Jackson Municipal Separate School District v. Singleton Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1969
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Jackson Municipal Separate School District v. Singleton Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1969. 8bdefad9-b89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0922934d-c9dc-4c56-9103-0ed9452dd8cb/jackson-municipal-separate-school-district-v-singleton-petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-to-the-us-court-of-appeals-for-the-fifth-circuit. Accessed December 04, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1970
No.
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Petitioners,
versus
DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, et al.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE P. HEWES, III
Brunini, Everett, Grantham & Quin
P. O. Box 119
1440 First National Bank Building
Jackson, Mississippi 3S205
ROBERT C. CANNADA
Butler, Snow, O'Mar a, Stevens
& Cannada
700 Petroleum Building
P. O Box 22567
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
IN D E X
O PIN IO N S BELO W ............................................................. 1
JU R ISD IC T IO N ................................... 2
Q U ESTIO N S P R E S E N T E D ................................................ 2
CO NSTITUTION AL PR O V ISIO N INVO LV ED .......... 4
ST A T E M E N T ............................................................................. 4
1. T he S ystem ................................................................ 4
2. S u m m a ry of P ro ceed in g s in th e C ourts
Below ............................................................................ 5
REA SO N S FO R G RA N TIN G TH E W R IT .................. 18
I. The D ecision Below Conflict W ith R u l
ings of This C ourt In T h a t T hey R e jec t
A dm itted ly W orkab le A nd F eas ib le
School P la n s M axim izing D eseg reg a tio n
Solely B ecau se of F a ilu re to A chieve
C erta in S ta tis tic a l R e s u l t s .................................. 19
A. This C ourt H as R ecognized The N eed
F o r F e a s ib le D eseg reg a tio n P la n s . . . . 18
B. The C ourt of A ppeals D ecisions F a il
to R ecognize E d u ca tio n a l, A dm in is
tra t iv e and E conom ic F a c t o r s ..................20
C. N u m eric a l R esu lts A re N ot th e U ni
v e rs a l A nsw er to the C om plex P ro b
lem s of D eseg reg a tio n and Should
N ot D e te rm in e th e C onstitu tionality
of D eseg reg a tio n P la n s ...............................23
D. The Issu es In This C ase D iffer F ro m
T hose In C h arlo tte -M eck lenbu rg and
M obile ................................................................30
IN D E X (C ontinued)
P a g e
II. The C ourt of A ppeals H as O rd ered th e
School D is tr ic t to P ro v id e T ra n s p o r ta
tion S e rv ice W hich is N e ith e r A u thorized
by S ta te L aw N or R eq u ired by th e E q u a l
P ro te c tio n C lause .....................................................32
CONCLUSION ................................................................ 37
A P P E N D IX ............................................................................. l a
O pinion and O rd er of th e D is tr ic t Court, filed
on J a n u a ry 22, 1970 ........................................... 1a.
O pinion of th e C ourt of A ppeals, d a te d M ay 5,
1970, u n r e p o r te d ...................................................... 22a
O rd er of th e C ourt of A ppeals on P e titio n for
R eh ea rin g , d a ted Ju ly 13, 1970, u n re
p o rted ...........................................................................45a
O pinion and O rd er of the D is tr ic t C ourt, filed
Ju n e 15, 1970 ............................................................ 45a
O pinion of th e C ourt of A ppeals, d a ted A ugust
12, 1970, u n re p o rte d ........................................... 72a
II
I l l
TA B LE O F A U T H O R IT IE S
Cases: P a g e
A lex an d e r v. H olm es County B o ard of Educ.,
396 U.S. 19 (1969) ................................................... 5, 24
A llen v. B o ard of P u b lic In s tru c tio n of B ro w ard
County, No. 30,032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18,
1970) ........................................................................ 24, 26, 28
B row n v. B o ard of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955)
(B row n II) ........................................................................ 18
C a rte r v. W est F e lic ia n a P a r is h School Bd., 396
U.S. 290 (1970) ........................................................ 5, 6, 19
D avis v. B o ard of School C om m issioners of
M obile County, No. 436, O.T. 1970 ....................... 30, 31
G reen v. C ounty School B o ard of N ew K en t Coun
ty, 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968) ............................... 19, 20, 23
N o rth c ro ss v. B o ard of E duc. of M em phis, 397
U.S. 232 (1970) ................................................................ 20
P a te v. D ade County School B oard , Nos. 29039 and
29179 i(5th Cir., Aug. 12, 1970) ............................... ... 25
R oss v. E ickels , No. 30080 (5th Cir., Aug. 25, 1970) . . . . 27
S p arro w v. Gill, 304 F.Supp. 86 (M.D. N.C. 1969) . . . . 36
Sw ann v. C h arlo tte -M eck lenbu rg B o ard of Educ.,
No. 281, O.T. 1970 ................................... ................ 30, 32
V alley v. R ap id es P a r is h School B oard , No.
30099 (5th Cir., A ugust 25, 1970) ............................... 26
Statutes:
M iss. Code Ann. §6336-31 (Supp. 1969) .................. 9, 33
IN TH E
S U P R E M E COURT O F T H E U N IT E D STA TES
O CTO BER TE R M , 1970
No.
JACKSON M U N IC IPA L SE P A R A T E
SCHOOL D ISTR IC T, e t al.,
P e titio n e rs ,
v e rsu s
D E R E K JE R O M E SIN G LETO N , e t al.
P E T IT IO N F O R A W R IT OF C E R T IO R A R I TO T H E
U N IT E D STA TES COURT O F A P P E A L S FO R TH E
F IF T H CIRCU IT
P e titio n e rs p ra y th a t a w rit o f c e r t io ra r i issu e to
rev iew th e tw o ju d g m en ts of th e U nited S ta te s C ourt
of A ppeals fo r th e F if th C ircu it e n te re d in th e above
en titled ca se on Miay 5, 1970, an d on A ugust 12, 1970.
P e titio n fo r re h e a rin g of th e fo rm e r ju d g m e n t w as de
n ied on Ju ly 13, 1970.
OPINIONS BELOW
T he op in ions1 of th e co u rts below d irec tly p reced in g
th e p e titio n a re as follows:
’Earlier proceedings in the case are reported as Evers v. Jack-
son Municipal Separate School Dist., 348 F. 2nd 729 (5th Cir.
1965); Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist.,
355 F. 2nd 865 (5th Cir. 1966); and Singleton v. Jackson Munic
ipal Separate School Dist., 419 F. 2nd 1211 (1969), rev’d in
part sub nom., Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 396
U. S. 290 (1970).
2
1. O pinion and o rd e r of the D is tr ic t C ourt,
filed on J a n u a ry 22, 1970, u n re p o rte d ( la ) .
2. O pinion of th e C ourt of A ppeals, d a ted M ay
5, 1970, u n re p o rte d (22a).
3. O rd er of th e C ourt of A ppeals on p e titio n
fo r re h e a rin g d a ted Ju ly 13, 1970, u n re p o r t
ed (45a).
4. O pinion a n d o rd e r of th e D is tr ic t C ourt,
filed Ju n e 15, 1970, u n re p o rte d (47a).
5. O pinion of th e C ourt of A ppeals, d a ted A u
g ust 12, 1970, u n re p o rte d (72a).
JURISDICTION
The o rd e r of th e C ourt of A ppeals on p e titio n fo r
re h e a r in g w as e n te re d on Ju ly 13, 1970 (45a). The
ju risd ic tio n of th is C ourt is invoked u n d e r 28 U.S.C.
§1254(1).
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
U pon re q u e s t from th e co u rts below, th e U n ited
S ta te s D e p a rtm e n t of H ealth , E d u ca tio n and W elfare
developed p lan s to d e se g re g a te th e pub lic schools in
Jack so n , M ississippi. T he H E W p la n fo r e le m e n ta ry
schoo ls ad m itted ly w as ed u ca tio n a lly sound w hile
ach iev ing a h igh d eg ree of deseg reg a tio n . T h a t p lan
3
Was adop ted by th e D is tr ic t C ourt a f te r a fu ll ev iden
t ia ry h ea rin g , an d n e ith e r p a r ty appea led . W hile con
sid erin g an ap p e a l involv ing seco n d ary schools, th e
U n ited S ta te s C ourt of A ppeals fo r th e F if th C ircu it,
on its own m otion, su m m a rily re je c te d th e e le m e n ta ry
school p lan . The ca se w as re m a n d e d fo r fu r th e r h e a r
in g and th e fo rm u la tio n of a n ad d itio n a l p la n or p lan s
w ith th e a ss is ta n c e of a co u rt appo in ted b i-ra c ia l com
m ittee . The b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee developed a p la n b ased
upon th e o rig in a l H EW plan . The b i- ra c ia l co m m ittee
plan, w as ap p ro v ed by th e D is tr ic t Court, with, m od ifi
ca tions . A gain , th e C ourt o f A ppeals re je c te d th e D is
t r i c t C ourt ap p ro v ed p la n b eca u se it did, no t p ro d u ce
“on p a p e r” c e r ta in a rb it ra r i ly fo rm u la te d s ta t is t ic a l
re su lts .
The f ir s t question p re se n te d to th is C ourt is w h e th er
th e co n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n t of a u n ita ry school sy s
te m is to be m e a su re d by a rb i t r a ry n u m e ric a l re su lts ,
w ithou t re g a rd to ed u ca tio n a l soundness a n d fea s ib ility
as d e te rm in e d by th e D is tr ic t C ourt w ith th e co n cu r
re n c e of H EW and th e p a rtie s .
The C ourt of A ppeals re q u ire d th e School D is tr ic t
to adop t a m a jo r ity to; m in o rity t r a n s fe r ru le an d to
fu rn ish tra n sp o r ta tio n to a ll t ra n s fe r r in g s tu d en ts
w here th e s a m e w as req u es ted . T he School D is tr ic t
h a s no au th o rity to p rov ide in tra -c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n
ex cep t in v e ry lim ited c irc u m sta n c e s on a te m p o ra ry
b asis . T here h as been no eq u a l p ro tec tio n v io la tion
in th e m a tte r of p rov id ing in fra -c ity tra n sp o rta tio n .
The School D is tr ic t h a s n e v e r p rov ided in tra -c ity t r a n s
portation, to an y studen ts.
4
T he second question p re se n te d to th is C ourt is w heth-
th e School D is tr ic t can be re q u ire d to p rov ide t r a n s
p o rta tio n w hich it is n o t au th o rized to do by s ta tu te ,
w hen obviously th e re h a s b een no d isc rim in a tio n .
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED
This ca se involves th e E q u a l P ro te c tio n C lause of
th e F o u rte e n th A m en d m en t to th e C onstitu tion of th e
U n ited S ta tes .
STATEMENT
1. The System
The Ja c k so n M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tr ic t is
th e la rg e s t school sy s te m in M ississippi. I t se rv es th e
C ity of J a c k so n and c e r ta in contiguous a re a s ou tside
th e m u n ic ip a l lim its. T o ta l e le m e n ta ry school en ro ll
m en t a t th e beg inn ing of th e 1969-70 school y e a r w as
20,959 pupils, consisting of 10,527 N egro s tu d en ts and
10,432 w hite s tuden ts. R a c ia l p e rc e n ta g e s w ere 50%
N egro an d 50% w hite s tuden ts. The d is tr ic t o p e ra ted
38 e le m e n ta ry schools.
T o ta l e le m e n ta ry school en ro llm en t fo r th e 1970-71
(School y e a r is 16,650. T h ere a re 10,484 N eg ro s tu d en ts
o r 63% of th e to ta l and 6,166 w hite s tu d en ts or 37%
of th e to ta l. The d is tr ic t is o p e ra tin g 37 e le m e n ta ry
schools.
5
2. Summary of Proceedings in the Courts Below
T his d e seg reg a tio n ac tion b eg an in 1963. V arious p a r
tie s h a v e in te rv en ed in th e succeed in g y e a rs . The c u r
r e n t p h ase of th e litig a tio n b eg an follow ing th is C o u rt’s
decisions in A lexander v. H olm es County Board
of E duc ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969), an d Carter v. W est Felici
ana Parish School Bd., 396 U.S. 290 (1970).
On D ecem b er 1, 1969, th e C ourt of A ppeals issu ed
a m a n d a te req u ir in g adoption of a u n ita ry d e se g re g a
tion plan. P u rsu a n t to th e m a n d a te , th e D is tr ic t C ourt
re q u e s te d th e a s s is ta n c e of th e O ffice of E d u ca tio n
of th e U n ited S ta te s D e p a rtm e n t of H ealth , E d u ca tio n
and W elfare in p re p a r in g new p lans. C ollection of d a ta
by th e school d is tr ic t b eg an on D ecem b er 8, 1969 an d
on D ecem b er 15, 1969, a te a m of n ine H EW ed u ca to rs
and school a d m in is tra to rs b eg an w ork ing on a l te rn a
tiv e p la n s .2 A fte r 22 days of c o n c e n tra te d s tu d y m a rk e d
by close coopera tion be tw een th e H EW te a m and school
d is tr ic t personnel, a sing le e le m e n ta ry p lan and th re e
a lte rn a tiv e seco n d a ry p lan s w ere devised. The H EW
seco n d ary p lans, d en o m in a ted P la n “A ”, P la n “B ”,
an d P la n “C”, w ere b ased on m odified geo g rap h ic zon
in g and w ere filed in th e D is tr ic t C ourt on J a n u a ry
6, 1970. The H EW s ta ff h ad an tic ip a te d th a t th e p lan
w ould be a f in a l p lan effective w ith th e school te rm
beg inn ing S ep tem b er, 1970, and th a t th e school d is tr ic t
s ta ff would h av e eigh t m o n th s to p re p a re fo r its im ple-
2Four members of the team, including Dr. Herbert Larry Wine-
coff, the leader, were from the School Desegregation Consult
ing Center at the University of South Carolina, established un
der Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Five members
were from Mississippi State University.
6
m en ta tio n . H ow ever, th is C ourt w ith in a few d a y s3 o r
d e red th e im m ed ia te im plem entation , of new d e se g re
gation p lans.
The D is tr ic t C ourt o rd e re d a h e a r in g on J a n u a ry
19, 1970 to co nsider th e v a rio u s p lan s and on th a t day
th e school d is tr ic t su b m itted m od ifica tions to bo th th e
H EW e le m e n ta ry p la n and th e H EW seco n d a ry p lans.
Follow ing th e tw o-day h ea rin g , on J a n u a ry 22, 1970,
th e D is tr ic t C ourt e n te re d its O rd er P ro v id in g fo r U ni
ta ry School S y stem ( la ) .
The J a n u a ry 22,1970, o rd e r adop ted th e H EW e lem en
ta ry p lan . I t recogn ized sev en fa c to rs con sid ered by
th e H EW te a m a s p rev en tin g to ta l d eseg reg a tio n of
ev e ry school in th e sy stem : (1) s ta te law s re s tr ic tin g
tra n s p o r ta tio n o f s tu d e n ts w ith in th e sy stem ; (2) size
of d is tr ic t in re la tio n to loca tion of schools; (3) n a tu ra l
and m a n m a d e b a r r ie r s re s tr ic tin g s tu d en t m obility ;
(4) d em o g rap h ic p a tte rn ; (5) a tte m p ts to an tic ip a te
and e lim in a te re se g re g a tio n p a tte rn s ; (6) la ck of com
p u lso ry a tte n d a n c e lav/; and (7) n e c e ss ity of im m ed i
a te im p lem en ta tio n of th e p la n (3a). The o rd e r
sp ec ifica lly no ted th a t th e la ck of to ta l d eseg reg a tio n
in th e e le m e n ta ry schools w as th e re s u lt of th e lim ited
m ob ility of th e y ounger pupils and of th e fa c t th a t
th e sm a lle r e le m e n ta ry geo g rap h ic zones w ere n ece s
sa r ily con tro lled by housing p a tte rn s . B ecau se th e H EW
pup il a ss ig n m en ts exceeded e le m e n ta ry school c a p a c i
tie s in c e r ta in cases , s e v e ra l m od ifica tions w ere o rd e r
ed. The o rd e r also m odified th e H EW seco n d a ry school
3Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, supra, which was de
cided on January 14, 1970.
7
p lan . B oth p lan s w ere re q u ire d to he im p lem en ted on
o r a f te r F e b ru a ry 1, 1970, for th e sp rin g te rm .
P la in tiffs appea led , and th e U n ited S ta te s filed an
am icus curiae m e m o ran d u m in th e C ourt of A ppeals.
N either party challenged the e lem entary school plan.
P la in tif fs ’ f ir s t b rie f ob jec ted to th e ju n io r-sen io r h igh
school p la n in ligh t of th e a lte rn a tiv e H E W proposa ls ,
a ll of w hich th e y en d o rsed as ed u ca tio n a lly sound w hile
ach iev in g a g re a te r d eg ree of deseg reg a tio n . The b rie f
spec ifica lly s ta ted , “N or does th e in s ta n t ap p ea l ra is e
an y issu e re g a rd in g th e 5 a ll-N egro an d 6 all-w hite
e le m e n ta ry schools re su ltin g fro m th e H EW p la n of
d eseg reg a tio n .”4 D efen d an t school d is tr ic t’s b rie f
m e re ly a rg u e d in su p p o rt of th e D is tr ic t C ourt’s sec
o n d a ry school plan. In th e ir rep ly b rief, p la in tiffs ag a in
did not question th e H EW e le m e n ta ry school p lan . In
deed, th e conclud ing p a ra g ra p h s ta ted , “R a re ly h as
th is C ourt b een confron ted w ith H EW p lans as ca re fu lly
p re p a re d as those fo r Jack so n . . . . T hey should be
e n te re d in th is school c a se .”8 A s im ila r o b serv a tio n
w as m a d e in th e m em orandum , of th e U n ited S ta tes,
filed on M arch 18,1970:
The D e p a rtm e n t of H ealth , E d u ca tio n and
W elfare p re se n te d a p lan , w ith v a rio u s a l te r
n a tiv e options, w hich b e a rs th e f irm im p rin t
ABrief for Appellants in the Court of Appeals, p. 11, dated Febru
ary 28, 1970. One of the plaintiffs’ objections to the junior-
senior high plan involved the Isable-Hill complex, which had
served grades 1-6 and 10-12. They desired implementation
of HEW Plan “B,” which would change the complex to serve
grades 1-5 and 9-10. This was their only complaint with re
gard to the elementary plan.
sReply Brief in the Court of Appeals, p. 15-16, dated March 9, 1970.
8
of c a re fu l ed u ca tio n a l ju d g m en ts . The p la n em
bodied th e reco m m en d a tio n s of H E W ’s ed u c a
tio n a l e x p e rts on ho>w th e c ity o f J a c k so n m ig h t
m ax im ize d eseg reg a tio n in w ays b o th ed u ca
tionally sound an d a d m in is tra tiv e ly feas ib le .6
On M arch 24, 1970, a f te r th e fo rego ing b rie fs h a d
Deen sub m itted , th e C lerk o f th e C ourt of A ppeals di
re c te d counsel fo r th e p a r tie s to resp o n d to c e r ta in
questions p ropounded by th e C ourt. One of th e questions
sough t co m m en t on th e e ffec t of n a tu ra l an d m a n -m a d e
b a r r ie r s as lim ita tio n s on th e d evelopm en t of p lans,
and counsel w ere in s tru c te d to a g re e on th e n u m b e r
of such b a r r ie r s and th e ex ten t th e y re su lte d in v a ry in g
eq u a l d is tan ce zone lines. In addition , th e school d is tr ic t
w as d irec ted to fu rn ish en ro llm en t f ig u res , “includ ing
e le m e n ta ry schools.”
