC News, Mar. 27, 2002, at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/
1884240.stm (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (explaining key role of Catholic
Church in initiatives to educate Roma because “[m]ost Hungarian Roma are Catholics”).
311. See, e.g., Patricia Heys, Gandhi School Provides Rare Educational Opportunity
for Roma Youth, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, June 6, 2008, at http://www.the
fellowship.info/News/Archive/Gandhi-School-provides-rare-educational-opportunit (on
file with the Columbia Law Review) (describing Cooperative Baptist Fellowship partnership
with Gandhi School to provide educational opportunities for Roma); Hungarian Baptist
Aid, North Carolina Baptists Help the Roma Mission in Kárpátalja (Ukraine), Mar. 4, 2003,
at http://english.baptistasegely.hu/node/336 (on file with the Columbia Law Review)
(describing Baptist mission to Hungary); Stocks Report—Ministry Among the Roma, at
http://stocksreportromaministry.blogspot.com/ (last visited Jan. 25, 2010) (on file with
the Columbia Law Review) (describing “life among the Roma (Gypsies) of Hungary serving
as field personnel through the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship”).
312. Daniel Trusiewicz, European Baptist Fed’n, Hungarian Baptists Working Among
the Roma People, May 24, 2006, at http://www.ebf.org/articles/display-article.php?
article=66&cat=imp&lang=eng (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
313. CIA, World Factbook 2009, at 534 (2008).
314. Id.
315. Nat’l Inst. of Statistics (Romania), Census of Population and Dwellings 2002:
Population by Ethnic Groups, Religion and Areas, available at http://www.insse.ro/cms/
files/RPL2002INS/vol5/tables/t20.pdf (last visited Mar. 24, 2010) (on file with the
316. See 2004 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession, Eur. Parl.
Doc. (COM 657) 30, (2004).
317. Nat’l Inst. of Statistics, supra note 315. R
communism, a Baptist church started Project Ruth in Bucharest.318 The

project’s mission is to provide educational opportunities to the Roma
while spreading the practice of the Christian faith.319 Currently the pro-
gram enrolls 180 Roma students and has been officially recognized by the
Romanian Ministry of Education.320 Several evangelical missions focus
on converting Roma,321 and some are Roma-led.322 However, they do
not have the size or focus necessary for sparking nationwide Roma rights
movements.
In summary, among the Roma there is no single church that might
launch or nurture a civil rights movement. In Bulgaria, Roma are divided
mainly between Eastern Orthodox and Muslim. In the Czech Republic
they are mainly Roman Catholic. Three-quarters of Hungarians are
Roman Catholic, while almost eighty percent of the Romanian Roma are
Eastern Orthodox. Evangelicals are not insignificant in number. The va-
rious religious groups are not only divided, they also do not display inter-
est in social reform. While U.S. experience suggests they might take up a
cause in which they believe, they are scattered and, on the whole, do not
appear to be interested in school segregation as an issue.
B. Advocacy Groups
The U.S. civil rights movement would not have succeeded without
civil rights organizations. These organizations built public support for
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They
spurred various administrations into action when law enforcement was
needed. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, Urban League, Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee,
and other groups contributed to the movement’s success. The NAACP
had hundreds of thousands of members, and SCLC and SNCC member-
ship was also substantial. The Leadership Conference consisted of orga-
nizations within and without the civil rights fields (including labor unions
318. Project Ruth, What Is Project Ruth?, at http://www.projectruth.ro/old/

whatis.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2010) (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
319. Id.
320. Id.
321. See, e.g., Carla Wynn Davis, Coop. Baptist Fellowship, Field Personnel Provide
Opportunities to Roma People, Feb. 20, 2008, at http://www.thefellowship.info/News/
Archive/CBF-field-personnel-provide-opportunities-to-perse (on file with the Columbia Law
Review) (describing Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s work with Roma); Tony Peck,
European Baptist Fed’n, The Ministry of Reconciliation, Sept. 25, 2008, at http://
www.ebf.org/general-secretary/ (on file with the Columbia Law Review) (“Hungarian,
Romanian and Czech Baptist Unions are . . . working among the Roma people.”).
322. Fl. Baptist Witness, Roma Reaching Roma Gypsies Key for 10-Million Plus
Worldwide, Apr. 8, 2008, available at http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=8632 (on file
with the Columbia Law Review) (describing attempts by evangelicals to use Roma to help
convert other members of Roma community).
and religious institutions) with large memberships. Today there are