The school d is tr ic t responded , in su b stan ce , th a t
s in ce th e b as ic p lan s su b m itted a t th e J a n u a ry h e a r in g
w ere dev ised by HEW , it h ad no w ay of know ing w h at
b a r r ie r s w ere con sid ered n o r th e ir effect on zone lines.
I t a lso s ta te d th a t th e p lan s adop ted w ere no t eq u a l
d is tan ce zoning p la n s .7 P la in tiffs in te rp re te d the
C le rk ’s le tte r to m e a n th a t th e C ourt of A ppeals in
ten d ed to rev iew th e e le m e n ta ry p lan , and, fo r th e
f ir s t tim e, th e y ex p re ssed a v ag u e d issa tis fa c tio n w ith
sMemorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae in the Court
of Appeals, p. 6, dated March 18, 1970.
7Memorandum Submitted Pursuant to Letter of Edward W. Wads
worth, Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Dated
March 24, 1970, in the Court of Appeals, p. 3, dated March 27,
1970; Plaintiffs Response to Letter Directive of March 24, 1970,
in the Court of Appeals, p. 2, dated March 27, 1970; see foot
note 4 to Court of Appeals opinion of May 5, 1970 (25a).
9
th e n u m b e r of n o n -in teg ra te d e le m e n ta ry schools.
P la in tiffs conceded, how ever, th a t in o rd e r su b s ta n tia l
ly to ch an g e th e p lan , “a m u ch b ro a d e r re c o rd a t the
t r i a l c o u rt leve l should be d ev e lo p ed ”.® T he in q u iry
fro m th e C lerk of th e C ourt of A ppeals also in s tru c te d
counsel to fu rn ish th e C ourt copies o f s ta te s ta tu te s
re s tr ic tin g tra n sp o r ta tio n of s tu d en ts w hich w ere r e
fe r re d to in th e H E W p la n as p re v e n tin g to ta l d e se g re
g a tion of th e sy stem . C om m ent on th e co n stitu tio n a lity
of th e s ta tu te s w as req u es ted . B oth p a r tie s ag reed ,
an d s ta te d to th e Court, th a t th e only s ta tu te co n ferrin g
au th o rity on th e d is tr ic t fo r in tra -c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n
w as M iss. Code Ann. §6336-31 (Supp. 1969). The school
d is tr ic t’s a sse rtio n th a t it h a d n e v e r fu rn ish ed in t r a
c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n u n d e r th e s ta tu te w as no t con tro
v e rte d . P la in tiffs and d efen d an t d is tr ic t ag re e d th a t
th e re w as no co n stitu tio n a l in firm ity in th e t r a n s p o r ta
tion s ta tu te s .* 9
On M ay 5, 1970, th e C ourt of A ppeals re v e rse d th e
D is tr ic t C ourt o rd e r (22a). W ith re g a rd to th e
e le m e n ta ry school p lan , th e C ourt f ir s t no ted th a t p ro
je c te d re su lts u n d e r th e H EW p la n h a d no t been a-
chieved. R a th e r th a n re su ltin g in five all-w hite and
six a ll-b lack schools, th e H EW p la n in fa c t h a d p ro
duced six all-w hite and seven a ll-b lack schools (27a).
E n ro llm e n t on M arch 26, 1970, show ed 9,217 w hite
aPlaintiffs Response to Letter Directive of March 24, 1970, in the
Court of Appeals, p. 13, dated March 27, 1970.
9Memorandum Submitted Pursuant to Letter of Edward W. Wads
worth, Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Dated
March 14, 1970, in the Court of Appeals, p. 3, dated March 27,
1970; Plaintiffs Response to Letter Directive of March 24, 1970,
in the Court of Appeals, p. 2, dated March 27, 1970; see footnote
4 to Court of Appeals Opinion of May 5, 1970 (25a).
10
s tu d en ts or 1,200 less th a n th e p ro je c te d fig u re on w hich
the H EW e le m e n ta ry p la n w as b ased (40a).
W hile recogn iz ing th a t p la in tiffs did n o t ex p ress ly
challen g e th e e le m e n ta ry p lan , th e C ourt fe lt its r e
sponsib ility ex ten d ed to “th e o v e ra ll w orkings of th e
sy stem — all a sp ec ts of th e e le m e n ta ry and seco n d a ry
leve ls .” (27a) B ecau se “a su b s ta n tia l n u m b e r of
N egro s tu d en ts will re ce iv e th e ir en tire pub lic school
edu ca tio n in a se g re g a te d school en v iro n m en t” w hen
avo idab le by “read ily av a ilab le m e a n s ,” th e sy s tem
w as no t u n ita ry (30a). The C ourt o rd e red im p le
m e n ta tio n of one of th e av a ilab le H EW p lan s for th e
seco n d ary level, and th e D is tr ic t C ourt w as in s tru c te d
to in itia te p roceed ings for a u n ita ry e le m e n ta ry p la n
and to call for new p ro p o sa ls fro m th e p a rtie s , HEW ,
and a b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee to be e s tab lish ed p u rsu a n t
to th e C ourt of A ppeals m a n d a te (33a). The sole
guideline fu rn ish ed fo r th e p re p a ra tio n of th e new e le
m e n ta ry p lan s w as th e c ry p tic s ta te m e n t: “I t is ev i
den t th a t the fa c to rs d e lin ea ted by th e H EW p lan s as
re a so n s for n o t m o re fu lly d e seg reg a tin g th e e lem en
ta ry level can n o t ju s tify th is con tinued seg reg a tio n .”
(34a) The C ourt of A ppeals acknow ledged th a t
th e H EW p la n n e rs w ere re s tr ic te d by s ta te law lim ita
tions on in tra -c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n b u t o th e rw ise did no t
d iscuss th e tra n sp o r ta tio n question . As noted , th e C ourt
of A ppeals o rd e red th e e s ta b lish m e n t of a b i-ra c ia l
co m m ittee and also th e adoption of a m a jo r ity to m i
n o rity t r a n s fe r ru le w ith th e p rov is io n th a t “a ll t r a n s
fe r r in g s tu d en ts m u s t be g iven tra n s p o r ta tio n if th e y
d es ire it.” (32a, 35a).
11
P u rsu a n t to th e o rd e r of th e C ourt of A ppeals, H E W
and th e b i-ra c ia l c o m m ittee filed n ew e le m e n ta ry
school p lan s w ith th e D is tr ic t Court. The b i-ra c ia l com
m itte e p la n w as u n an im o u sly ad o p ted by th e s ix N egro
and six w hite m e m b e rs o f th e co m m ittee . The school
d is tr ic t u rg ed con tinuation of th e cou rt-im p o sed J a n u
a r y 22, 1970 p lan , w ith a m in o r m odifica tion , an d also
su p p o rted th e b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee p lan . P la in tiffs of
fe re d no p lan , b u t did p ropose su b s ta n tia l m od ifica tions
to th e J a n u a ry H EW plan . The b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee
p la n w as b a se d on th e J a n u a ry H EW p la n and con
ta in e d m odifica tions designed to in c re a se in te g ra tio n
in th e e le m e n ta ry schools.
A tw o-day h e a r in g b eg an on Ju n e 8, 1970. D r. H e rb e rt
L a r ry W inecoff, who h ad h ead e d th e H EW te a m in
D ecem b er and J a n u a ry , te s tif ie d th a t a ten m e m b e r
te a m sp en t th re e days in J a c k so n d ev isin g th e new
H EW e le m e n ta ry p la n [T ra n sc r ip t of Ju n e 8, 1970,
h ea rin g , p. 34], H e ad m itte d th a t lack of tim e p rev en ted
th e fo rm u la tio n of a co m p reh en siv e and ed u ca tio n a lly
sound plan.:
Q So th a t your reco m m en d a tio n h e re is based
e ssen tia lly upon n u m b e rs th a t you [w ere]
supp lied fro m th e a d m in is tra tiv e office an d
th is w as e ssen tia lly w h at you a tte m p te d to
do w as ju s t to g e t n u m b e rs and p u t th em
in v a rio u s school bu ild ings, isn ’t th is co r
rec t?
A Y es, sir. [Tr. p. 92]
Q This is th e point. B as ica lly w hat I ’m try in g
to say , Dr. W inecoff, is th a t y o u r ex am in a-
12
tion h e re w as lim ited to ju s t th e n u m b e rs
and you d idn’t, a s you said , you d idn’t ta lk
to co m m u n ity le a d e rs , you d idn’t ta lk to
school p rin c ip a ls , you d idn ’t ta lk to an y
body abou t th e o p e ra tio n s of th e schools
and so fo r th an d you only v is ited th e tw o
schools.
A T h a t’s co rrec t.
Q A nd by th e sa m e to k en you d idn’t ch eck
into th e fin an c in g of th e city o r th e f in a n c
ing of th e school d is tr ic t o r as to how it
w ould be fin an ced or how it w ould be h a n
dled, did you?
A No, sir.
Q T hese w ere p ro b lem s th a t you d idn’t check
in to or look in to a t all?
A T h a t’s c o rre c t, p a r tly by th e tim e p re s
su re . [Tr. p.100]
Q Now, as I u n d e rs ta n d b as ica lly , D r. W ine-
coff, you fe lt th a t th e p la n you p rop o sed fo r
th e e le m e n ta ry schools b a c k a t th e beg in
n ing of th is s e m e s te r w as a u n ita ry school
sy s tem itse lf, isn ’t th a t c o rrec t?
A W ell, we m a d e th e s ta te m e n t th a t th e to ta l
co m p reh en siv e p lan one th ro u g h tw elve we
fe lt w as, yes sir.
Q A nd you s till do, don’t you?
A Y es, sir.
Q Now, bu t th a t u n d e r th is C ourt o rd e r
y ou ’ve been o rd e red to do som eth ing m o re
w ith re fe ren c e to e lem en ta ry ?
13
A T h a t’s co rrec t.
Q A nd th is is th e w ay th a t you’ve ap p ro ac h ed
it?
A Y es, sir. [Tr. p. 100-101]
D r. W inecoff unequ ivocally te s tif ied th a t th e new H EW
e le m e n ta ry p la n a ssu m e d th e a v a ilab ility of in tra -c ity
tra n sp o rta tio n :
Q So th a t you r w hole p lan re a lly in so fa r as
th is p a r tic u la r p la n now u n d e r co n s id e ra
tio n is co n ce rn ed is re a lly b a sed upon th e
av a ilab ility of tra n sp o r ta tio n in tra -c ity a t
pub lic expense?
A Y es, sir.
Q A nd if th a t tra n sp o r ta tio n w ere no t a v a il
ab le th en I p re su m e th a t th is p la n th a t you
a re su g g estin g would no t be y o u r re c o m
m e n d ed p lan?
A No, th e im p lem en ta tio n would be d ifficu lt
w ithou t tra n sp o r ta tio n p rovided .
Q So e ssen tia lly if you d idn’t h av e tra n s p o r
ta tio n you don’t th in k th is w ould be a good
p lan , do you?
A No, sir.
Q A nd you re a lly w ouldn’t reco m m en d it?
A No, sir. [Tr. p. 101-102]
F in a lly , g iven th e u n a v a ilab ility of in tra -c ity tra n s p o r
ta tio n , Dr. W inecoff endo rsed th e b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee
e le m e n ta ry p lan :
14
Q So th a t — assu m in g th a t to th e philosophy
of th e B i-ra c ia l C om m ittee , o r le t’s us a s
su m e as a h y p o th e tica l questio n th a t th a t is
th e la w and th is is w h a t th e C ourt w ill hold,
w h a t is y o u r o b se rv a tio n w ith re fe re n c e to
th e reco m m en d a tio n s of th e B i-R ac ia l
C om m ittee?
A If in tra -c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n w ere no t to be
p rov ided th e n th e p ro p o sa l of th e B i-rac ia l
C om m ittee w hich is m ax im iz in g tr a n s p o r
ta tio n b ased on our o rig in a l J a n u a ry p lan ,
is p ro b ab ly abou t as good a n a p p ro a c h as
possib le.
Q A nd by m ax im iz in g you m e a n w hich m a x i
m izes in teg ra tio n ?
A Y es, sir.
Q In o th e r w ords, w h a t you’re say in g as I
u n d e rs ta n d it is th a t th e B i-ra c ia l C om m it
te e h a s ta k e n th e tra n sp o r ta tio n th a t is p e r
m itte d by law an d h a s u sed th a t to m a x i
m ize in te g ra tio n in th e schools th ro u g h o u t
th is d is tr ic t?
A Y es, sir. [Tr. p. 103]
P la in tif fs ’ m od ifica tion to th e H EW e le m e n ta ry p la n
sough t to in te g ra te all e le m e n ta ry schools “by th e p a ir
in g of e le m e n ta ry schools w hich a r e lo c a ted not n e c e s
s a r i ly in th e sa m e tra d itio n a lly d escrib ed n e ig h b o r
hoods bu t in re a so n a b ly close p ro x im ity .”10
In its o rd e r of Ju n e 15, 1970, th e D is tr ic t C ourt found
th a t in th e ab sen ce of in tra -c ity tra n sp o rta tio n , th e
tQReply Brief in the Court of Appeals, p. 9, dated July 18, 1970.
15
H E W p lan , as conceded by D r. W inecoff, w as unw ork
a b le (55a). The C ourt also found th a t “th e p ro p o sa ls
of H EW as ad d ed to by p la in tiffs a re n o t educa tio n a lly ,
a d m in is tra tiv e ly , econom ica lly o r p ra c tic a lly fe a s i
b le .” (60a) I n adop ting th e b i-ra c ia l c o m m itte e ’s p lan ,
th e C ourt no ted :
T hese p ro p o sa ls e lim in a te to ta l seg reg a tio n
fro m all of th e w hite schools, im p ro v e th e de
g ree of m ix tu re in m ost, an d le av e five to ta lly
b la c k schools a ll in th e h eav ily co n g ested b lack
com m unity . D esp ite th is la s t, th e se p ro p o sa ls
w ill re su lt in m o re in te g ra te d schools th a n an y
p roposed p la n befo re th is Court. I t is add ition
ally no ted th a t w h ere H EW ass ig n m e n ts w ould
h av e o v e rta x ed th e c a p a c ity of 14 schools, w ith
tw o add itio n a lly o v e rta x e d u n d e r p la in tiffs ’
p roposa ls , un d er th e p re se n t p lan as m odified
by th e co m m ittee and th e C ourt th e o v e r-a s
s ig n m en ts a re red u ce d considerab ly . W ith th e
add ition of th e m a jo r ity to m in o rity t r a n s fe r
policy, an d th e follow ing a ss ig n m e n t changes
o ffered by th e C ourt, add itio n al u n ita ry s te p s
w ill h av e b een tak en . (62a).
P la in tiffs ag a in appea led . T hey u rg e d th e C ourt of
A ppeals to re je c t th e school d is tr ic t’s ob jections to in
tra -c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n and th e re b y to im p le m e n t th e ir
p lan . T hey s tro n g ly c ritic ized th e new H E W p ro p o sa l
fo r p e rm ittin g se v e ra l se g re g a te d schools to con tinue
to ex is t."
"Reply Brief in the Court of Appeals, dated July 18, 1970.
16
O n A ugust 12, 1970,, th e C ourt of A ppeals h e ld th a t
th e e le m e n ta ry p la n w as “u n a c c e p ta b le ” b e c a u se “a p
p ro x im a te ly 70% of the N egro e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts w ill
b e in a ll (o r su b s ta n tia lly all) N egro e le m e n ta ry
schools.” (75a). T he C ourt, how ever, h a s te n e d to
s ta te , “We ex p re ss ly d isc la im any in tim a tio n th a t r a
c ia l b a lan ce is th e s ta n d a rd by w hich we d e te rm in e
th e a c c ep tab ility of v a rio u s d e seg reg a tio n p la n s .” (75a).
T he p la n w as also found w an tin g in th a t “som e
s tu d en ts w ill likely h av e an ed u ca tio n in p re d o m in a te ly
N eg ro schools th ro u g h o u t th e ir school life .” (76a).
B o th th e H EW p lan ( “a su b s ta n tia l im p ro v e m e n t”)
and p la in tiffs ’ m od ifica tions of th e H EW p la n (“an even
g r e a te r im p ro v e m e n t”) w ere endorsed , bu t th e C ourt
re fu sed to ad d re ss itse lf to th e in tra -c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n
assu m p tio n upon w hich eac h re s ted :
T h ere w as m u ch d iscussion in th e b rie fs th a t
u n d e r th is ty p e of “c lu s te r in g ” it w ill be n ece s
s a ry fo r th e School D is tr ic t to p rov ide in tra -c ity
tra n s p o r ta tio n fo r th e p lan s to be effective. B u t
we do not re a c h th is since th e chan g es w e m a n
d a te p e rsu a d e us th a t th e re is a v a r ie ty of w ays
to im p ro v e th e resu lt. (79a).
B ecau se “th e re c o rd is in a d e q u a te ,” th e C ourt did no t
u n d e rta k e to specify “th e fu ll fo rm ” of a d e seg reg a tio n
p la n . (79a). H ow ever, “ so m eth in g m u s t be done
now ,” since “over 70% of th e N egro e le m e n ta ry s tu
den ts a re to re m a in in su b s tan tia lly a ll N egro schools
du ring th e tim e th e case u n dergoes m o re com plete
ex p lo ra tio n ”. (79a). The Ju n e 15, 1970, D is tr ic t C ourt
p la n w as th e n o rd e red to be m odified by th e p a irin g
17
of tw elv e schools an d th e g roup ing o r c lu s te rin g
of th re e schools. The in ten d ed “in te r im ” re su lt w as
th a t “th e p e rc e n ta g e of N egroes in su b s ta n tia lly a ll
N egro schools w ill be red u ced fro m o ver 70% to abou t
20%.” (80a). A D is tr ic t C ourt h e a r in g w as o rd e red
to b eg in n o t la te r th a n S ep te m b er 25, 1970, to con
s id e r ch an g es and m odifica tions to th e p la n fo r im p le
m e n ta tio n a t m id -y ear. The C ourt re lu c ta n tly conclud
ed:
Of course, th e ch an g es th a t w ill com e as a r e
su lt of th e m od ifica tions we now specify and
from, th e N o vem ber [S ep tem ber?] o rd e r now
ca lled fo r w ill cau se m id y e a r d isrup tions, p u
p il re a s s ig n m e n ts and th e like. B ut on b a lance ,
th is is le ss costly th a n a con tinued loss of r ig h ts
of a la rg e n u m b e r of s tu d en ts (81a).
In an tic ip a tio n of th e S ep te m b er 25, 1970, hearing,,
th e D is tr ic t C ourt e n te re d an O rd er to C anvass Ja c k -
son M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tr ic t E n ro llm en t on
S ep te m b er 11, 1970, d irec tin g th e school d is tric t, am ong
o th e r th ings, to- fu rn ish a re p o rt show ing “th e c u rre n t
ra c ia l en ro llm en t a t eac h school in th e sy stem .” T he
c a n v a ss re v e a le d th e follow ing e le m e n ta ry school en
ro llm en ts and ra c ia l p e rc e n ta g e s as of S ep tem b er 18,
1970:
T o ta l e le m e n ta ry en ro llm en t .......... 16,650
N egro e le m e n ta ry en ro llm en t .......... 10,484 or 63%
W hite e le m e n ta ry en ro llm en t .......... 6,166 or 37%
N u m b er of e le m e n ta ry schoo ls .............. 37
18
N u m b er of a ll or su b s ta n tia lly
a ll N egro e le m e n ta ry schools . . . . 9
N u m b er of N egro e le m e n ta ry
s tu d en ts a tten d in g all or
v ir tu a lly all N egro schools .............. 5,190
P e rc e n ta g e of N egro e le m e n ta ry
s tu d en ts a tten d in g a ll or
su b s ta n tia lly a ll N egro schools . . . . 49%
S ubsequen tly , on m otion of th e p a r tie s , th e C ourt of
A ppeals ex tended to O ctober 15, 1970, th e d a te fo r th e
h e a r in g on a new e le m e n ta ry school p lan .
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
I
The Decisions Below Conflict With Rulings of This
Court In That They Reject Admittedly Workable
And Feasible School Plans Maximizing Desegrega
tion Solely Because Of Failure To Achieve Certain
Statistical Results
A. This Court Has Recognized The N eed For
Feasible D esegregation Plans.
This C ourt h a s co n sis ten tly reco g n ized th a t th e d is
position of d e seg reg a tio n ca se s invo lves a v a r ie ty of
lo ca l p ro b lem s an d is no t su scep tib le of any fixed ru le
a p p ro p r ia te in ev e ry case. In Brow n v. Board of Educ.,
349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955) (Brown I I) , th e C ourt s ta te d
th a t “ [f]u ll im p lem en ta tio n of th e se co n stitu tio n a l p r in
cip les m a y re q u ire so lu tion of v a r ie d lo ca l school p rob-
19
Jem s.” L a te r ca se s h av e co n tinually em p h asized th e
m u ltip lic ity of ind iv id u al considera tions:
T h ere is no u n iv e rsa l an sw er to com plex p ro b
lem s of d eseg reg a tio n ; th e re is obviously no
one p la n th a t w ill do th e job in ev e ry case. The
m a t te r m u s t be a sse sse d in lig h t of th e c irc u m
s ta n c e s p re se n t an d th e options av a ila b le in
eac h in stan ce .
G reen v. County School Board of New K ent County,
391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968). W hile im p le m e n ta tio n of d e
seg reg a tio n p lan s m a y no longer be d e lay ed o r g rad u a l,
th e w o rk ab ility of th e p la n in ligh t of th e v a ry in g p ro b
lem s of ind iv idual school d is tr ic ts n e v e rth e le ss m u s t
be considered . See Carter v. W est Feliciana Parish
School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970) (H arlan , J., and W hite,
J., co n cu rrin g ).
E v a lu a tio n of d e seg reg a tio n p la n s m u s t p r im a r ily
be th e resp o n sib ility of th e d is tr ic t cou rts , th e equ ity
pow ers of w hich a re th e in s tru m e n ts to e s tab lish un i
ta ry sy stem s. This C ourt h a s so held:
T he ob ligation of th e d is tr ic t courts , a s i t a l
w ays h a s been, is to a sse ss th e e ffec tiveness
of a p rop o sed p lan in ach iev in g d eseg regation .
. . I t is in cu m b en t upon th e d is tr ic t co u rt to
w eigh [the school b o a rd ’s] c la im in ligh t of the
fa c ts a t h an d and in ligh t of an y a lte rn a tiv e s
w hich m a y be show n as feasib le and m o re
p ro m is in g in th e ir e ffectiveness. ,
20
G reen v. County School Board of N ew K en t County,
supra a t 439. M oreover, th e C ourt h a s re c e n tly he ld
th a t find ings by d is tr ic t co u rts as to w h e th e r school
sy s te m s a re u n ita ry , if su p p o rted by su b s ta n tia l ev i
dence, c a n no t be d is tu rb ed by c o u rts of appea l. See
N orthcross v. Board of Educ. of M em phis, 397 U.S.
232 (1970).
The decision below no t only fa ils to recogn ize th a t
convers ion of each d u a l sy s te m to a u n ita ry one is
a u n iq u e p rob lem , bu t a lso effec tive ly s tr ip s th e d is
t r i c t c o u rt of its du ties an d re sp o n sib ilitie s in th e con
v e rs io n p ro cess and d ep riv es th e p a r tie s to th e litig a
tio n of th e ir due p ro cess rig h t to an e v id en tia ry h ea rin g .
T he in ten d ed re su lts of th e C ourt of A ppeals p la n a re
n o t ach ieved , th e school system , is fu r th e r w eak en ed
by a n o th e r costly d isrup tion , an d both p la in tiffs an d
d e fen d an ts a re fo rced to com ply w ith a p lan w ith w hich
n e ith e r is sa tisfied .
B. The Court of Appeals Decisions Fail to
Recognize Educational, A dm in istra tive
and Econom ic Factors.
The e le m e n ta ry school p lan s o rd e red im p lem en ted
by th e D is tr ic t C ourt bo th in th e J a n u a ry 22, 1970 ( la ) ,
and th e Ju n e 15, 1970 (47a), o rd e rs w ere sligh tly
m od ified v e rs io n s of a b as ic H EW plan . T h a t b as ic
p la n w as p re p a re d over a p erio d of tw en ty -tw o days
in D ecem b er and J a n u a ry by a te a m of te n ed u ca to rs
an d a d m in is tra to rs w ork ing in “close co o p era tio n ”’2
i2This is plaintiffs’ term. Brief for Appellants in the Court of
Appeals, p. 5, dated March 2, 1970.
2 1
w ith school d is tr ic t officials. I t is u n d isp u ted th a t a ll
fa c to rs re la tiv e to th e deve lo p m en t of a sound p la n
w ere th o rough ly in v estig a ted , understood , an d con
sidered . T he D is tr ic t C ourt in th e J a n u a ry o rd e r a p
p ro v ed m in o r m od ifica tions re q u e s te d by th e school
d is tr ic t to th e H EW e le m e n ta ry p la n to c o r re c t s tu d en t
a s s ig n m e n ts to' c e r ta in schools in excess of cap ac ity .
F u r th e r m od ifica tions to th e1 sa m e b asic H EW e lem en
ta ry p lan w ere m a d e by th e b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee in
o rd e r to in c re a se d e seg reg a tio n of tra d itio n a lly N egro
schools and w ere ap p ro v ed by th e D is tr ic t C ourt in
th e Ju n e o rder. T he o rig in a l ed u ca tio n a l soundness and
a d m in is tra tiv e an d econom ic feas ib ility of th e p lan ,
how ever, w ere no t com prom ised .
The second H EW plan , p re p a re d a s re q u ire d by th e
C ourt of A ppeals opinion and o rd e r of M ay 5, 1970,
w as, a t best, m e re fo rm a l com p lian ce w ith th e o rder.
D r. W inecoff te s tif ied th a t th e te a m sp en t only th re e
days in th e school d is tr ic t — M ay 27, 28, and 29'3
— and th a t la ck of tim e lim ited develo p m en t of th e
new p la n to “n u m b e rs ” and “schools”, i.e., a ss ig n in g
th e p ro je c te d e le m e n ta ry en ro llm en t to p a r tic u la r ele
m e n ta ry schools. M ost im p o rtan tly , he fo rth rig h tly a d
m itte d th a t th e new H EW p lan re q u ire d in tra -c ity t r a n s
p o rta tio n fo r im p lem en ta tio n and would not be a “good
p la n ” w ithou t it. A bsen t in tra -c ity tra n sp o rta tio n , Dr.
W inecoff en d o rsed th e b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee p la n
as “p ro b ab ly ab o u t as good an ap p ro ac h as possib le .”
,3Two days later, on June 1, 1970, the plan was filed in the District
Court. Transcript of June 8, 1970 hearing, p. 35.
22
D esp ite th e len g th y an d c o n c e n tra te d e ffo rt of school
d is tr ic t and H EW officials in D ecem b er and J a n u a ry
to dev ise a w ork ab le p lan , desp ite th e u n eq u iv o ca l en
d o rsem en t of th e p la n by th e H E W te a m le a d e r as
be ing “as good an a p p ro a c h as po ssib le” a b se n t in t r a
c ity tra n sp o rta tio n , an d desp ite th e good fa ith e ffo rts
of bo th th e school d is tr ic t and th e D is tr ic t C ourt to
com ply w ith co n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n ts , th e C ourt of
A ppeals h a s tw ice su m m a rily re je c te d th e u n ita ry
p la n s ap p ro v ed by th e D is tr ic t Court. W hy? The m a jo r
reaso n , no doubt, w as th a t th e p lan s d id not p a s s th e
C o u rt’s ob jective an d in flex ib le “p e rc e n ta g e ” te st,
w hich w ill be t r e a te d below. The m in o r reaso n s , n e v e r
fu lly exp lained , a p p e a r to be tw o: “th e fa c to rs deline
a te d by th e H EW p lan s as re a so n s fo r no t m o re fu lly
d e seg reg a tin g th e e le m e n ta ry lev e l c an n o t ju s tify th is
con tinued se g re g a tio n ” and “a su b s ta n tia l n u m b e r of
N egro stu d en ts w ill re ce iv e th e i r en tire public school
educa tio n in a se g re g a te d school en v iro n m en t.” (34a,
30a) W hether th e la t te r ob jection is v a lid is questio n
a b le in lig h t of th e fa c t th a t th e Ju n e o rd e rs of th e D is
t r ic t C ourt p rov ided fo r H EW p lan s in b o th th e e lem en
ta ry and th e seco n d ary schools spec ifica lly dev ised to
p re v e n t th is v e ry o ccu rren ce . M oreover, Dr. W inecoff,
a n e x p e rt in th e field, te rm e d the J a n u a ry H EW p lan “a
to ta l co m p re h en siv e p lan one th ro u g h tw elv e .”
T he c r it ic a l e r ro r c o m m itted by th e C ourt of A p
p ea ls , how ever, w as its su m m a ry d ism issa l of “th e
fa c to rs d e lin ea ted b y th e H E W p la n s a s re a so n s fo r
no t m o re fu lly d e seg reg a tin g th e e le m e n ta ry leve l.”
(34a) F o r th is s ta te m e n t is ta n ta m o u n t to say in g
th a t “th e c irc u m sta n c e s p re se n t and th e options a v a il
23
ab le in e a c h in s ta n c e ”, Green v. County School Board
of N ew K ent County, supra a t 439, a re s im p ly n o t to
be co n sid ered or a re of no! im p o rta n c e w h e re any a-
m o u n t of con tinued seg reg a tio n ex ists. This C ourt h as
n e v e r so b land ly tr e a te d “th e com plex p ro b lem s of
d e seg reg a tio n .” Green v. County School Board of New
K ent County, supra. Only rece n tly , th e n e c e ss ity fo r
“w o rk ab le” d eseg reg a tio n p lan s h a s b een no ted by th is
Court. Carter v. W est Feliciana Parish School Board,
396 U.S. 290 (1970) (H arlan , J., and W hite, J., con
c u rr in g ) .
T he H EW p la n n e rs and school d is tr ic t s ta ff who de
v ised th e e le m e n ta ry p la n sough t to acc o m m o d a te th e
co n stitu tio n a l im p e ra tiv e of th e F o u r te e n th A m end
m e n t to an ex istin g school sy stem . T he in g red ien ts
of th e p lan w ere rea l-life studen ts, facu lty , a d m in is tra
tion, bu ild ings, tra n sp o rta tio n , and m oney, a ll of w hich
h a d to be u tilized by th e p la n n e rs to ach ieve a c e r ta in
resu lt. Ju d g m e n ts h ad to- be m a d e and w ere m ad e
by th e se e x p e rts on th e b as is of th e ir ex p erien ce and
of acc ep ted p ra c tic e s of th e ir p rofession . L im ita tio n s
on com ple te d e seg reg a tio n of th e sy stem recogn ized
and a g re e d upon by th e m should no t be com plete ly
d is re g a rd e d . This C ourt should re a ff irm its c o m m it
m e n t to w orkab le an d feas ib le d eseg regation .
C. N um erica l R esu lts Are Not the U niversal
A nsw er to the C om plex P roblem s of D eseg
regation and Should Not D eterm ine the
C onstitutionality of D esegregation Plans.
The M ay 5, 1970, opinion of th e C ourt of A ppeals
se t fo rth n o m e an in g fu l c r i te r ia to guide th e p a r tie s
24
land the D is tr ic t C ourt in th e ir second a t te m p t to dev ise
a u n ita ry p lan fo r th e e le m e n ta ry schools in th e dis
tr ic t. Only tw o im p rec ise re s tr ic tio n s w ere im posed :
A “su b s ta n tia l n u m b e r” of N egro s tu d en ts w ould n o t
be allow ed to rece iv e th e ir en tire pub lic school ed u c a
tion in a s e g re g a te d school en v iro n m en t and, secondly ,
th e sev en lim itin g fa c to rs acknow ledged by H EW a t
th e J a n u a ry D is tr ic t C ourt h e a rin g could no t be u sed
to ju s tify continued seg reg a tio n . The opinion co n ta in ed
no s ta te m e n t, e ith e r ex p re ss or im plied , th a t th e p e r
cen tag e of N egroes in a ll or v ir tu a lly a ll Negroi schools
w ould d e te rm in e w h eth er th e second p la n w as u n ita ry .
By e a r ly A ugust, 1970, how ever, th e C ourt of A p p ea ls
h a d red u ced to a s im p le n u m e ric a l p roposition th is
C ourt’s defin ition of a u n ita ry sy s tem as one “w ith in
w hich no p e rso n is to be effec tive ly excluded fro m
any school b ecau se of ra c e or co lor.” A lexander v.
H olm es County Board of Educ., 369 U.S, 191 (1969). This
n u m e ric a l p roposition is as follows: If th e p e rc e n ta g e
of N egroes a tten d in g all o r v ir tu a lly a ll N eg ro schools
is 25% or less, th e sy s tem is u n ita ry , so long as th e
se g re g a te d 25% rece iv e an u n sp ec ified am o u n t of de
se g re g a te d edu ca tio n in o th e r schools. V irtu a lly all N e
g ro schools w ere con sid ered to be schools in w hich
N egroes co n stitu ted 90% or m o re of th e en ro llm en t.
See Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Brow ard
County, No. 30,032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 1970).
The “p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t w as c le a r ly ap p lied to th e
second D is tr ic t C ourt p lan in th e C ourt of A ppeals opin
ion of A ugust 12, 1970. Since th e re su lt w as th a t “ap
p ro x im a te ly 70% of th e N egro e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts w ill
25
be in a ll (o r su b s ta n tia lly all) N egro e le m e n ta ry
schoo ls ,” th e p la n w as no t u n ita ry (75a). By its
s ix p a irin g s and one c lu ste rin g , th e C ourt of A ppeals
p u rp o rted ly red u ced the p e rc e n ta g e of N egroes in sub
s ta n tia lly a ll N eg ro schools “fro m over 70% to abou t
20%” an d th e re b y c re a te d an “in te r im ” u n ita ry plan .
(80a).
F o u r o th e r ca se s dec ided by th e C ourt of A ppeals
in A ugust, 1970, re v e a l ev en m o re d ra m a tic a lly th e
“p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t in action . In Pate v. Dade County
School Board, Nos. 29039 an d 29179 (5th Cir., Aug. 12,
1970), th e D is tr ic t C o u rt’s p la n le ft 22 schools, con
ta in in g 44% of th e N egro s tu d en t popula tion , a ll or
v ir tu a lly a ll N egro. F in d in g th a t “m a n y of th e reaso n s
g iven [tra ffic h a z a rd s , school cap ac itie s , ind iv idual
school p ro g ra m s , fo rm a t and cu rric u la , w alk ing d is
ta n ces , n a tu ra l b a r r ie rs , an d g ra d e leve ls] fo r no t a-
ch iev ing a g r e a te r d eg ree of d e seg reg a tio n . . . a re
u n a c c e p ta b le ,”14 th e C ourt of A ppeals se t abou t th e
ta s k of fo rc in g th e sy s tem — con ta in ing 250,000 s tu
den ts — to fit th e “p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t m odel. A fter p re
sc rib in g c e r ta in p a irin g s , g roupings, an d rezonings,
th e C ourt announced th a t its “m odifications' red u ce
th e n u m b e r of N egro s tu d en ts a tten d in g a ll or v ir tu a lly
all N egro schools from. 44% to 24% of th e en tire N egro
s tu d en t po p u la tio n ”, an d th a t “ [ijm p le m e n ta tio n of
th e se m od ifica tions effectively d e seg reg a te s th e D ade
County School S ystem .” 13 A ppendix “C” to th e opinion
co n firm ed th e C o u rt’s n u m e ric a l obsession by p re se n t
,4 Slip opinion, p. 6.
,5Slip opinion, p. 7.
26
ing in ta b u la r fo rm th e red u c tio n s ach iev ed by th e
m od ifica tions in th e n u m b e r of a ll or v ir tu a lly a ll N e
gro schools, th e n u m b e r of N egro s tu d en ts a tten d in g
a ll o r v ir tu a lly a ll N egro schools, and th e p e rc e n ta g e
of N egroes a tten d in g all or v ir tu a lly a ll N egro schools.
In Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Brow ard
County, No. 30032 (5th Cir,, Aug. 18, 1970), th e D is tr ic t
C ourt p la n le ft 13 all or v ir tu a lly all N egro e lem en
ta ry schools, co n ta in ing 68% of th e N egro e le m e n ta ry
school population. T e rm in g th e p lan “u n a c c e p ta b le ”
b eca u se “re a so n a b le a lte rn a tiv e s e x is t”,’6 th e C ourt
of A ppeals u tilized th e p a irin g an d c lu s te rin g tech n iq u e
to e lim in a te ev e ry all or v ir tu a lly a ll N egro e le m e n ta ry
school.
In Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, No. 30099
(5th Cir., A ugust 25, 1970), th e D is tr ic t C ourt ap p ro v ed
p la n le ft 7 of 24 schools a ll o r v ir tu a lly a ll N egro ,
co n ta in ing 60% of all N egro studen ts. A fte r ho lding
th a t th e p lan “does no t su b s ta n tia lly abo lish s e g re g a
tion,” ’7 th e C ourt of A ppeals c lu s te re d n ine e le m e n ta ry
schools into th re e n ew a tte n d a n c e zones h av in g N eg ro
s tu d en t p e rc e n ta g e s of 73%, 65% and 67%. Zones de
v ised by H EW w ere o rd e red im p lem en ted fo r th e ju n io r
h ig h schools, a lth o u g h th e N egro s tu d e n t p e rc e n ta g e s
in tw o schools re m a in e d 60% and 84%. A tab u la tio n ,
se t fo rth in A ppendix “B ” to th e opinion, w as ag a in
u sed to su m m a riz e th e C o u rt’s e ffo rts in sa tisfy in g
th e “p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t: th e p e rc e n ta g e of N egroes a t
’6Slip opinion, p. 9-10.