many Roma rights organizations, but none have the size or influence of
any of the U.S. groups.
Gwendolyn Albert, until recently Director of Women’s Initiatives
Network at Peacework Development Fund in Prague, sent me a list of the
organizations in the Czech Republic that are working together to imple-
ment D.H. 323 Most of the Roma organizations that exist are active in Bul-
garia, Hungary, and Romania. None are mass membership organiza-
tions. Roma self-defense groups have also mobilized in response to
skinhead and neo-Nazi depredations.324 Possibly these coalitions might
evolve into a more general and proactive force.
Community organizing could be instrumental in creating a stronger
Roma rights movement in civil society. President Obama was a commu-
nity organizer following his graduation from Columbia College. In
Dreams from My Father 325 he describes his work in Chicago as similar to the
work done by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), founded by Saul
Alinsky.326 Alinsky believed that to end poverty, the poor must be in-
volved in the process. Because the poor are often apathetic and dis-
empowered, a first step is to get them to believe in themselves and their
power to create change. Central to creating this confidence is the com-
munity organizer. IAF now has a network of fifty-nine affiliates in twenty-
one states and Canada.327
323. These organizations included European Roma Rights Centre, an international

public interest law organization (http://www.errc.org/); Amnesty International Czech
Republic; Peacework Development Fund; Step by Step Czech Republic (http://www.
issa.nl/network/czech/czech.html); Open Society Fund Prague (http://www.osf.cz/en/);
DROM (http://www.drom.cz/en/); IQ Roma Servis (http://www.iqrs.cz/verze/en/);
Romodrom (http://www.romodrom.cz/en/home); Czech Helsinki Committee (http://
www.helcom.cz/en/index.php); People in Need (http://www.clovekvtisni.cz/
indexen.php); Life Together (http://kumarvishwanathan2.tripod.com/); League of
Human Rights (http://www.llp.cz/en/); Zvùle práva (http://www.zvuleprava.cz/
?language=en). Nothing in the Czech Republic is comparable to the NAACP. In Romania,
Romani CRISS is probably the closest. The League of Human Rights (LIGA) is more akin
to the ACLU in U.S. terms, but without anything like a mass membership. It is extremely
small. Roma Education Fund, as far as I can tell, is a Soros initiative and quite effective.
Ms. Albert added that, “In my view, the most important Roma NGO in the Czech Republic,
in terms of the number of Roma people it reaches at the grassroots level, is Dz̆eno . . .
People not friendly to the Roma cause would like to cast Mr. Veselý, who runs Dz̆eno, as a
version of Malcolm X, but he is not.” Email from Gwendolyn Albert to author (Feb. 11,
324. See, e.g., Hungary Around the Clock, Roma to Organise Self-defense Group in
Western Hungary, Politics.hu, Feb. 4, 2009, at http://www.politics.hu/20090204/roma-to-
organise-selfdefense-group-in-western-hungary (on file with the Columbia Law Review)
(describing motives and scope of Roma nonviolent self-defense group).
325. Barack Obama, Dreams from My Father 144–63 (1995).
326. I am indebted to Jean Zachariasiewicz for sharing with me her research into Saul
Alinsky and his work.
327. For more information on the IAF, its history, and its activities, see Indus. Areas
Found., About Us, at http://www.industrialareasfoundation.org/iafabout/about.htm (last
visited Mar. 2, 2010) (on file with the Columbia Law Review). Alinsky offered jobs to Obama
But, Alinsky was not working with the Roma or in Eastern Europe.
While the Roma currently lack the organizational drive necessary for a
strong social movement, it is less clear whether the lessons of community
organizing in the United States could be applied in Eastern Europe. It
would require careful consideration and some experimentation to learn
whether an IAF-type program,328 first employed in Chicago in the 1940s,
would be effective in such situations. It is, however, certainly worth a try.
I am not proposing adopting an Alinsky-type program, but merely look-
ing to what he has done as an example of activating a politically inert
community.
C. Politics
In 2006, the U.S.-based National Democratic Institute (NDI) re-
ported: “Sixteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, most citizens in
Central and Eastern Europe have seen steady political and economic
gains. However, the Roma—among the region’s largest minority—re-
main politically marginalized.”329 If Roma were elected to the European
Parliament proportionate to their numbers—perhaps 24 of the 785 mem-
bers—members of the European Parliament from the Roma community
could make their voices heard. Until recently there were two, both from
Hungary; after the June 2009 elections there is now only one, from
Hungary.
In Romania, when I asked about Roma political participation, lead-
ers of the National Association of Roma replied that Roma are not inter-
ested in voting:
They are too poor to care. They think about the rain that’s
coming into their house and what they’re going to eat today.
Roma votes are the easiest votes to buy, with a pack of cigarettes
or some oil or sugar. . . . Common ground must be found; a
minority self-government should be formed.330
Lom, Bulgaria suggests what could be the relation between political
power and desegregation. It is a rare case. A small town, at least half its
population is Roma. Roma hold important positions in government.
The schools are substantially integrated with government support, and
minority self-government plays no role there.
Former Hungarian MEP Viktoria Mohacsi, however, believes that mi-
nority self-government is responsible for Hungary’s pro-integration pol-
icy.331 But others say that Hungary’s support for integration comes from
and Hillary Clinton. Peter Slevin, For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological
Touchstone, Wash. Post, Mar. 25, 2007, at A1.
328. For a description of such programs, see generally Saul D. Alinsky, Community
Analysis and Organization, 46 Am. J. Soc. 797 (1941).
329. Nat’l Democratic Inst., Europe’s Roma Gaining Political Rights, Mar. 21, 2006, at
http://www.accessdemocracy.org/node/14341 (on file with the Columbia Law Review).
331. Id. at 39.
the policies of the political party in power, not minority self-government.