’ 7Slip opinion, p. 4.
27
ten d in g a ll o r v ir tu a lly a ll N egro schools w as red u ce d
fro m 60% to 9%.
F in a lly , in R oss v. E ckels, No. 30080 (5th Cir., Aug.
25, 1970), th e D is tr ic t C ourt adop ted an eq u id is tan t
zoning p la n fo r th e en tire system , w h ich re su lte d in
38% of th e N eg ro s tu d en ts a tten d in g a ll o r v ir tu a lly
all N eg ro schools. B ecau se a geo g rap h ic c a p a c ity zon
ing p la n p roposed by th e school d is tr ic t “w as m o re
effective a n d did in fa c t e lim in a te ev e ry a ll N egro
school and ev e ry school a tten d ed by m o re th a n 90%
N eg ro es”18 a t th e seco n d ary level, th e C ourt of A p
p ea ls o rd e re d it to be im p lem en ted . The eq u i-d is tan t
p lan , how ever, w as te rm e d “an im p ro v e m e n t”19 over
th e g eo g rap h ic p la n a t th e e le m e n ta ry level, bu t w as
m od ified by th e p a ir in g of tw elve schools. A ppendix
“A ” to th e opinion se t fo rth th e fa m ilia r ta b u la tio n
of re su lts an d re v e a le d a red u c tio n in th e p e rc e n ta g e
of N egroes a tte n d in g a ll or v ir tu a lly all N egro schools
fro m 29% u n d er th e D is tr ic t C ourt p la n to 16% un d er
th e C ourt of A p p ea ls’ o rder.
A t no tim e , of course, h a s th is C ourt even h in ted
th a t th e m e a su re of th e con stitu tio n a l r ig h t to eq u a l
p ro tec tio n of th e law s is a n u m e ric a l one. T h is C ourt’s
defin ition of a u n ita ry school sy stem is one w ith in
“w hich no p e rso n is to be effec tive ly excluded fro m
any school b e c a u se of ra c e o r co lo r.” S u re ly th e con
s titu tio n a l g u a ra n te e to ind iv idual s tuden ts, in h e re n t
in th is defin ition , is n o t fu lfilled w hen 75% of th e in-
»»Slip opinion, p. 17-18.
19Slip opinion, p. 18.
28
d iv id u a l N egro s tu d en ts a tte n d schools in w hich N e
g ro es co n stitu te 90% or le ss of th e en ro llm en t. A N egro
s tu d en t in an 80% N egro school is no m o re effectively
d e se g re g a te d th a n one in a 90% N egro school. “E ffec
tiv e exclusion” can n o t be tra n s la te d into “p a r t ia l in
clusion .”
M oreover, th e “p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t is a h igh ly s im p li
fied a b s tra c tio n of th e r e a l w orld. E d u ca tio n a l, a d m in
is tra tiv e , and econom ic fa c to rs co n sid e red by school
officials, H EW p la n n e rs , and D is tr ic t C ourts c a n not
be q u an tified and a re th e re fo re w holly su b o rd in a ted
to n u m b e rs and, p e rce n tag es . U se of th e te ch n iq u e of
p a ir in g an d c lu ste rin g schools to “effec tive ly d e se g re
g a te ” does not in ev e ry ca se s tr ik e a b a la n c e be tw een
th e n ece ss ity of m o re n u m e ric a l d e seg reg a tio n and
th e n ece ss ity fo r a w orkab le p lan , desp ite th e C ourt
o f A p p ea ls’ in tim a tio n s to th e c o n tra ry in Allen
v. Board of Public Instruction of Brow ard County, No.
30032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 1970). F o r p a irin g and c lu s te r
ing am o u n t to no th ing m o re th a n com bin ing schools
in p rox im ity , as show n on a m ap , in su ch a m a n n e r
as to ach ieve, “on p a p e r ,” an a c c e p ta b le p e rc e n ta g e
re su lt. The com bination m a y o r m a y no t be ed u ca tio n
ally , ad m in is tra tiv e ly , or econom ica lly feasib le . I ts on
ly ad v a n ta g e is s im plicity .
T he u n re a lity of th e “p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t is even m o re
p ro n o u n ced w hen a c tu a l en ro llm en ts a re co m p ared to
th e p ro je c te d en ro llm en ts to w hich th e “p e rc e n ta g e ”
te s t is applied . C onsider th e ex p erien ce in th e Ja c k so n
M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tric t. T he A ugust 12,
1970, opinion of th e C ourt of A ppeals held th e b i-ra c ia l
29
co m m ittee p la n ad o p ted by th e D is tr ic t C ourt “u n a c
c e p ta b le ” b eca u se “ap p ro x im a te ly 70% of th e N egro
e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts w ill be in a ll (o r su b s ta n tia lly
a ll) N eg ro e le m e n ta ry schools.” 20 (75a). By its
p a irin g s an d one grouping , th e opinion an d o rd e r p u r
p o rted ly red u ced the 63% fig u re to abou t 20% and th e re
by e s tab lish ed a u n ita ry p lan . The p ro jec ted en ro ll
m e n t f ig u re s u sed by th e C ourt of A ppeals, how ever,
h a v e p ro v ed to be g ro ssly in a c c u ra te . T o ta l en ro llm en t
of w h ite e le m e n ta ry s tuden ts, a s of S ep te m b er 18, 1970,
w as 6,166, r a th e r th a n th e p ro jec ted 9,181 u tilized in
th e C ourt of A p p ea ls’ p lan . T his 33% loss of w hite
e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts b e tw een M ay and S ep tem b er h a s
re su lte d in 49% of a ll N egro e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts a t
ten d in g a ll or v ir tu a lly all Negro- schools, as opposed
to the “ abou t 20%” p ro je c te d by the C ourt of A ppeals
in th e A ugust 12, 1970, opinion.
If th e “p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t con tinues to co n tro l th e a c
cep tab ility of d e seg reg a tio n p lans, sy stem s su ch as
J a c k so n m a y be y e a rs aw ay fro m o p era tin g a s tab le
u n ita ry e le m e n ta ry sy stem . F o r th is p a t te rn is e m e rg
ing: th e C ourts w ill a t te m p t to ach iev e a p e rce n tag e
re su lt on th e b as is of p ro jec ted en ro llm en ts; th e se en
ro llm en ts w ill be re n d e re d in a c c u ra te by con tinued
loss of w hite s tu d en ts; th e p e rc e n ta g e re su lts w ill no t
be reac h ed , th e re b y n e c e ss ita tin g a rep e titio n of th e
p rocess.
I t is no t su g g es ted th a t th e loss of w hite s tu d en ts
fro m the e le m e n ta ry schools is ju s tif ica tio n for den ia l
'2orrhe actual percentage, computed on the basis that a 90% Negro
school is an all or virtually all Negro school, was 63%.
30
of r ig h ts u n d e r th e E q u a l P ro te c tio n C lause. B u t th e
“p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t co n ta in s 'the seeds of its own, d e s tru c
tion. I t is an u n den iab le fa c t th a t d e se g re g a tio n can n o t
b e accom plished w ithou t th e p re se n c e of w h ite s tu
den ts in th e pub lic schools. S u re ly i t is no t ab so lu te ly
n e c e s sa ry fo r a co m m u n ity to w a tch m o re than, 40%
of its w hite s tu d en ts le av e th e pub lic schools in th e
sp ace of a y e a r .2’ C ontinued in s ta b ility and con tinued
o p era tio n of th e schools u n d e r p lan s designed w ithou t
co n sid era tio n of educa tiona l, a d m in is tra tiv e , an d eco
nom ic fac to rs , a ll in th e n a m e of sa tisfy in g th e e lusive
“p e rc e n ta g e ” te s t of th e C ourt of A ppeals, can only
cau se fu r th e r d e te rio ra tio n of w h ite en ro llm en ts.
D. The Issues In this Case Differ F rom Those
In Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Mobile
W hile c e r ta in g e n e ra l questions of a p p ro p ria te m e th
ods fo r d e seg reg a tin g u rb a n school sy s te m s a r e befo re
th e C ourt th is T e rm in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklen
burg Board of Educ., No. 281, O.T. 1970, an d Davis
v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County,
No. 436, O.T. 1970, the questions ra is e d h e re a re dif
fe ren t. In th e Swann case , th is C ourt is fa c e d w ith
th e b ro a d question of ab u se of re m e d ia l d iscre tion .
T h e re th e D is tr ic t C ourt, a f te r an e v id e n tia ry h e a r
ing an d in fu ll possession of a ll re le v a n t fac ts , o rd e re d
im p lem en ta tio n of a d e seg reg a tio n p lan p re p a re d by
a co n su ltan t w orking in co n ce rt w ith th e lo ca l school
staff. A dopting “th e te s t of re a so n a b le n e ss”, th e C ourt
2'Enrollment of white students in the system was 20,966 in Septem
ber, 1969, and 12,095 in September, 1970.
31
of A ppeals re v e rs e d th e e le m e n ta ry p lan , ho lding th a t
th e D is tr ic t C ourt h a d c re a te d an u n reaso n ab le re m e d y
to d ise s ta b lish th e d u a l sy stem .
In Davis, th is C ourt m u s t decide th e b ro ad question
of w h e th e r th e decision of th e C ourt of A ppeals fa lls
sh o rt of m in im u m co n stitu tio n a l req u ire m en ts . In th a t
case , th e D is tr ic t C ourt, w ithout an e v id en tia ry h e a r
ing, o rd e re d im p lem en ta tio n of a f in a l p la n p re p a re d
by th e school d is tr ic t w hen w orkab le a lte rn a tiv e p lan s
m ax im iz in g in te g ra tio n h ad b een p re p a re d by HEW .
The C ourt of A ppeals a ssu m ed th a t its ta sk w as to
m a in ta in th e “neighbo rhood school concep t of th e sys
te m ”, an d on th a t b as is o rd e re d im p lem en ta tio n of
a m odified H EW p la n w hich did no t u tilize a v a ilab le
tra n sp o r ta tio n and fac ilitie s to m a x im ize d e se g re g a
tion.
The in s ta n t case , how ever, ra is e s th e question w heth
e r th e C ourt of A ppeals c a n su m m a rily re je c t an edu
ca tio n a lly sound p lan m ax im iz in g in teg ra tio n , a p la n
p re p a re d by HEW , co n cu rred in by th e school d is tr ic t
and th e p la in tiffs and adop ted by th e D is tr ic t C ourt
a f te r a fu ll e v id e n tia ry h ea rin g . The b as is of th a t sum
m a ry re je c tio n w as fa ilu re to m e e t c e r ta in n u m e ric a l
re su lts . I t is d ifficu lt to- believe th a t eq u a l p ro tec tio n
of th e law s can be m e a su re d by s ta t is t ic a l a ch iev e
m ent.
In Swann th e C ourt of A ppeals adop ted a v ag u e s ta n d
a rd of rea so n ab len ess , and on th e app lica tio n of th a t
te s t re v e rs e d th e D is tr ic t C ourt fo r ab using its d isc re
tion. In th e p re se n t case th e C ourt of A ppeals adop ted
a rig id , in flex ib le and ab so lu te s ta n d a rd m e a su re d by
32
s ta t is t ic a l re su lts , th e re b y e lim in a tin g any r e a l n eed
fo r th e ju d g m en t and d isc re tio n of a t r i a l court.
Thus th e tw o e a se s s ta n d a t opposite ends of th e
spectrum ,; in one th e s ta n d a rd is v ag u e and u n c e rta in ,
an d in th e o th e r th e s ta n d a rd is r ig id and abso lu te .
If th e F if th C ircu it h a s app lied a p ro p e r te s t, th e n
e v e ry school d is tr ic t in th e n a tio n c a n be d e se g re g a te d
w ith th e sim p le tools of a m a p an d a tte n d a n c e fig u res .
II
The Court of Appeals Has Ordered the School
District to Provide Transportation Service Which
is Neither Authorized by State Law Nor Required
by the Equal Protection Clause
One of th e d eseg reg a tio n tech n iq u es com m only u sed
b y th e C ourt of A ppeals is th e “m a jo r ity to m in o rity
t r a n s fe r ru le .” U nder th is re q u ire m e n t, school d is tr ic ts
m u s t allow a s tu d en t a tten d in g a school in w hich h is
ra c e is in th e m a jo r ity to choose to a tte n d a n o th e r
school w here h is r a c e is in th e m in o rity . T he t r a n s fe r
r in g s tu d en t m u s t be g iven an abso lu te p r io r ity fo r
sp ace , and he m a y e lec t to a tte n d any school in th e
d is tr ic t, no t n e c e ssa r ily th e school n e a re s t h is hom e.
F u r th e r , th e s tu d en ts m u s t be g iven tra n s p o r ta tio n if
th e y d es ire it.
T he tra n sp o r ta tio n fe a tu re of th e ru le , as ex p re ssed
in th e M ay 5, 1970, opinion of th e C ourt of A ppeals
(22a), o b liga tes th e school d is tr ic t to p e rfo rm a
se rv ic e w hich is no t au th o rized by s ta te law n o r r e
q u ired by th e eq u a l p ro tec tio n c lau se of th e F o u rte e n th
A m endm ent. F u r th e r , th e tra n sp o r ta tio n d irec tiv e to
33
th is school d is tr ic t conflic ts w ith o th e r decisions of
th e C ourt of A ppeals.
This C o u rt’s a tten tio n is p a r tic u la r ly d irec ted to th e
fa c t th a t no in tra -c ity bus tra n sp o r ta tio n h a s ev e r b een
p ro v id ed in th is school d is tric t. The only s tu d en ts le g a l
ly en titled to tra n sp o r ta tio n a re those liv ing w ith in
th e d is tr ic t bu t ou tside th e m u n ic ip a lity who a tte n d
school inside th e m u n ic ip a lity , p rov ided d is tan ce r e
q u ire m e n ts a re m e t.
The only s ta tu te d ea ling w ith th e a u th o rity to p rov ide
in tra -c ity tra n s p o r ta tio n is M iss. Code Ann. §6336-31
(Supp. 1969) as follows:
In add ition to pub lic school s tu d en ts or pupils ;
au th o rized to be tra n s p o r te d to th e public
schools by v ir tu e of C h ap te r 15, L aw s of the
E x tra o rd in a ry Session of 1953, as am ended , a p
p e a r in g as Sections 6336-01 th ro u g h 6336-21,
M ississipp i Code of 1942, th e county b o a rd of
ed u ca tio n w ith th e co n cu rren ce of th e b o a rd of
su p e rv iso rs , th e b o a rd of tru s te e s of m un ic i
p a l s e p a ra te school d is tr ic ts w ith th e co n cu r
re n c e of th e govern ing a u th o ritie s of th e m u n ic
ipa lity , an d th e govern ing b o a rd of any public
school d is tr ic t w ith th e co n cu rren ce of th e ap
p ro p ria te govern ing au th o ritie s of th e county
o r m u n ic ip a lity , in th e ir d isc re tio n and w ith lo
ca l ta x funds o r o th e r loca l con tribu tions or
su p p o rt exc lu siv e ly and w ithou t s ta te ap p ro p ri
ations, m a y p rov ide tra n sp o rta tio n fo r s tu d en ts
o r pup ils to th e pub lic schools w h en ev er th e
w ith in d esc rib ed b o ard s or officers find th a t ex
tra o rd in a ry c irc u m s ta n c e s and conditions a re
34
p re v a le n t in sa id school d is tr ic t in re g a rd to
such m a tte r s as th e pub lic h e a lth an d safe ty ,
school fac ilitie s , location of th e school site , u n
u su a l econom ic g row th an d popu la tion ex p an
sion, new ly ex p anded m u n ic ip a l c o rp o ra tio n
lim its , th e g e n e ra l w elfa re , an d a ll o th e r e m e r
gency fa c ts and conditions w hich m a y be
d e e m e d by sa id au th o ritie s to be in th e b es t in
te re s t of th e p o litic a l subdivision.
I t is to b e no ted th e fo rego ing s ta tu te is a lim ited
g ra n t of a u th o rity d esigned fo r use w here “e x tra o rd i
n a ry c irc u m sta n c e s a n d conditions a r e p re v a le n t in
[the] school d is tr ic t.” In tw o re c e n t decisions, th e C ourt
of A ppeals h a s re q u ire d tra n sp o r ta tio n to be fu rn ish ed
u n d e r th e m a jo r ity to m in o rity t r a n s fe r ru le only if
th e s tu d en t is elig ib le fo r tra n sp o r ta tio n u n d e r s ta te
law . In Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward
County, No. 30032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 1970), th e D is tr ic t
C o u rt’s m a jo r ity to m in o rity t r a n s fe r ru le w as as fol
low s:22
1. A ny pup il w ith p a re n ta l consent, sh a ll h av e
th e r ig h t to t r a n s fe r fro m a school a t w hich
his ra c e is in th e m a jo r ity to th e n e x t n e a r
e s t school a t w hich h is r a c e is in th e m in o r
ity an d th e b o a rd sh a ll fu rn ish fre e t r a n s
p o rta tio n provided the distance involved
m eets state transportation statutes. [E m
p h asis added]
2. O th e r re a s s ig n m e n t re q u e s ts w ill be con
s id e red p rov id ing th e re q u e s t does not in-
22Slip opinion, p. 5.
35
volve th e t r a n s fe r of a pup il [from a
school] in w hich h is ra c e is in th e m in o rity
to a school in w h ich his ra c e is in th e m a jo r
ity.
The C ourt of A ppeals no ted :23
On re m a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o rd e r m u s t be
m od ified to m a k e i t c le a r th a t (1) any pupil
sh a ll h a v e th e r ig h t to tra n s fe r fro m a school a t
w hich h is r a c e is in th e m a jo r ity to any school
(not ju s t th e n e x t n e a re s t school) a t w hich h is
r a c e is in th e m in o rity an d (2) tra n s fe re e s sha ll
be g iven p r io r ity fo r space .
By no t req u ir in g a m od ifica tion of th e tra n sp o r ta tio n
p rov is io n in th e D is tr ic t C ourt o rder, th e C ourt of A p
p ea ls recogn ized th e lim ita tio n s im posed b y s ta te t r a n s
p o rta tio n law s.
S im ila rly , in Hightower v. West, No. 29933 (5th Cir.,
Ju ly 14, 1970), th e C ourt of A ppeals req u ire d th e fol
low ing:24
The d is tr ic t c o u rt’s m a jo rity -to -m in o rity t r a n s
fe r p rov is io n m u s t be m odified to> prov ide th a t
(a ) a ll tr a n s fe r r in g s tu d en ts sh a ll b e g iven
tra n s p o r ta tio n if th ey d es ire it. . .8
8E x c e p t u rb a n and su b u rb a n a re a s w here p u b
lic tra n sp o r ta tio n is av a ilab le an d it is th e
policy of th e S ta te or local School B o ard not
to fu rn ish tra n sp o rta tio n .
aaSlip opinion, p. 6.
24Slip opinion, p. 14.
36
This C o u rt’s decisions re q u ir in g convers ion of d u a l
school sy s te m s to u n ita ry ones h a v e n e v e r gone so
f a r as to re q u ire th e creation of a tra n sp o r ta tio n sy s
te m to a id in, d ises tab lish in g seg reg a tio n . Indeed , it
h a s b een he ld th a t “ [n]o one h a s a co n stitu tio n a l r ig h t
to r id e a school bus . . . [but] m e re ly th e r ig h t no t
to be excluded fro m a b enefit w hich is c o n fe rred by
th e s ta te upon fellow citizens w hose c la im to i t is no
m o re ‘re a so n a b le ’ th a n h is .” Sparrow v. Gill, 304 F.
Supp. 86, 90 (M.D. N.C. 1969). O ther cases , su ch as
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., No.
281, O.T. 1970, d ea l w ith th e u tiliza tio n of a n existing
tra n s p o r ta tio n sy s tem to ach iev e a u n ita ry p lan , w hich
sy s te m h a d b een u sed to p e rp e tu a te a d ual sy stem .
T he Ja c k so n M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tr ic t h as
n e v e r p rov ided in tra -c ity tra n s p o r ta tio n to an y s tuden t,
w hite or N egro. I ts po licy is n e u tra l and n on -d iscrim -
in a to ry . M oreover, M ississipp i h a s no so -called “a n ti
b u ssin g ” law .
The C ourt of A ppeals should no t be p e rm itte d to
o rd e r school and m u n ic ip a l offic ials to p ro v id e t r a n s
p o rta tio n u n d er a s ta tu te w hich is n o n -d isc rim in a to ry ,
bo th on its face and in operation , and w hich, u n d e r
no c irc u m stan c es , c a n be co n s tru ed as e m b ra c in g th e
s tu d en t tr a n s fe rs o rd e red by th e C ourt of A ppeals. S tu
d en ts tr a n s fe r r in g u n d e r th e m a jo r ity to m in o rity ru le
should be fu rn ish ed tra n sp o r ta tio n only if en titled to
i t u n d e r s ta te law .
37
CONCLUSION
F o r th e fo rego ing re a so n s it is su b m itted th a t th e
P e titio n fo r C e rtio ra r i should be g ra n te d to rev iew th e
ju d g m e n ts of th e U nited S ta te s C ourt of A ppeals fo r
th e F if th C ircuit.
R esp ec tfu lly subm itted ,
G eorge P . H ew es, III
B run in i, E v e re tt, G ra n th a m &
Q uin
P. O. Box 119
1440 F ir s t N a tio n a l B ank
B uild ing
Jack so n , M ississipp i 39205
R o b e rt C. C an n ad a
B u tler, Snow, O’M ara , S tevens
& C an n ad a
P . O. Box 22567
700 P e tro le u m B uilding
Jack so n , M ississipp i 39205
A tto rn ey s fo r P e titio n e rs
la
APPENDIX
U N IT E D STA TES D IST R IC T CO URT
SO U TH ER N D IST R IC T O F M ISS IS S IP P I
JACKSON D IVISIO N
D E R E K JE R O M E SIN G LETO N , E T AL,
P la in tiffs ,
v e rsu s
CIV IL ACTION
No. 3379
JACKSON M U N IC IPA L SE PA R A T E
SCHOOL D ISTR IC T, E T AL,
D efendan ts.
O R D E R PR O V ID IN G FO R
U N ITA R Y SCHOOL SYSTEM
On D ecem b er 1, 1969, in S ingleton, e t a l v. Ja c k so n
M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tric t, e t al., No. 28261
on th e docket of th e U. S. C ourt of A ppeals fo r th e
F if th C ircu it, th e D is tr ic t C ourt w as d ire c te d to re q u ire
th e J a c k so n M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tric t, h e re in
a f te r re fe r re d to as B oard , to re q u e s t th e O ffice of
E d u ca tio n of th e D e p a rtm e n t of H ea lth , E d u ca tio n and
W elfa re (H EW ) to p re p a re p lan s fo r th e m e rg e r of
th e s tu d en t bodies in to u n ita ry sy stem s , su ch p la n s
to b e filed w ith th e D is tr ic t C ourt n o t la te r th a n J a n u
a ry 6, 1970, to g e th e r w ith su ch m od ifica tions as th e
School B o a rd miay w ish to offer, and fu r th e r d ire c te d
th e D is tr ic t C ourt to e n te r its f in a l o rd e r n o t la te r
2a
th a n F e b ru a ry 1, 1970, se ttin g out th e d e ta ils of a p lan
d es ig n ed to acco m p lish a u n ita ry sy stem of pup il a t
te n d an ce w ith th e s ta r t of th e fa ll 1970 school te rm .
T he D is tr ic t C ourt w as fu r th e r d ire c te d to re q u ire sa id
B oard , as th e f ir s t step' in th e conversion p rocess, and
no la te r th a n F e b ru a ry 1, 1970,. to announce and im p le
m e n t c e r ta in po licies govern ing th e d eseg reg a tio n of
facu lty an d staff.
T he D is tr ic t C ourt so d ire c te d th e B o ard by o rd e r
d a ted D ecem b er 17, 1969, and in com pliance w ith sa id
o rd er, HEVv'' filed its P la n s “A ”, “B ”, and “C” w ith
th is C ourt on J a n u a ry 6, 1970. On th e sam e day th e
B o ard filed a p rop o sed p la n w h ere in it a g re e d to the
d e se g re g a tio n of facu lty and s ta ff po licies spelled out
in th e S ingleton decision of D ecem b er 1, 1969, and as
d irec ted by th is C ourt in its o rd e r of D ecem b er 17,
1969. The B o ard also re q u e s te d a h e a r in g on th e p lans
fo r s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t, w hich h earin g , by o rd e r of
th is C ourt d a ted J a n u a ry 8, 1970, w as se t fo r J a n u a ry
19, 1970 in Jack so n , M ississippi. O n J a n u a ry 14, 1970,
th e S u p rem e C ourt of th e U n ited S ta tes g ra n te d c e r
tio ra r i in th e S ing le ton case , re v e rs in g th e D ecem b er
1, 1969 ru ling of th e F if th C ircu it, and rem a n d in g th e
case fo r im m e d ia te im p lem en ta tio n of a plan. Follow
ing th is decision, th e F if th C ircuit, by o rd er of J a n u
a ry 21, 1970, h a s again, d irec ted th is C ourt to adop t
a p lan designed to acco m p lish a u n ita ry sy stem , bu t
fo r im m e d ia te im p lem en ta tio n r a th e r th a n a t th e s ta r t
of the fa ll 1970 school te rm .
P u rsu a n t to its o rd e r of J a n u a ry 8, 1970, th is C ourt
held a h e a r in g on H EW P la n s “A”, “B ”, and “C” and
on m od ifica tions th e re to o ffered by th e B oard , filed
h e re in on J a n u a ry 19, 1970, an d a f te r due an d c a re fu l
co n sid e ra tio n of th e p la n s an d su g g es ted m od ifica tions,
an d th e te stim o n y of w itnesses, finds th a t th e p la n
h e re in a f te r s e t fo r th is d esigned to acco m p lish a un i
ta ry sy stem , and th e B o ard of T ru s te e s of th e J a c k so n
M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tr ic t is h e re b y d ire c te d
to adop t sa id p la n fo r im p le m e n ta tio n w ith th e opening
of school on o r a f te r F e b ru a ry 1, 1970.
The C ourt no tes th a t th e J a c k so n M un ic ipa l S e p a ra te
School D is tr ic t h a s h is to rica lly d iv ided its tw elve
g ra d e s in to th re e g roups, e le m e n ta ry g ra d e s 1 to 6,
ju n io r h igh g rad es , 7, 8 and 9, and h ig h school g ra d e s
10, 11 and 12, an d th a t th e c u r re n t c u rr ic u la is designed
fo r th is 6-3-3 s tru c tu re . I t goes w ithou t say in g th a t
a p re c ip ita te conversion of th e se schools in th e m idd le
of th e y e a r to a u n ita ry sy s tem w ill occu r w ith le ss
d isru p tio n if th e c u r re n t s t ru c tu re is re ta in e d as long
as th e re te n tio n does no t le ssen th e u n ita ry effect.
A lthough to ta l d e seg reg a tio n of ev e ry school in th e
sy s tem does no t re su lt fro m th e p lan s o ffered by H EW ,
it is th e opinion of th e ev a lu a tio n te a m th a t th e b as ic
s tru c tu re of th e d u a l sy s tem w ill be e ra d ic a te d . The
ev a lu a tio n te a m of n ine m e m b e rs w as en g ag ed fro m
D ecem b er 15, 1969, to J a n u a ry 5, 1970, in fo rm u la tin g
th e se p lans. L im itin g fa c to rs co n sid ered by th e e v a lu a
tion te a m and w hich h av e likew ise b een considered
by th e C ourt a re as follows:
1. S ta te law s which, r e s tr ic t th e tr a n s p o r ta
tio n of s tu d en ts w ith in th e d is tr ic t.
4a
2. T he size of th e d is tr ic t in re la tio n to th e
lo ca tio n of th e schools.
3. N a tu ra l and m a n -m a d e b a r r ie r s w hich
co n stitu te sa fe ty h a z a rd s o r r e s tr ic t m o
bility .
4. D em o g rap h ic p a t te rn of th e d is tric t.
5. A tte m p ts to an tic ip a te and e lim in a te re-
s e g re g a tio n p a tte rn s .
6. L ack of a co m pu lso ry a tte n d a n c e law .
7. D evelopm en t of a p lan w hich w ould re su lt
in th e le a s t am o u n t of d isrup tion and w hich
could be im p lem en ted im m ed ia te ly . A m p
lify ing th is fac to r, th e n ece ss ity of adding
te m p o ra ry or p o rtab le c la ss ro o m s to fu r
n ish su ffic ien t c ap a c ity is avo ided w h ere
possib le , as is a lso th e n ece ss ity for add i
tio n a l bus tra n sp o rta tio n .
E L E M E N T A R Y SCHOOLS
As to e le m e n ta ry schools, H EW p lans “A ”, “B ” and
“C” a re th e sam e. As th e H EW ev a lu a tio n te a m points
out, no t a ll th e 38 e le m e n ta ry schools w ill be d e seg re
gated . B ecau se e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts a re not as m obile
as o lder s tu d en ts , th e geo g rap h ic zones a re n e c e ssa rily
sm a lle r th a n fo r th e h ig h e r g rad es , a n d a tten d an c e
is n e c e ssa r ily con tro lled by housing p a tte rn s and s ta te -
im posed re s tr ic tio n s of bussing.
T he p la n fo r th e 38 e le m e n ta ry schools p ro v id es fo r
th e zoning of each , th e b o u n d arie s being re fle c te d on
th e e le m e n ta ry school m a p a tta c h e d to th e p lan and
m a d e a, p a r t h e reo f as E x h ib it “A ”. W atk ins an d G reen
schools a re p a ire d in one zone. The B o ard h a s re q u e s te d
no b o u n d ary chan g es ex cep t a m od ified b o u n d ary line
be tw een th e D uling an d W alton schools to re liev e th e
overcrow ding a t D uling, and w hich m odified b o u n d ary
line is re f le c te d on E x h ib it “A ”. The B o ard seek s to
m odify th e en ro llm en t of e ig h t schools, K ey, L es te r,
Isab le , D uling, W alton, M orrison , W atk ins a n d G reen.
A s to K ey E le m e n ta ry the add ition of 68 n eg ro pup ils
d raw n fro m the Isab le zone as p roposed by H EW w ould
re q u ire ad d itio n a l sp ace a t K ey, no t now av a ilab le ,
an d w ould re q u ire th e se s tu d en ts of e le m e n ta ry age
to t r a v e l a g re a te r d is tan ce th a n to th e school 'they
now a tten d , w h ere th e re is an excess of cap ac ity . T he
B o ard re q u e s ts th a t th is group re m a in a t Isab le , w h ich
m od ifica tio n is g ran ted .
As to L e s te r E le m e n ta ry , th e B o ard seek s to e lim
in a te th e add ition of 152 n eg ro pupils to be d raw n fro m
th e Isab le zone. As th e c a p a c ity of th is school is su f
fic ien t to include th e se 152 pupils, or a m a jo r ity of
them , th is m od ifica tion is den ied to th e e x te n t th a t
L e s te r is ab le to acco m m o d a te them .
As to Isab le E le m e n ta ry , H E W proposes to lim it th e
g ra d e s to 1 to 5 an d m a k e it a p a r t of an Isab le-H ill
com plex w hich w ill inc lude th e a tte n d a n c e of a 9th
g rad e . As th is 9th g ra d e is be in g o th e rw ise p ro v id ed
fo r in th e p la n fo r ju n io r h ig h schools, th e B o a rd ’s
6a
re q u e s t th a t Is a b le rem ain , a 1 to 6 g ra d e school is
allow ed.
A s to D uling, w h ich h a s a p e rm a n e n t c a p a c ity fo r
384 s tu d en ts r a th e r th a n 448 as show n in H E W ’s p lan ,
th e B o a rd ’s re q u e s t to red u ce th e n u m b e r of n eg ro
pup ils from , th e n u m b e r se t by H EW is g ra n te d to the
e x te n t of ass ig n in g no m o re th a n 190 neg ro pupils,
o r th e m a x im u m w hich th is school ca n accom m oda te ,
and as p e rm itte d by the m odified boun d ary line.
As to W alton E le m e n ta ry , th e B o ard m od ifica tion
to in c re a se th e n u m b e r of n eg ro pup ils fro m 527 to
676 is au to m a tic by th e inclusion of those d iv e rted fro m
D uling.
The B o a rd ’s re q u e s te d m od ifica tio n as to M orrison
to in c re a se th e n u m b e r of n eg ro s tu d en ts fro m 338
to 501 is g ra n te d in o rd e r to re liev e th e o v e rta x ed c a
p ac ity of W atk ins.
The B o a rd ’s re q u e s te d m od ifica tion fo r W atk ins E le
m e n ta ry to red u ce th e n u m b e r of neg ro pupils fro m
291 to 180 is g ra n te d in a sm u c h as th e en ro llm en t sug
g es ted by H E W fa r exceeds th is school’s cap ac ity , r e
qu iring e ith e r double sessions o r 13 po rtab les . As m od i
fied, few er p o rta b le s w ill be req u ired .
As to G reen E le m e n ta ry , th e B o a rd ’s req u es te d m od
ifica tion is g ra n te d to the ex ten t of red u c in g th e n u m
b e r of n eg ro pup ils to th e c a p a c ity of th e build ing,
576.
7a
I t is to be n o ted th a t in th e H E W p u p il a s s ig n m e n ts
to a t le a s t 13 of th e e le m e n ta ry schools, th e p rop o sed
a ss ig n m e n ts ex ceed th e c a p a c itie s of th e re sp e c tiv e
schools w hich w ill n e c e ss ita te th e u tiliz a tio n of te m
p o ra ry or p o rtab le c la ssro o m s, a fa c to r H EW fa iled
to m ention . In th e se a ss ig n m e n ts se t fo r th h e re in a f te r
in th e p lan , th e C ourt h a s in d ica te d w here one or m o re
p o rta b le s w ill be n e c e ssa ry . As to th e schools w h ere
B o ard m odifica tions a re g ran te d , th e n ece ss ity of p o r t
ab les h a s been, fo r th e m o st p a r t e lim inated .
JU N IO R H IG H SCHOOLS
The H EW P la n s “A ” an d “B ” fo r th e n ine ju n io r
h igh schools co n tem p la te five zones, w ith sub-zones,
an d w ould ch an g e th e 3 -g rade s tru c tu re in a ll bu t one
zone, p lac ing th e 7 and 8th g ra d e s in one school and
p a irin g th e m w ith a 9th g ra d e school in th e sa m e zone
o r sub-zone, th e one excep tion being in Zone II w here
all th re e g rad es w ould be in one building. T hese p lans
also co n tem p la te th e a tte n d a n c e of Zone I (one) 9th
g ra d e rs a t th e Isab le-H ill com plex , a fe a tu re w hich
h a s b een e lim in a ted above. P la n C re q u ire s a new
o rg an iz a tio n a l p a t te rn on a 2-2-2 s tru c tu re fo r b o th th e
ju n io r h igh and h igh school g rad es . The B o a rd seeks
to m odify th e se p lans so as to e s ta b lish s e p a ra te zones
fo r th e n ine ju n io r h igh schools com posed of g ra d e s
7, 8 and 9, as show n by th e zone m a p an d m e te s and
bounds descrip tio n s a tta c h e d h e re to as E x h ib it “B ”.
The B o ard m o d ifica tio n w ould re ta in th e c u rre n t 3-
g ra d e s tru c tu re , obv ia ting th e n e c e ss ity of fo rm u la tin g
new c u rr ic u la fo r a d iffe ren t s tru c tu re , as p roposed
by HEW , and w ould te n d to le ssen th e ad d itio n a l bus
8a
tra n s p o r ta tio n th e H EW p lan s c a ll for, a ll of w hich
th e C ourt finds a re p ra c tic a l co n sid era tio n s in v iew
of th e im m ed iacy of the conversion. The C ourt also
no tes th a t th e h ead of th e H EW ev a lu a tio n te am , who
fo rm u la te d th e H EW p lan s an d who te s tif ied on beh a lf
of th e p la in tiffs , concedes th a t th e p roposed m od ifica
tion by th e B o a rd w ill re su lt in a u n ita ry sy stem for
th e ju n io r h igh level. A ccordingly , th e C ourt app ro v es
and allow s th e B o a rd ’s re q u e s te d m od ifica tion fo r th e
ju n io r h ig h schools.
As P la n “C” h a s been re je c te d above, it is no t n ece s
s a ry to co nsider its application, to th e h igh school level.
H IG H SCHOOLS
W ith re sp e c t to th e h ig h schools, th e H EW P lan s ,
“A ”, “B ” an d “C”, e a c h ch an g e th e 3 -grade s tru c tu re
as it now ex ists, and fo r th e sa m e reaso n s th a t app ly
to th e ju n io r h igh schools, a r e re je c ted . Changes! as
p roposed by th e H EW p lan s w ould re q u ire an ex tension
of tim e, no t now av a ilab le , in reo rg an iz in g p h y sica l
fac ilitie s , re - re g is te r in g pupils, re -ass ig n in g m e m b e rs
of th e facu lty , re -a r ra n g in g th e p re se n t 3 -grade c u rr ic u
la , co n s tru c tin g add itio n al c lass room s or re -loca ting
te m p o ra ry or p o rtab le c la ss room s, an d tra n s fe r r in g
supplies and eq u ip m en t, including the re -in s ta lla tio n
of biology la b o ra to ry equ ipm ent. Also th e H EW p ro
posed use of L a n ie r and C en tra l h igh schools as ta rg e t
schools w ith spec ia lized courses, if no t so used, could
re su lt in o ver ta x in g th e c a p a c ity of the rem a in in g
schools by as m u ch as 20%. By w ay of illu s tra tio n
H EW P la n “A ” ass ig n s 1912 stu d en ts to the p roposed
9a
W ingfield-H ill com plex w ith a to ta l c a p a c ity of 1788;
a to ta l of 1406 s tu d en ts to P ro v in e w ith a c a p a c ity
of 1180; a to ta l of 1303 s tu d en ts to M u rra h w hich h as
a c a p a c ity w ith p o rtab le s of 1232; a to ta l of 1610 s tu
den ts to C allaw ay , w ith a c a p a c ity of 786 w ith p o r t
ab les; and a to ta l of 1637 s tu d en ts to B rin k ley w ith
a to ta l c a p a c ity of 1154. On th e o th e r h and , if u sed
exclu sive ly fo r spec ia lized cou rses , th e se two- schools,
u n d e r th e H E W p la n w ould m o st likely b ecom e r e
seg reg a ted .