The NDI disparages minority self-government support for integration.
An NDI report asserts that the “MSGs tend to marginalize Romani issues
by depositing them in a parallel, fairly powerless, quasi-governmental
structure rather than addressing them through established governing
bodies. . . . They lack the authority to take action outside of a very limited
scope of issues and function more like NGOs than elected governing
bodies.”332
The similarities between the African American and Roma situations
suggest that one should look at sources of progress for African Americans
as a guide to advance prospects of the Roma. But, Roma cannot rely, as
did U.S. blacks, on the church, political support, and advocacy groups.
The black church, mainly Baptists, existed in every community and
contributed both financially and by offering locations for meetings and
organizing. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the most prominent, but by no
means the only civil rights leader to emerge from the church. The
NAACP has been large and influential. Presidents often address its an-
nual meetings. Civil rights have long been an important part of the polit-
ical platform of the Democratic party. A network of black colleges, estab-
lished to fend off integration of white institutions, while often deficient in
academic offerings nevertheless provided some higher education. The
sit-in demonstrations emerged from black colleges. They were points
around which blacks could and did organize.
Roma have no comparable infrastructure. Moreover, while black un-
employment was up to double that of whites, income around sixty per-
cent that of whites’, and wealth one-tenth that of whites’, blacks neverthe-
less did not suffer anything like communities with total unemployment.
The American legal system possessed tools to effect change, such as
power to issue injunctions and class actions, which remain unavailable in
Eastern European law. Nevertheless, Europe has resources that can be
brought to bear: The European Convention on Human Rights that has
been held expressly to apply to the Roma condition and the European
community has expressed a commitment to Roma equality. Further, the
region must deal with the economic imperative created by the increasing
cost of Roma subordination. There are some small signs of resistance
from among the Roma: eager enrollment in many newly integrated
schools, organizing to implement D.H. in the Czech Republic, mobiliza-
tion to combat neo-Nazi and skin-head depredation, and incipient stir-
ring of Roma political organization in European community elections.
V. SUMMARY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION

School segregation of Roma is widespread throughout Eastern
Europe. They have endured generations of slavery, segregation, and dis-
crimination. The Roma Holocaust, in which perhaps over a million per-
332. Nat’l Democratic Inst., Hungarian Minority System, supra note 154, at 6. R
ished, marked the height of their suffering. Decades of communist domi-