In s tead , th e B o ard p roposes to r e ta in th e 3 -g rade
s tru c tu re of 10th, 11th and 12th g ra d e s in one school,
an d e s tab lish s e p a ra te zones fo r th e e igh t sen io r h igh
schools. U nd er th e B o ard p lan , s im ila r ly to th a t of
H EW , L a n ie r and C en tra l w ould se rv e as m a g n e t
schools d raw ing fro m th e en tire d is tr ic t s tu d en ts de
s irin g to ta k e th e ir sp ec ia lized v o ca tio n a l and te ch n ica l
p ro g ra m s w hich a re no t o ffered a t th e re m a in in g h igh
schools, a t th e sa m e tim e re ta in in g s tu d en ts of bo th
ra c e s attending ' th e se schools by v ir tu e of th e ir r e s i
dence. The B o a rd ’s p ro jec ted a tte n d a n c e a t th e se e igh t
h igh schools, a s show n by th e ir m od ifica tio n s on file
h e re in am p ly m e e t a ll u n ita ry school c h a ra c te r is t ic s
w ith th e possib le excep tion of W ingfield w h ere only
44 n e g ro pupils would a tte n d w ith 829 w h ite pupils,
an d C allaw ay , w here only 185 n eg ro es w ould a tten d
w ith 1104 w hite s tuden ts. A ccord ing ly , to in c re a se th e
neg ro a tte n d a n c e a t W ingfield, th is C ourt h a s redrawn
zones I and II, to add a p o rtio n of Zone II to Zone
I, th e re b y in c re a s in g th e neg ro a tte n d a n c e a t W ingfield
and a t th e sam e tim e red u c in g n eg ro a tte n d a n c e a t
H ill, re su ltin g in a m o re p ro p o rtio n a te ra tio of b lack
s tu d en ts to w hite. This m od ifica tio n of th e zone line
be tw een Zones I and II is re f le c te d on th e zone m a p
an d b o u n d ary d escrip tio n s fo r th e h igh schools, a t
ta c h e d h e re to as E x h ib it “C”.
T estim o n y a t th e h e a r in g in d ica te d th a t neg ro s tu
den ts re s id in g in th e n o r th e a s te rn p a r t of th is e n tire
school sy stem , in and a ro u n d Tougaloo, and in th e
n o rth w e s te rn p a r t of th e d is tr ic t, now a tten d in g schools
o th e r th a n C allaw ay , w ould, u n d e r th e B o ard p lan ,
beg in a tte n d a n c e a t C allaw ay h igh school, th e re b y im
p rov ing th e ra c ia l b a lan ce of th is school. A ccord ing ly
th e C ourt ap p ro v es th e p roposed B o ard m odifica tions
as th e y in tu rn a re m odified by th e Court.
In acc o rd an ce w ith th e above, th is C ourt finds and
ap p ro v es th e follow ing p la n as a u n ita ry school p la n
fo r th e J a c k so n M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tric t,
and d irec ts th e school b o a rd to adop t sa id p la n an d
pu t it into im m e d ia te e ffec t w ith th e opening of school
on or a f te r F e b ru a ry 1, 1970.
U N I T A R Y SCHOOL P L A N
D E SE G R E G A T IO N OF F A C U L T Y AND STAFF
The School B o ard sh a ll announce an d im p le
m e n t th e follow ing policies:
1. E ffec tiv e no t la te r th a n F e b ru a ry 1, 1970,
th e p rin c ip a ls , te a c h e rs , te a c h e r-a id e s and oth
e r s ta ff who w ork d irec tly w ith ch ild ren a t a
school sh a ll be so ass ig n ed th a t in no c a se w ill
1 1 a
th e ra c ia l com position of a s ta ff in d ica te th a t a
school is in ten d ed fo r n eg ro s tu d en ts o r w hite
s tu d en ts . F o r th e re m a in d e r of th e 1969-70
school y e a r th e d is tr ic t sh a ll a s s ig n th e s ta ff
d escrib ed above so th a t th e ra tio of n eg ro to
w hite te a c h e rs in e a c h school, and th e ra tio of
o th e r s ta ff in each , a re su b s ta n tia lly th e sa m e
as eac h such ra tio is to th e te a c h e rs and o th e r
s ta ff, re sp ec tiv e ly , in th e e n tire school sy stem .
The school d is tr ic t shall, to th e e x ten t n e c e s
s a ry to c a r ry out th is d e seg reg a tio n p lan , di
r e c t m e m b e rs of its s ta ff as a condition of con
tin u ed em p lo y m en t to a c c e p t new a ss ig n m e n ts .
2. S taff m e m b e rs w ho w ork d irec tly w ith
ch ild ren , and p ro fess io n a l s ta ff w ho w ork on
th e a d m in is tra tiv e leve l w ill be h ired , assigned ,
p rom oted , paid , dem oted , d ism issed , an d o th
erw ise tr e a te d w ith o u t re g a rd to ra c e , color, o r
n a tio n a l origin.
3. If th e re is to be a red u c tio n in th e n u m b e r
of p rin c ip a ls , te a c h e rs , te a c h e r-a id e s , or o th e r
p ro fess io n a l s ta ff em ployed by th e school d is
t r ic t w hich w ill re su lt in a d ism issa l or d em o
tio n of any such s ta ff m e m b e rs , th e s ta ff m e m
b e rs to be d ism issed or d em o ted m u s t be se le c
te d on th e b as is of o b jec tive and re a so n a b le
n o n -d isc rim in a to ry s ta n d a rd s fro m am ong all
th e s ta ff of th e school d is tr ic t. In add ition if
th e re is any such d ism issa l or dem otion, no
s ta ff v aca n cy m a y be filled th ro u g h re c ru it-
12 a
m e n ’t of a p e rso n of a ra c e , color, o r n a tio n a l
o rig in d iffe ren t fro m th a t of th e in d iv id u a l dis-
m issied o r dem o ted , u n til e ac h d isp laced s ta ff
m e m b e r who is qua lified h a s h ad a n oppo rtu n i
ty to fill th e v aca n cy and h a s fa iled to a cc ep t a n
o ffer to do so.
P r io r to such a reduction , th e school b o a rd
w ill develop or re q u ire the d evelopm en t of non-
ra c ia l o b jec tive c r ite r ia to be u sed in se lec ting
th e s ta ff m e m b e r who is to be d ism issed or de
m oted . T hese c r i te r ia sh a ll be a v a ilab le for
pub lic in spection an d sh a ll be re ta in e d by the
school d is tr ic t. The school d is tr ic t also sh a ll r e
co rd and p re se rv e th e ev a lu a tio n of s ta ff m e m
b e rs u n d e r th e c r ite r ia . Such ev a lu a tio n sha ll
be m a d e av a ila b le upon re q u e s t to th e d is
m issed, o r dem o ted em ployee.
“D em otion” as u sed above includes any r e
a ss ig n m e n t (1) u n d er w hich th e s ta ff m e m b er
rece iv es le ss p ay or h as le ss re sp o n sib ility th a n
u n d e r th e a ss ig n m e n t he held p rev iously , (2)
w hich re q u ire s a le sse r d eg ree of skill th a n did
th e a ss ig n m e n t he he ld p rev iously , or (3) u n d e r
w hich th e s ta ff m e m b e r is asked, to teach, a
su b jec t or g ra d e o th e r th a n one for w hich he is
certified, o r fo r w hich he h as h ad su b s ta n tia l
ex p erien ce within, a re a so n a b ly c u rre n t period.
In g e n e ra l and depending upon th e su b jec t m a t
te r involved, five y e a rs is such a rea so n ab le p e
riod.
TRAN SPO R TAT IO N
The tra n sp o r ta tio n sy s te m sh a ll be co m p le te
ly re -e x a m in e d re g u la r ly by th e su p e rin te n d
ent, h is staff, and th e school board . B us ro u tes
an d th e a ss ig n m e n t of s tu d en ts to bu ses w ill be
d esigned to in su re th e tra n s p o r ta tio n of a ll e li
g ib le pup ils on a n o n -seg reg a ted and o therw ise
n o n -d isc rim in a to ry basis.
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND
SIT E SELECTION
All school construc tion , school consolidation ,
an d site se lec tio n (includ ing th e loca tion of any
te m p o ra ry c la ssro o m s) in th e sy s te m sh a ll be
done in a m a n n e r w h ich w ill p re v e n t th e r e
c u rre n c e of th e d u a l school s tru c tu re once th is
d eseg reg a tio n p la n is im p lem en ted .
A T T E N D A N C E OUTSIDE S Y S T E M OF
R E S ID E N C E
If th e school d is tr ic t g ra n ts t r a n s fe r s to s tu
den ts liv ing in th e d is tr ic t fo r th e ir a tte n d a n c e
a t public schools ou tside th e d is tr ic t, or if it
p e rm its tr a n s fe r s into th e d is tr ic t of s tu d en ts
w ho live ou tside th e d is tr ic t, it sh a ll do so on a
n o n -d isc rim in a to ry b asis , ex cep t th a t it sh a ll
no t co n sen t to tr a n s fe rs w here th e cu m u la tiv e
e ffec t w ill red u ce d e seg reg a tio n in e ith e r d is
t r i c t o r re in fo rc e th e d u a l school sy stem .
14a
PUPIL ASSIG NM EN T
E L E M E N T A R Y SCHOOLS
(G rad es 1 to- 6)
T he geo g rap h ic b o u n d arie s to- a ll e le m e n ta ry zones
a re show n on the- e le m e n ta ry school m ap , a t ta c h e d
h e re to as E x h ib it “A ”. E x a c t a tte n d a n c e s w ill be d e
te rm in e d fro m b o u n d ary d escrip tio n s to confo rm
to zone lines as th ey a re show n on sa id m ap .
1. Sykes E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6 w ith
an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 544 w hite studen ts. A p
p ro x im a te c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 576.
2. L ee E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6 w ith
an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 370 w hite s tuden ts. A p
p ro x im a te c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 416.
3. M a rsh a ll E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g rad es 1-6
w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 600 w hite pupils.
A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity of th is bu ild ing is 576. A portable-
w ill be n ece ssa ry .
4. B a k e r E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g rad es 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 334, consisting of
310 w hite and 24 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity
of th is bu ild ing is 512.
5. W ilkins E le m e n ta ry School includes g rad es 1-6
w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 616, consisting of
600 w h ite an d 16 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity
fo r th is bu ild ing is 416. P o rta b le s w ill be n ecessa ry .
15a
6. K ey E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6, w ith
a n ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 513 w hite pupils. A pprox
im a te c a p a c ity of th is bu ild ing is 576.
7. L e s te r E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 472, co n sis tin g of
320 w hite pup ils an d 152 n e g ro pup ils o r as m a n y n e
gro pup ils up to 152 a s th e school w ill acco m m o d a te .
A p p ro x im ate cap a c ity of th is bu ild ing is 480. The n eg ro
pupils a re to be d raw n fro m th e Isab le zone.
8. C lausell E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 212, consisting of
47 w hite pupils and 165 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p ac ity for th is bu ild ing is 224.
9. Isab le E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith a n ap p ro x im a te e n ro llm en t of 860 n eg ro pupils.
A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity of th is bu ild ing is 1120.
10. R eynolds E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te e n ro llm en t of 1009 n e g ro pupils.
A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 1088.
11. G eorge E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 206, co n sis tin g of
100 w hites and 106 neg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity
fo r th is bu ild ing is 192. Should a tte n d a n c e ex ceed c a
pac ity , th e overflow m a y be a ss ig n ed to M a rtin E le
m e n ta ry . 12
12. M artin E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 296, consisting of
76 w hite pup ils and 200 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 384.
13. L ak e E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 600 w hite pupils.
A p p ro x im a te c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 576. A p o r t
ab le w ill be n e c e ssa ry .
14. W hitfield E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-
6 w ith a n ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 448, consisting
of 282 w hite pup ils an d 166 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate
c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 416. P o r ta b le s w ill be n eed
ed.
15. B a r r E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith a n ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 213, consisting of
123 w hite pup ils an d 90 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p ac ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 192. P o rta b le s w ill be needed .
16. P o in d e x te r E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g rad es
1-6 w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 149, consisting
of 47 w hite pup ils and 102 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate
c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 192.
17. R o b ertso n E le m e n ta ry School includes g ra d e s
1-6 w ith a n ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 581, consisting
of 6 w h ite pup ils and 575 neg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate
c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 544. A p o rtab le w ill be n e c
e ssa ry .
18. D av is E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 228, consisting of
46 w hite pup ils and 182 neg ro pupils. A p prox im ate c a
17a
p a c ity fo r th is build ing is 224, A p o rta b le w ill be n e c e s
sa ry .
19. Jo n es E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith a n ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 1241, consis ting of
70 w hite pupils an d 1171 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 1248.
20. G allow ay E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 447, consisting of
185 w h ite pup ils and 262 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is build ing is 448.
21. B row n E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 575 neg ro pupils.
A p p ro x im ate cap a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 832.
22. P o w er E le m e n ta ry School in c ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 599, consisting of
383 w hite pupils and 216 negro- pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 544. P o r ta b le s w ill be n e c e s
sa ry .
23. R a in es E le m e n ta ry School in c ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 852, consisting of
780 w hite pup ils and 72 n e g ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity for th is bu ild ing is 736. P o r ta b le s w ill be needed .
24. F re n c h E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 437, consisting of
354 w hite pupils and 83 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity for th is bu ild ing is 576.
18a
25. Jo h n so n E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 1094, consisting of
71 w hite pup ils an d 1023 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 1088. P o r ta b le s w ill b e needed .
26. D uling E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 384, consisting of
194 w hite pup ils and 190 neg ro pupils, or less, as th e
schoo l ca n acco m m o d a te . A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity fo r
th is bu ild ing is 384.
27. C asey E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-
6 w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 420 w hite pupils.
A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 576.
28. B rad ley E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g rad es 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 326, consisting of
33 w hite pupils and 293 neg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 384.
29. S m ith E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g rad es 1-6
w ith a n a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 917 n e g ro pupils.
A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 928.
30. W alton E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 676 neg ro pupils.
A p p ro x im a te c a p a c ity fo r th is build ing is 1120.
31. D aw son E le m e n ta ry School includes g rad es 1-6
w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 452 consisting of 65
w h ite pup ils and 387 neg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a p a c i
ty fo r th is bu ild ing is 608.
19a
32. M orrison E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 501 n eg ro pupils.
A p p ro x im ate c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 616, T his zone
also inc ludes th e developing a r e a a ro u n d L ak e Hico.
A new school s ite h a s b een se lec ted an d w ill be de
veloped. The new school w ill be p a ire d w ith M orrison
or w ill rep la ce M orrison.
33. W atk ins E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 3-6
w ith a n ap p ro x im a te e n ro llm en t of 953, consisting of
773 w hite pupils an d 180 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 608. P o r ta b le s w ill be n e c e s
sa ry .
34. B oyd E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 552, consisting of
395 w hite pupils an d 127 n eg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p ac ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 576.
35. G reen E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-2
w ith an a p p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 529 pupils, co n sis t
ing of 380 w hite pupils an d 149 negro ' pupils. A pprox i
m a te c a p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 576.
36. M cW illie E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 698, consisting of
624 w hite pupils and 74 neg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p ac ity for th is bu ild ing is 620. P o r ta b le s w ill be needed .
37. Spann E le m e n ta ry School in c ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith an ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 578, consisting of
539 w hite pupils and 39 neg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 540. P o r ta b le s w ill be needed .
20a
38. M cLeod E le m e n ta ry School inc ludes g ra d e s 1-6
w ith a n ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t of 566, consisting of
500 w hite pup ils and 66 neg ro pupils. A p p ro x im ate c a
p a c ity fo r th is bu ild ing is 608.
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
(G rad es 7, 8 and 9)
The ju n io r h igh schools a re zoned into n ine zones
as re f le c te d on th e zoning m ap a n d b o u n d ary d e sc rip
tions a tta c h e d h e re to as E x h ib it “B ”.
T he n a m e s of th e schools, ap p ro x im a te en ro llm en t
and c a p a c itie s of eac h school a re show n as follows:
Approximate
Name of School Enrollment Total
White Negro Total Capacity
W hitten Ju n io r H igh 515 250 765 868
P e e p le s Ju n io r H igh 930 367 1290 1286
B lack b u rn Ju n io r H igh 268 656 924 1458
H a rd y Ju n io r H igh 734 442 1176 1278
E nochs Ju n io r H igh 176 661 837 830
R ow an Ju n io r H igh 140 478 618 996
B ailey Ju n io r H igh 843 586 1429 1310
Pow ell Ju n io r H igh 901 649 1550 1574
C h asta in Ju n io r H igh 898 541 1439 1234
SEN IO R HIGH SCHOOLS
(G rad es 10, 11 and 12)
The sen io r h igh schools a re zoned into e ig h t zones
a s re fle c ted on th e zoning m a p and b o u n d ary d esc rip
tions a tta c h e d h e re to as E x h ib it “C”.
2 1 a
Tw o schools — L an ie r and C e n tra l — w ill se rv e a s
m a g n e t schools d raw ing fro m th e en tire d is tr ic t. T hese
schools w ill house spec ia lized v o ca tio n a l and te c h n i
c a l p ro g ra m s w h ich a re no t p re se n tly o ffered a t any
school o th e r th a n a t one or bo th of such schools. All
s tu d en ts now a tten d in g L a n ie r w ho! do no t re s id e in
th e L an ie r zone, or those now a tten d in g C en tra l w ho
do no t re s id e in th e C en tra l zone w ill con tinue to a tte n d
th e school th e y a re now a tten d in g , p ro v id ed th e y a re
en ro lled in a spec ia lized p ro g ra m no t o ffered a t any
school o th e r th a n C en tra l or L an ier. A ny s tu d en t n o t
p re sen tly en ro lled in e ith e r L a n ie r o r C en tra l and w ho
do no t re s id e in th e L a n ie r or C en tra l zone m a y a tte n d
one of th e se schools only if he en ro lls in a sp ec ia lized
p ro g ra m no t o ffered in th e h igh school to w hich he
is zoned.
The n a m e s of th e schools, a p p ro x im a te e n ro llm en t
and c ap a c itie s of each school a re show n as follows:
Approximate With
Name of School Enrollment Capacity Portables
White Negro Total
W ingfield H igh School 829 *44 873 894 1154
H ill H igh School 177 !356 533 894
C en tra l H igh School 473 168 641 1000
P ro v in e H igh School 720 533 1253 1180
L a n ie r H igh School 294 578 872 1200
M u rra h H igh School 987 316 1303 1180 1232
B rink ley H igh School 78 1108 1186 1154
C allaw ay H igh School 1104 185 1289 998 1336
*To be increased in accordance with Court modification of Zone I.