nation contributed to disabling them from learning how to perform
effectively in modern economies.
They are readily stigmatized. They typically have a darker complex-
ion, are disproportionately afflicted by vastly deficient education, ill
health, decrepit housing, high unemployment, and severe prejudice.
Many have turned to begging and crime, which brings them further oblo-
quy. No single improvement can alleviate all these burdens. While edu-
cation, more than anything else, is likely to offer a way out of their situa-
tion, they have been isolated in inferior schools or segregated within
schools also attended by non-Roma. While upon admission of Eastern
European nations to the European Union new treaties prohibited anti-
Roma discrimination, very little has been accomplished to realize their
promise.
In 2007, The European Court of Human Rights held the Czech
Republic in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for
unwarranted extensive segregation of Roma children in schools for the
mentally impaired. But, since 2007, that nation has done little more than
confer about correcting the situation. Another European Court of
Human Rights case, from Greece, also resulted in a favorable ruling for
Roma, but no order requiring integration. Both decisions awarded be-
tween =C 4,000 and =C 6,000 in damages, clearly inadequate to compensate
for having stifled critical years of a child’s education.
Countries of the region have enacted their own legislation prohibit-
ing Roma segregation. Hungary subsidizes and otherwise financially en-
courages integration. But, a recent study of sixty schools there finds that
although integration has been successful where instituted, segregation is
more widespread than in 1992. Romania and Bulgaria have laws prohib-
iting school segregation but next to no enforcement activity. As with the
European Court of Human Rights decisions, domestic court cases
favorable to Roma have never included decrees ordering a cessation of
segregation. Governments have done little more than opine on the ille-
gality of segregation. NGOs have almost always been central to integra-
tion activity, but do not have the resources of national governments and
have rarely had governmental support. There are no central (regional,
national, or European) coordinating authorities that gather information
about segregation or have power to counteract the subversive effects of
white flight.
A small number of non-Roma, including some educators, endorse
and promote nonsegregated education in isolated schools, but they are
few and beleaguered. Forces opposed to segregation appear to be out-
matched by competing influences that support it. Throughout the re-
gion, neo-Nazi and skinhead groups intimidate equal rights efforts by
threatening politicians, Roma citizens, and leadership. Segregation is fa-
cilitated by spatial separation between many Roma and non-Roma com-
munities, even though the distance could be overcome by modest trans-
portation. White flight is a common response even to tentative steps

towards integration, assuring that segregation, once ended, will return
and persist. Inadequate preschool preparation and meager or nonexis-
tent support at home for Roma children, which could be overcome or
compensated by a robust preschool program and after-school supplemen-
tation, set Roma apart from and behind non-Roma when integration
takes place. Civil society among Roma is not very demanding of change;
the small number of Roma rights activists is incapable of moving politics
or society. Nothing among them remotely resembles the U.S. civil rights
movement of the 1960s.
The most important issue for Roma school segregation is how to
move from the current situation to implementation of the law, to move
from segregation and isolation to integration and inclusion.
VI. WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
The European Union must take seriously the importance of swiftly

bringing an end to Roma school segregation. It has exacted promises
from newly-admitted members of its community, pledging that they will
prohibit segregation. To fulfill such pledges will require energetic,
proactive, unambiguous insistence on newly admitted nations fulfilling
their obligations. Some steps may be easy; others difficult. Enforcement
may require tough, controversial political measures. But, it should be
clear that nations which continue to operate segregated schools cannot
fulfill their treaty obligation to desegregate simply by passing authority on
to municipalities and washing their hands of it, perhaps following up with
only conferences and rhetoric.333 If the nations of the Union fail to act,
the results will be the continuation of a slow squandering of Roma lives
and loss of treasure and humanity for all who live in Eastern Europe.
School segregation is but one factor which maintains Roma in their
diminished status. Roma must achieve parity with non-Roma in employ-
ment, housing, health, and civil rights generally. But education is the
most important of these, particularly because it can lead to the others.
To act effectively, Europe first needs information: Where do Roma
live, where do they go to school, what is the ethnicity of students in their
schools and nearby schools, how are they and non-Roma distributed
among classrooms? Because lack of information about ethnicity, which is
concealed from view by national laws and practices, is an impediment to
protecting Roma effectively, the European Union should establish an
Inspectorate General charged with the task of identifying and describing
discrimination and segregation as well as where it exists. This
Inspectorate General should be adequately staffed and funded and given
the charge of identifying segregation across nations and within schools.
National laws which prohibit gathering such information, which were
333. Particular thanks to Lilla Farkas concerning the crucial role of municipalities.
adopted for good reason long ago, should be ignored or overridden by