!To be decreased in accordance with Court modification of Zone II.
22a
T he C lerk of th is C ourt is d ire c te d to file a copy of
th is P la n w ith th e C lerk of th e U nited S ta te s C ourt of
A ppeals fo r th e F if th C ircuit.
SO O R D E R E D th is th e 22nd day of J a n u a ry , 1970.
(S igned) DAN M. R U SSELL, JR .
U N IT E D STA TES
D IST R IC T JU D G E
IN TH E
U N IT E D STA TES COURT O F A P P E A L S
FO R TH E F IF T H C IR C U IT
No. 29228
D E R E K JE R O M E SIN G LETO N , E T AL.,
P la in tiffs-A p p ellan ts ,
v e rsu s
JACKSON M U N IC IPA L SE PA R A T E
SCHOOL D ISTRICT, E T AL.,
D ef endan ts-A pp elle e s .
A ppeal fro m th e U nited S ta te s D is tr ic t C ourt fo r th e
S ou thern D is tr ic t of M ississipp i
(M ay 5, 1970)
B efo re BROWN, Chief Ju d g e , M ORGAN and
INGRAHAM , C ircu it Judges.
BROW N, Chief Judge: T his is a n ap p e a l fro m an
o rd e r of th e D is tr ic t C ourt e n te re d p u rsu a n t to th e r e
m a n d fro m S ingleton v. J a c k so n M unicipal S e p a ra te
School D is tric t (S ingle ton I I I ) ,1 5 Cir., 1969, —.— F.2d
____ , (conso lida ted ca se s en b an c) [No. 26285, D ec. 1,
1969], r e v ’d in p a r t , sub nom ., C a r te r v. W est F e lic i
a n a P a r is h School Bd., 1970, —.— U.S. ------ , — — S.Ct.
_____, 24 L.Ed.2d 477. P r io r to th is re m a n d th e d is tr ic t
w as o p e ra tin g u n d e r a Jefferson1 A m odel freedom -of-
choice plan . And a f te r re m a n d fo r th e adoption of a
u n ita ry p la n th e D is tr ic t C ourt ca lled fo r th e school
b o a rd to invoke th e a ss is ta n c e of th e O ffice of E d u c a
tio n of the U nited S ta te s D e p a rtm e n t of H ealth , E d u c a
tion an d W elfare in p re p a rin g new d eseg reg a tio n p lans.
H EW filed a p lan w ith th re e a l te rn a tiv e p ro p o sa ls fo r
seco n d ary schools. The school b o a rd p roposed m odifi
ca tions (see n o te 8, infra) th a t red u ce d th e am o u n t
of d e seg reg a tio n th a t would re su lt and th e se m od ifica
tions w ere, a f te r an e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g on J a n u a ry
19, 1970, fo r th e m o s t p a r t ap p ro v ed by th e D is tr ic t
C ourt. A nd th is n ew p la n w as o rd e red im p lem en ted
on F e b ru a ry 1, 1970.
iThis is one of a long series of cases involving the Jackson Mu
nicipal School District’s operation of a dual school system.
Evers v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 5 Cir.,
1964, 328 F.2d 408; Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate
School Dist., 5 Cir., 1965, 348 F.2d 729 (Singleton I); Singleton
v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 5 Cir., 1966, 355
F.2d 865 (Singleton II).
lAUnited States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 5 Cir.,
1966, 372 F.2d 836.
24a
O ur co ncern is w h e th e r th e sy s tem ap p ro v ed by th e
D is tr ic t C ourt is u n ita ry . We believe th a t, a lthough fa c
u lty ,2 staff, e x tra c u r r ic u la r ac tiv ities , etc., see G reen
v. County School Bd. of N ew K en t County, 1968, 391
U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L .Ed.2d 716; E llis v. B o ard
of P u b lic Inst, of O range Cty., 5 Cir., 1970, ------ F .2d
..____ [No. 29124, F eb . 17, 1970], a p p e a r so f a r to h av e
becom e u n ita ry , th e ex isten ce of a su b s ta n tia l n u m b e r
of schools w ith se g re g a te d s tu d en t bodies, th e s tu d en ts
of w hich w ill fo r a la rg e p a r t h av e a com p le te ly seg
re g a te d education , p re v e n ts th e sy s tem fro m being a
u n ita ry one w hen th e re is a rea so n ab le a lte rn a tiv e p la n
th a t w ill re su lt in a m o re n e a r ly u n ita ry sy stem . We
thus re m a n d th is case .3
2We note that the District Court’s order providing for the re
assignment of faculty and staff obligated the school district
to meet the Singleton III faculty-staff assignment ratio, which
by its terms prescribed ratios for the 1969-70 school year,
only for the 1969-70 school year. But it is plain that resegrega
tion can occur as much from faculty assignments as from
student assignments. And it is plain that any future substantial
deviations from the Singleton III ratios will require a showing
that there is a unitary system and that such deviations will
not tend to reestablish a dual system. We emphasize this
without any prejudgment of the merits because plaintiff s-
appellants have suggested in the comments requested by the
Court (see notes 3, 4, 5, and 6, infra) that there is a significant
possibility that the school district will abandon these ratios
for the 1970-71 school year.
sUnder the stringent requirements of Alexander v. Holmes County
Board of Education, supra, which this court has carried out in
United States v. Hinds County School Board, 5 Cir., 1969,_____
F.2d __ ___ [Nos. 28030, 28042, Nov. 7, 1969], this court
has judicially determined that the ordinary procedures for
appellate review in school segregation cases have to be suitably
adapted to assure that each system, whose case is before us,
“begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems.” Up
on consideration of the record, the court has proceeded to dis-
25a
I .
The P ro p o sa ls fo r U n ita ry S ystem
A t th e co m m en cem en t of th e 1969-70 school y e a r ,
Ja c k so n h ad 10,527 N egro and 10,432 w hite e le m e n ta ry
school s tu d en ts a tten d in g 38 e le m e n ta ry schools. Of
th o se schools, 13 w ere all- or v ir tu a lly a ll-N egro and
20 w ere all- or n e a r ly all-w hite. Of th e 5 su b s ta n tia lly
in te g ra te d schools, 3 w ere p red o m in an tly N egro, 2 p re
dom inan tly w hite. A nd Jiackson w as o p e ra tin g 9 jun io r
h igh schools (g ra d e s 7-9), 2 ju n io r-sen io r h igh schools
(g ra d e s 7-12), and 6 sen io r h igh schools (g ra d e s 10-12).
T h e re w ere 7,700 N egro and 10,380 w hite s tu d en ts en
rolled. Of those s tuden ts, 7,300 (93.5%) N egroes w ere
en ro lled in 6 a ll-N egro schools. All of th e w hite s tu
den ts a tten d ed 11 schools ran g in g fro m 86.5 to 100 p e r
cen t w hite.
A. The B asics of th e H EW P la n
The p lan su g g es ted by H EW to re m e d y th is is e ssen
tia lly a zone p lan . I t w as c o n s tru c te d on th e a ssu m p tio n
th a t o th e r a lte rn a tiv e s w ere fo rec lo sed by s ta te s ta tu
to ry lim ita tio n s on s ta te -g ra n te d f in a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e
to loca l school d is tr ic ts to p rov ide in 'trac ity tr a n s p o r
ta tio n .4 In addition , th e H EW p la n in d ica te d th a t o th e r
pose of this case as an extraordinary matter. Rule 2, FRAP.
The Court has, however, solicited supplemental briefs and
data and has all necessary material for consideration on the
merits. (See notes 4, 5, and 6 infra)
4At the Court’s request counsel for plaintiffs-appellants and the
school board supplied the Court with copies of the state
statutes that restrict financial assistance to local districts for
intracity bussing. Miss. Stat. Ann. §§ 6336-et seq. They were
26 a
lim ita tio n s “to developing a p la n re su ltin g in to ta l de
segregation , of a ll schools in th e sy s te m w e re ” (1) th e
size of th e d is tric t, (2) n a tu ra l a n d m a n -m a d e b a r r ie r s
th a t co n stitu te sa fe ty h a z a rd s and r e s tr ic t m ob ility ,5
(3) d em o g rap h ic p a t te rn of th e d is tr ic t, (4) la ck of a
co m pu lso ry a tten d an c e law , (5) possib ility of re s e g re
g a tio n an d (6) th e n eed to develop a “p la n w hich w ould
re su lt in th e le a s t am o u n t of d is ru p tio n and w h ich w ould
be im p lem en ted im m ed ia te ly .”
asked to comment on the constitutionality of the statutes
and counsel agreed that the statutes of the state did not suffer
from any constitutional defects since the school district has
the power to provide transportation to pupils not eligible
for state-aided bussing (Miss. Stat. Ann. § 6336-01).
sCounsel were also asked to comment on the extent to which these
barriers were a limitation on the development of a unitary
school district. The following is part of the statement of Dr.
H. Larry Winecoff, director of the team that prepared the
HEW plan. The statement was submitted to the Court’s re
quest:
“We did not consider that there were any natural or
man-made barriers in Jackson to our Junior-Senior
High School program. However, at the elementary
level the following such barriers exist, and were con
sidered:
1) Highway 80 located in South Jackson. This four
lane highway prevented us from assigning black chil
dren in grades 1-5 to Key and Lester and it prevented
the assignment of white children to I sable. We con
sidered 6th graders old enough to negotiate this bar
rier.
2) There is an airport-industrial complex-golf course,
located in the mid-western section of the Town. This
area limited our alternatives to some extent.
3) There is a railroad freight yard in the inner-
city which limited our alternatives to some extent.”
27a
B. T he R esu lts a t th e E le m e n ta ry L ev e l6
T he H EW p la n w as a zoning p la n w ith in th e f r a m e
w ork of th e fo rm e r 1-6 g ra d e s tru c tu re . T he zoning w as
designed to m ax im ize d eseg reg a tio n and w as supp le
m e n te d by p a irin g of tw o schools an d a cross-zone a s
s ig n m en t of tw o schools. I t w as p ro je c te d th a t th e p lan
w ould p roduce 5 all-w hite schools an d 6 a ll-b lack
schools w ith 15 p red o m in an tly w hite schools and 12 p re
dom in an tly b lack schools.7
This w as b as ica lly th e p la n adop ted by th e D is tr ic t
C ourt.8 B ut no t even th e se p ro je c te d re su lts h av e b een
sPlaintiffs-appellant’s original complaint was that the dual system
had not been eliminated at the secondary level. Their com
plaints regarding the elementary level were concerned only
with situations where there was a very close relationship
between the elementary and secondary level as in the Isable-
Hill complex, which under the HEW plan would serve both
as an elementary and 9-10 grade school. As we did in Single-
ton III, however, we look at the whole system. And plaintiffs-
appellants have, after letter inquiry from this Court (see notes
4 and 5, supra, challenged the modifications of the elementary
plan approved by the District Court. But we do not limit our
selves to these modifications. Instead, we concern ourselves
with the overall workings of the system — all aspects of
the elementary and secondary levels.
7The projected enrollment for each elementary school under this
HEW plan is set out in Appendix A.
sThe board’s proposed modifications at the elementary level focused
on 8 schools. The board requested that the number of Negroes
assigned to 4 predominantly white schools be reduced, that
one school that was projected to be predominantly Negro be
made predominantly white and that the enrollment of 3 all
Negro schools be increased. The schools effected were Key,
Lester, Watkins, Green, Duling, Isabelle, Walton and Morri
son. See Appendix A. The District Court allowed the proposed
modifications where it found that the capacity of the school
would be exceeded under the HEW plan and where portable
classrooms would have to be relocated.
ach ieved . As of M arch 26, 19709 th e re w ere seven ele-,
m e n ta ry schools w ith a ll b lack s tu d en t bodies and six
m o re in w hich th e s tu d en t body is m a d e up of a t le a s t
n in e ty p e rc e n t N egro s tuden ts. In add ition th e re are;
6 e le m e n ta ry schools out of a to ta l of 38 th a t h a v e only
w hite s tu d en ts a tten d in g th e m and tw o o th e r schools
w ith over n in e ty p e rc e n t w hite s tu d en t bodies.
C. R esu lts a t th e S econdary L evel
The d ire c t cha llenge h e re is not, how ever, to th e e le
m e n ta ry sy stem , bu t is to th e school b o a rd ’s m o d ifica
tions of th e H EW p la n — or m o re a p p ro p ria te ly plans.
A, B, an d C — at th e seco n d ary level. (See note 6,
supra). The H E W p lan s w ere b ased on p rin c ip les of
p a ir in g and zoning. A ll th re e p lan s re su lte d in b re a k
dow n of th e g ra d e s tru c tu re — 6-3-3 — u n d e r w hich
th e d is tr ic t h ad p rev iously b een o pera ting . P la n B, fo r
w hich p la in tiffs -ap p e llan ts ex p re ssed a p re fe ren c e ,
p roposes g eo g rap h ic zoning w ith jun io r h igh schools
con tinu ing to se rv e one o r m o re of g rad es 7- th ro u g h
9. U nd er P la n B, of th e e leven ju n io r h igh schools, one
would se rv e g ra d e s 7-9, six w ould se rv e g ra d e s 7-8,
and fou r w ould se rv e g ra d e 9 only. P la n B ca lls fo r
th e sa m e type of o rg an iza tio n a t th e h igh school level
— six h igh schools a re to se rv e g rad es 10-12, tw o a re
to se rv e g ra d e s 11-12, an d one g rad e 10 only.
The m odifica tions p roposed by th e B o ard and ad o p t
ed by th e D is tr ic t C ourt w ere not rea lly m od ifica tions
9At the Court’s request the school board supplied the Court with
the latest enrollment data available as of March 26, 1970.
This information is set out in Appendix B.
29a
a t all. T hey w ere in s te ad a com p le te ly d iffe ren t p la n
b a se d on g eog raph ic zoning. The zoning w as, how ever,
b a sed on th e assu m p tio n of re ta in in g th e D is tr ic t’s 6-3-3
g ra d e s tru c tu re .
A fte r ap p ro x im a te ly s ix w eeks o p e ra tio n u n d e r th is
p la n th e re w ere 7537 w hite s tu d en ts an d 8156 N egro
s tu d en ts in the D is tr ic t’s se co n d a ry schools. T h ere
w e re no all-N egro or all-w hite seco n d ary schools. (See
A ppendix B). T h ere a re , how ever, a t le a s t fou r schools
v /here the s tu d en t body is o v erw helm ing ly N eg ro .10 In
c o n tra s t, th e p ro jec ted en ro llm en t u n d e r any of the
H EW p lan s would no t h av e p rod u ced any v ir tu a lly all-
N egro schools. See A ppendices C-E.
II.
D eficiencies in th e P re s e n t P la n
I t is not contended th a t th e school b o a rd ’s zoning
p la n w as g e rry m a n d e re d to p roduce little d e se g re g a
tion. B ut i t is co n tended th a t th e school b o a rd p la n
is no t the b e s t av a ilab le a lte rn a tiv e . A ndrew s v. City
of M onroe, 5 Cir. 1970, _ . F .2d _ [No. 29358, A pril
, 1970], A nd it is con tended th a t th e b o a rd h as no t
c a r r ie d “its . . . h eav y b u rd en . . . to ex p la in its p re fe r
ence fo r an a p p a re n tly le ss effec tive m e th o d .” G reen
v. County School B o ard of N ew K en t County, 1968, 391
U.S. 430, 439, 88 S.Ct. 1689,______ , 20 L.Ed.2d 716, 724.
I t is also* c la im ed th a t th e school b o a rd ’s se co n d a ry
JoBlackburn Junior High has 593 Negroes and 34 whites, Rowan
Junior High has 609 Negroes and 31 whites, Brinkley High
School has 1076 Negroes and 2 whites, Lanier High School
has 713 Negroes and 7 whites. See Appendix B.
p la n zone lines w ere no t d raw n to p ro m o te d e se g re g a
tion as re q u ire d by th is Court. V alley v. R ap id es P a r
ish School Bd., 5 Cir., 1970, __ F .2d ------ [No. 29237,
M arch 6, 1970]; U n ited S ta te s v. In d ian o la M unicipal
S e p a ra te School Dist., 5 Cir., 1969, 410 F .2d 626; D av is
v. B o ard of School C om m issioners of M obile County,
5 Cir., 1968, 393 F.2d 690.
W e a re of th e c le a r view th a t the p la in tiffs ’-appel-
la n ts ’ co m p la in ts a re valid . J a c k so n S e p a ra te School
D is tr ic t is no t a u n ita ry sy stem . T he defic iencies do
no t lie in th e s im p le ex isten ce of som e schools th a t
a re a ll o r v ir tu a lly a ll Negro- o r w hite. T hey lie in s te ad
in th e fa c t th a t a su b s ta n tia l n u m b e r of N egro s tu d en ts
w ill re c e iv e th e ir en tire public school edu ca tio n in a
s e g re g a te d school e n v iro n m en t,11 w hich is p re su m
ab ly la rg e ly th e re su lt of th e S ta te ’s o p e ra tio n of a
d ual school sy s tem w ith schools lo c a ted to s e rv e th a t
sy stem . A nd th e se defic iencies a re c r it ic a l in ligh t of
th e ex isten ce of re a d ily av a ila b le m ean s, w hich can
b e im p lem en ted w ithou t s ig n ifican t a d m in is tra tiv e , ed
u ca tio n a l, econom ic, or tra n sp o r ta tio n costs (see no te
14, infra), to avoid fo r su b s ta n tia lly a ll th e s tu d en ts
of th is d is tr ic t th e school life-long se g re g a te d ed u ca
tion. See A ndrew s v. C ity of M onroe, supra.
This C ourt rea lize s th a t th e tim e fo r adoption and
e ffec tu a tio n of a p la n in th is school d is tr ic t w as sh o rt
” Although there is no formal feeder system up the ladder from
grade 1 through 12 in the District, a comparison of attendance
zone lines for elementary and secondary schools indicates that
out of a total Negro student body of 10,558, about 3500 Ne
gro elementary students attending all Negro elementary schools
will attend virtually all Negro secondary schools.
31a
an d th a t th e p h y sica l and lo g istica l p ro b lem s involved
w ere g rea t. A nd it recogn izes th a t s ig n ifican t p ro g re s s
h a s b een ach iev ed bo th as to th e s tu d en t body and th e
o ther Green fa c to rs as a re s u lt of th e p la n p u t in to
effect p u rsu a n t to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt’s o rder. A lthough
u n d e r th e s tr in g e n t m a n d a te of A lex an d e r v. H om es
County B o ard of E duca tion , 1969, 396 U.S. 1 9 ,____ S.Ct
-—-— , ------ L .E d .2 d --------; C a rte r v. W est F e lic ia n a P a r
ish School B oard , 1970,_____U .S ._____ , ____ S .C t._____ ,
24 L.Ed.2d 477, th is w as to be a f in a l p lan , tw o th in g s
w a r ra n t com m ent. F irs t, th e Ju d g e ap p ro ac h ed it in
te rm s of im m ed iacy w ith som e ex p ec ta tio n of c o rre c t
ing d efic ien c ies12 re v e a le d by a c tu a l opera tion . Sec
,2It is apparent from reading the District Court’s opinion that the
practical problems faced by the school district took on great
importance. It seems clear that this was the basic reason
the Trial Judge adopted the school board’s secondary plan.