higher European law.
Where segregation exists, it should cease immediately. Municipali-
ties must furnish transportation to facilitate desegregation and supply
funds to make it possible. That should not be the obligation of NGOs
which often pay for it. For as long as necessary, schools must supply men-
tors or other aides to assist children and their families during the transi-
tion. Desegregation must be treated systemically, not school by school.
Desegregation may not be thwarted by white flight. Therefore, orders
may also be entered to prevent schools from taking in non-Roma who flee
desegregation. This would include not only public schools, but private
and religious schools.
National chief law enforcement officers should treat segregation as a
grave violation of law and give priority to proceedings aimed at ending it.
While it has been debated whether any agency or court, including the
European Court of Human Rights, now has power to issue an order
(comparable to an injunction) that would require officials in charge of a
public school to end segregation, no such order ever has been issued.
The European Union should take steps, legislatively or otherwise, to
make possible issuance of enforceable orders to make meaningful Article
13 of the European Convention of Human Rights which assures that
“[e]veryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are
violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority.”
Private litigation to require desegregation should be encouraged and
government funding made available to facilitate it. While official en-
forcement is often preferable, private litigation is not so susceptible to
political manipulation or frustration. Most of the school segregation liti-
gation in Eastern Europe so far has been privately funded and directed.
While litigation has not yet produced enforced court orders, it does focus
public attention. Nathan Margold, who wrote the planning paper that
suggested the litigation campaign which led to Brown v. Board of Education
perceived that “[its] psychological effect upon Negroes themselves will be
that of stirring the spirit of revolt among them.”334 That might be true in
Europe. One of the most important lessons for the Roma in the Ameri-
can civil rights movement is that a vibrant civil rights movement would be
a highly important addition to the quest for Roma rights.
There must be preschool available for all Roma children, and all
Roma children should enroll. Children who do not attend preschool
start primary grades at a disadvantage and cluster among the least accom-
plished children in their classes—a form of de facto intraschool segrega-
tion, which continues through their school years. A World Bank program
designed to promote preschool among all children in Bulgaria is in the
offing. If it does not materialize, the same end must be advanced some
334. Mark V. Tushnet, NAACP’s Strategy Against Segregated Education 1925–1950, at

15 (1987) (citing Committee Report, May 28, 1930, NAACP Papers, I-C-196).
other way throughout Eastern Europe. Such a program should alleviate

financial obstacles (for transportation, meals, school-suitable clothing,
and the like), the greatest deterrent to Roma enrollment. Recognizing
that some Roma families resist sending their children to school at a very
early age, there must be an outreach program to impress upon them the
importance of preschool. It should allay Roma concerns about loss of
cultural identity.
One final step is vital, something that the Roma themselves, and not
the European community, must do. The Roma must make clear, and do
so forcefully, that they cannot continue to tolerate subordination. After
centuries of subjugation, including slavery, second-class citizenship, eth-
nic cleansing, oppression under communism, and stigmatization in the
modern world, the Roma must launch a movement to claim their free-
dom. The Roma must take steps to cast off their shackles.
These are stern demands, but Europe has dithered long enough with
one of the gravest humanitarian and economic crises of our time.

Columbia Law Review

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Columbia Law Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

\\server05\productn\C\COL\110-4\COL401.

txt unknown Seq: 1 29-APR-10 13:56

COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW

920 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 921

V. SUMMARY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997 R

In 2000, as a condition of admission to the European Union, Eastern

922 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

v. Board of Education, through 1984, a period during which I participated

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 923

regation.5 Three more student researchers visited in 2009. This Report

I. DEMOGRAPHY AND HISTORY

The current socio-economic problems facing the Roma of Eastern

Legends find Roma in Eastern Europe as early as the fourth century,

924 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

about a hundred years ago.”7 This accounts for gaps, or uncertainty, in

7. Hancock, supra note 2, at 145. R

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 925

victory in the Civil War, Congress, through a process known as

926 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 927

Total Roma Population Roma Population

The lack of demographic information often prevents targeted efforts

928 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

C. Social and Economic Conditions

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 929

31. Id. at 94.

930 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

Because Roma are ill-equipped to contribute to the economy in propor-

Cost of Marginalisation, E!Sharp, May 26, 2009, at http://www.esharp.eu/Web-specials/

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 931

noted more articles on the gypsy moth or the gypsy variant of

932 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 933

Within cities, as with the more rural enclaves, segregation is the

934 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

ethnicity found that primary school enrollment rates for Roma

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 935

Further, school segregation throughout the region is widespread,

936 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

E. European Union Law

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 937

ments into domestic law. As a result, both the Framework Convention of

938 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

Eastern European countries joined in a program and declaration called

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 939

67. D.H., 47 Eur. H.R. Rep. 3.

940 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 941

942 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

The mainstream elementary school system remains ill equipped

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 943

944 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

decision by a national Supreme Court dealing with Roma school segrega-

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 945

946 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

tion when southern segregated schools transitioned to “freedom of

II. VISITING THE REGION

101. Green v. County Sch. Bd., 391 U.S. 430 (1968).

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 947

948 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 110:919

110. Id. at 17.

2010] REPORT ON ROMA EDUCATION TODAY 949