It minimized the disruption resulting from a change in the
grade structure and the need to relocate portable class
rooms.
He said:
“The Board modification [as to junior high schools]
would retain the current 3-grade structure, obviating
the necessity of formulating new curricula for a dif
ferent structure, as proposed by HEW, and would
tend to lessen the additional bus transportation the
HEW plans call for, all of which the Court finds are
practical considerations in view of the immediacy of
conversion. . ..
. . . Changes as proposed by the HEW plans would
require an extension of time, not now available, in
reorganizing physical facilities, re-registering pupils,
re-assigning members of the faculty, re-arranging the
present 3-grade curricula, constructing additional class
rooms or relocating temporary or portable class
rooms, and transferring supplies and equipment, in
cluding the reinstallation of biology laboratory equip
ment.”
32a
ond, we h a v e to look on it in te rm s of its a c c e p ta b ility
as a f in a l p la n now.
F u r th e rm o re , w e1 a re n o t now confron ted writh th e
p ro b lem s an d d islocations th a t a m id y e a r ch an g e in
th e tra d itio n a l g ra d e s tru c tu re — 6-3-3 — w ould
involve. (See III (2), infra). A lthough th e ch an g es u n
d e r th e H EW p lan s fo r th e seco n d ary schools m a y r e
q u ire fu tu re ad ju s tm en t, th ey a re not ed u ca tiona lly ,
ad m in is tra tiv e ly , or econom ica lly u n reaso n ab le . A nd
i t a p p e a rs th a t u n d er th e se c irc u m s ta n c e s and in th is
case , sub jec t, of course, to th e ex p erien ce of a c tu a l
o p era tio n , th e re is a good p ossib ility th a t th e se p lan s
w ill e s tab lish a u n ita ry school sy s tem a t th e seco n d a ry
level.
III.
S teps to be T ak en to C o rrec t D eficiencies
In o rd e r to ach ieve a u n ita ry sy s tem it is n e c e s sa ry
th a t s tep s be ta k e n im m ed ia te ly :
1. A m a jo r ity to m in o rity tr a n s fe r ru le 13 m u s t be
adop ted and a ll tra n s fe r r in g s tu d en ts m u s t be g iven
tra n s p o r ta tio n if th e y d e s ire it. As ap p ro v ed hi E llis
v. B o ard of P u b lic Inst, of O range Cty., 1970,__*__F.2d
------- [No. 29124, F eb . 17, 1970, slip op. p. 6], th e t r a n s
fe re e is to be g iven p rio rity fo r sp ace an d th u s th e
t r a n s fe r is no t to- be dependen t on sp ace being avail- 13
13Counsel have indicated it was intended that a majority to mi
nority transfer provision be included in the District Court’s
order and that its omission was inadvertent.
33a
able. See also T ay lo r v. O u ach ita P a r is h School Bel,
5 Cir., 1970,____ F .2 d _____ [No. 29215, A pril 13, 1970],
2. Second, th e d is tr ic t is to adop t one of th e p re se n t
ly av a ilab le H EW p lan s fo r th e seco n d ary leve l fo r u se
in th e 1970-71 school y ea r. T hese a re th e only c u rre n tly
av a ilab le p lan s th a t give any p ro m ise of p re sen tly end
ing the dual sy s te m .14 U n ited S ta te s v. B o ard of E d u
ca tio n of B aldw in Cty., 5 Cir., 1970,____ F .2 d _____ [No.
28880, M arch 9, 1970]; B anks v. C la iborne P a r is h School
B oard , 5 Cir., 1970,____ F .2 d _____ [No. 29192, A p ril 15,
1970], The p lan adop ted sh a ll r e m a in in e ffec t until,
a f te r su b s ta n tia l o p e ra tio n u n d e r th e p lan d u ring th e
1970-71 school y e a r , it can be show n th a t m od ifi
c a tio n s15 a re n eed ed and th e re is a find ing th a t such
14As illustrated by the following chart the HEW plans will result
in no major changes in the number of students transported by
the system.
Plan Students Transported
Freedom of Choice
(Prior to Remand) 2379
HEW A 3567
HEW B 2234
HEW C (same as plan B)
(figures for the present plan are unavailable)
In fact, HEW Plan B would reduce the transportation burden
below that under the freedom of choice plan. Moreover,
nearly all problems of building capacity can be solved by
the shifting of presently available portable buildings. And
there are no major problems of either economics or adminis
tration presented by the plan.
15In connection with both the mandatory revision at the ele
mentary level and the likelihood of some modifications being
proposed for the secondary level, it bears emphasizing that
Ellis does not stand for the universal proposition that equi
distant or capacity zoning establishes unitary schools in all
cases. This is the clear holding of our recent case of Andrews
34a
m o d ifica tio n s w ill no t te n d to re e s ta b lish a d u a l school
sy s te m o r th a t o p e ra tio n u n d er th e p lan h a s no t in fa c t
p ro d u ced a u n ita ry sy stem . W e specify Ju ly 1, 1970’6
as th e d a te to be fixed by th e D is tr ic t C ourt fo r m a k in g
p u p il a s s ig n m e n ts fo r th e 1970-71 school y e a r and n o ti
fy ing p a re n ts of those a ss ig n m en ts .
3. The D is tr ic t C ourt sh a ll w ithou t de lay in itia te p ro
ceed ings to! e lim in a te th e d u a l sy s tem w hich s till r e
m a in s in th e e le m e n ta ry level. The D is tr ic t C ourt sh a ll
ca ll fo r n ew p ro p o sa ls fro m th e p a rtie s , H EW , and th e
b i-ra c ia l com m ittee .
I t is ev iden t th a t th e fa c to rs d e lin ea ted by th e H EW
p la n s as rea so n s fo r no t m o re fu lly d e seg reg a tin g th e
e le m e n ta ry level canno t ju s tify th is con tinued se g re
gation. A nd it is also ev iden t th a t th e b u rd en w ill be
h e a v y on th e school d is tr ic t to find a lte rn a tiv e s th a t *
v. City of Monroe, 5 Cir., 1970,____ . F .2 d ____ [No. 29358
April , 1970] which quotes the following from Ellis:
“ ‘Under the facts of this case, it happens that the
school board’s choice of a neighborhood assignment
system is adequate to convert the Orange County
school system from a dual to a unitary system. This
decision does not preclude the employment of differ
ing assignment methods in other school districts to
bring about unitary systems. There are many variables
in the student assignment approach necessary to bring
about unitary school systems. The answer in each
case turns, in the final analysis, as here, on all of
the facts including those which are peculiar to the
particular system.’ ”
Andrews, supra, _____ F.2d at __ ___, quoting Ellis, supra,
_____ F.2d a t___.__. [slip op. p. 11-12, n.7],
’sPursuant to letter request by the Court, see notes 4, 5 and 6,
supra, counsel inform us that the present school year ends
on June 4, 1970, and that classes begin for the 1970-71 school
year on September 8, 1970.
35a
hold p ro m ise of d ises tab lish in g th e d u a l sy s te m now.
A nd th e D is tr ic t C ourt sh a ll m a k e find ings of fa c t th a t
spec ifica lly e v a lu a te th e a lte rn a tiv e s in te rm s of co s t
as w ell as ad m in is tra tiv e , educa tiona l, o r econom ic
fa c to rs b e a rin g on th e e lim in a tio n of th e d u a l sy stem .
T he findings; sh a ll spec ifica lly include th e reaso n s , if
any, fo r th e con tinuation of an y a ll N egro o r a ll w hite
schools.17 The D is tr ic t C ourt sh a ll exped ite th is p ro
ceed ing and sh a ll h av e com ple ted a ll find ings and en
te re d all o rd e rs by Ju n e 15, 1970. The tim e fo r a ss ig n
m e n ts and no tifica tion p u rsu a n t to th is o rd e r is, a s in
p a ra g ra p h 2 above, to be on Ju ly 1, 1970. F u r th e r p ro
ceed ings in th e D is tric t C ourt a re to confo rm to p a r t
I I I of S ingle ton v. Ja c k so n M unicipal S e p a ra te School
D istric t, 5 Cir., 1969,------ F .2 d _____ (conso lida ted cases
en b an c) [No. 26285, Dec. 1, 1969],
4. Follow ing th e p a t te rn of Ellis, supra, an d U n ited
S ta te s v. H inds County School Bd., 5 Cir., 1970, ____
F .2 d ------ [No. 28030, M arch 31, 1970], a b i-ra c ia l com
m itte e is to be co n stitu ted by th e D is tr ic t C ourt from,
n a m e s su b m itted by th e p a r tie s to th is suit. The n u m
b er of m e m b e rs is to be le ft to th e D is tr ic t C ourt, b u t
th e re sh a ll be no m o re th a n 40 no r less 'than 10 m e m
bers . The m e m b e rsh ip is to be d iv ided eq u a lly b e tw een
w hites and N egroes. T he c h a irm a n sh ip is to a l te rn a te
an n u a lly be tw een a w hite c h a irm a n and a N egro c h a ir
m an . This co m m ittee is to reco m m en d to th e school
b o a rd w ays to a t ta in an d m a in ta in a u n ita ry sy stem .
17On this record in this posture we do not prejudge whether,
to what extent, or under what circumstances such conditions
may exist and satisfy the requirements of a unitary system.
36a
5. F in a lly , th e D is tr ic t C ourt is to re ta in ju r isd ic
tio n of th is .case and th e school b o a rd and th e b i-ra c ia l
co m m ittee a re to m a k e b i-an n u a l re p o rts — on D ecem
b e r 1 an d A pril 1 — to it on th e m a in te n a n c e of a un i
ta r y school sy s te m .!S Such re p o r ts a re to be m a d e u n til
isThe reports should include the following information:
I.
(a) The number of students by race enrolled in
the school district;
(b) The number of students by race enrolled in
each school of the district;
(c) The number of students by race enrolled in
each classroom in each of the schools in the dis
trict.
II.
(a) The number of full time teachers by race in
the district;
(b) The number of full time teachers by race in
each school in the district;
(c) The number of part time teachers by race in
the district;
(d) The number of part time teachers by race in
each school in the district.
III.
Describe the requests and the results which have
accrued, by race, under the majority to the minority
transfer provision which was a part of this court’s
order of November 7, 1969.
IV.
State the number of inter-district transfers grant
ed since this court’s order of November 7, 1969, the
race of the students who were granted such trans
fers, and the school district to which the transfers
were allowed.
V.
State whether the transportations system, if any,
in the district is desegregated to the extent that
Negro and white students are transported daily on
the same buses.
VI.
State whether all facilities such as gymnasiums,
auditoriums, and cafeterias are being operated on a
desegregated basis.
th e D is tr ic t C ourt finds th a t th e d u a l sy s te m w ill n o t
be or ten d to be rees tab lish ed .
R E V E R S E D an d R E M A N D E D .
A ppendix A
Projected Enrollment under H E W Plan
for E lem en tary Schools
Building
School White Negro Capacity
Sykes 544 0 576
Lee 370 0 416
M arsh a ll 600 0 576
B ak e r 310 24 512
W ilkins 600 16 416
K ey 513 68 576
L e s te r 320 152 480
C lausell 47 165 224
VII.
Give brief description of any present or proposed
construction or expansion of facilities.
VIII.
(a) State whether the school board has sold or
abandoned any school facility, equipment, or supplies
having a total value of more than $500.00 since
this court’s order of November 7, 1969.
IX.
(a) Give a brief description of the work of the
bi-racial committee since the last report.
(b) Copies of all recommendations made by the bi-
racial committee.
See United States v. Hinds County, 5 Cir., 1970,
------- F .2d______ [No. 28030 March 31, 1970].
38a
School White Negro
Building
Capacity
Isab le* 0 640 1120
R eynolds 0 1009 1088
G eorge 100 106 192
M artin 76 220 384
L ake 600 0 576
W hitfield 282 166 416
B a r r 123 90 192
P o in d ex te r 47 102 192
R o b ertso n 6 575 544
D av is 46 182 224
J ones 70 1171 1248
G allow ay 185 262 448
B row n 0 575 832
P o w er 383 216 544
R ain es 780 72 736
F re n c h 354 83 576
Johnson 71 1023 1088
D uling 194 227 448
C asey 420 0 576
B rad ley 33 293 384
S m ith 0 917 928
W alton 0 527 1120
D aw son 65 387 608
M orrison 0 338 616
W atk ins 773 291 608
Boyd 395 127 576
G reen 380 149 576
* N ot considered an a ll b lack school u n d er
th e H EW p la n b eca u se it w as to be p a r t of an
in te g ra te d e le m e n ta ry -se c o n d a ry com plex.
School White Negro
Building
Capacity
M e W illie 624 74 620
Spann 539 39 540
M cLeod 500 66 608
10350
A ppendix B
JACKSON PU B L IC SCHOOLS
Jack so n , M ississipp i
Student Enrollment as of March 26,1970
SCHOOL
E L E M E N T A R Y NEG RO O TH ER TOTAL
Baker 4 321 325
B a r r 41 83 124
Boyd 168 420 588
B rad ley 339 14 353
B row n 658 0 658
C asey 0 451 451
C laus ell 201 5 206
D avis 309 55 364
D aw son 421 10 431
D uling 126 115 241
F re n c h 138 313 451
G allow ay 388 170 558
G eorge 67 111 178
G reen 123 480 603
Is able 760 0 760
40a
E L E M E N T A R Y NEG RO OTHER TOTAL
Jo h n so n 857 54 911
Jo n es 1248 10 1258
K ey 0 487 487
L ak e 0 609 609
L ee 0 365 365
L e s te r 99 236 335
M arsh a ll 0 569 569
M artin 207 20 227
M cLeod 50 669 719
M cW illie 64 502 566
M orrison 481 0 481
P o in d ex te r 91 85 176
P o w e r 37 368 405
R ain es 131 502 633
R eynolds 999 0 999
R o b ertso n 317 0 317
S m ith 1024 0 1024
Spann 47 491 538
Sykes 0 457 457
W alton 852 0 852
W atk in s 132 517 649
W hitfield 163 238 401
W ilkins 16 490 506
TOTAL 10558 9217 19775
41a
S E C O N D A R Y NEG RO O TH ER TOTAL
B ailey 514 408 922
B la ck b u rn 593 34 627
C h asta in 523 660 1183
E nochs 562 101 663
H a rd y 424 758 1182
P eep les 218 864 1082
P ow ell 796 673 1469
R ow an 609 31 640
W hitten 346 579 925
B rink ley 1076 2 1078
C allaw ay 86 1027 1113
C en tra l 192 564 756
H ill 376 50 426
L an ie r 713 7 720
M u rra h 180 864 1044
P ro v in e 278 637 915
W ingfield 51 897 948
TOTAL 7537 8156 15693
TOTAL E L E M E N T A R Y 19775
TOTAL SECO ND A RY 15693
GRAND TOTAL 35468
42a
A ppendix C
Projected Secondary Enrollment
Under H E W Plan A
Junior High Building
School Grades White Negro Cavacitv
W hitten 7-8 370 165 868
P eep les 7-8 801 282 1286
Isab le-H ill 9 501 190 H ill 200
Isab e ll 500
B lack b u rn 7-8-9 268 756 1458
H a rd y 7-8 572 697 1278
E nochs 9 248 293 830
B ailey 7-8 692* 632* 1310
R ow an 9 285 281 996
C hasta in 7-8 823 482 1234
Pow ell 9 509 379 1574
C allaw ay 7-8 456** 402** 550
*(W)942, (N)682, option fro m C allow ay overflow
8th to R ow an.
**(W)2Q6, (N)350, option.
Senior High
H ill 10 532 167 894
W ingfield 11-12 924 289 894
P ro v in e 10-12 873 533 1180
M u rra h 11-12 772 531 1180
B rink ley 10 875 762 1154
C allaw ay 11-12 851 759 448
43a
A ppend ix D
Projected Secondary Enrollment
Under H E W Plan C
School
P eep les-W h itten
E nochs
H a rd y
B ailey -R ow an
C hasta in
H ill-Isab le
B la ck b u rn
B rink ley
P ow ell
W ingfield
P ro v ine
M u rra h
C allaw ay
Grades White
7-8 1382
7-8 128
7-8 549
7-8 1243
7-8 884
9-10 1022
9-10 691
9-10 645
9-10 1085
11-12 825
11-12 507
11-12 707
11-12 779
Negro
Building
Capacity
438 2154
408 830
587 1286
983 2306
546 1434
401 1374
869 1458
531 1154
708 1574
338 894
581 1180
502 1180
584 998
A ppend ix E
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF S T U D E N T BODIES
JACKSON MUNICIPAL S E P A R A T E SCHOOL
DISTRICT
SCHOOLS Under H E W Plan B
JUNIOR HIGH:
W hitten
P eep le s
Isaible-Hill
W H IT E NEG RO
370 165
801 282
501 190
44a
JUNIOR HIGH: W H IT E N E G R O
B lack b u rn 268 756
H a rd y 572 697
E n o ch s 248 293
B ailey 942 682
R ow an 285 281
C h asta in 823 482
P ow ell 509 379
C allaw ay 206 350
L an ie r 0 0
SEN IO R HIGH:
B rin k ley 627 629
C allaw ay 853 441
M u rra h 707 625
P r ovine 741 521
H ill 456 169
W ingfield 730 276
M A G N E T HIGH SCHOOLS:
C en tra l 823 532
L an ie r 734 339
45a
IN T H E
U N IT E D STA TES COURT O F A P P E A L S
FO R T H E F IF T H CIRCU IT
No, 29226
D E R E K JE R O M E SIN G LETO N , E T AL.,
P la in tiffs-A p p ellan ts ,
v e rsu s
JACKSON M U N IC IPA L S E P A R A T E SCHOOL
D ISTR IC T, E T AL.,
D efendan ts-A ppellees.
A ppeal fro m th e U n ited S ta te s D is tr ic t C ourt fo r th e
S ou th ern D is tr ic t of M ississipp i
ON PETIT IO N FOR R E H E A R I N G AND PETIT IO N
FOR R E H E A R IN G E N BANC
(Ju ly 13, 1970)
B efore BROW N, Chief Ju d g e , M ORGAN an d
INGRAHAM , C ircu it Judges.
P E R CURIAM : T he P e titio n fo r R e h e a rin g is D E
N IE D and th e C ourt h av in g b een po lled a t th e re q u e s t
of one of th e m e m b e rs of th e C ourt an d a m a jo r ity
of th e C ircu it Ju d g es who a re in re g u la r ac tiv e se rv ice
no t h a v in g vo ted in fav o r of it, (R u le 35 F e d e ra l R u le s
of A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re ; L o ca l F if th C ircu it R u le 12)
th e P e titio n fo r R e h e a rin g E n B an c is also D E N IE D .
COLEM AN, C ircu it Ju d g e , vo ted in fav o r of a n en
b an c reh ea rin g .
47a
O PIN IO N AND O R D E R PR O V ID IN G FO R
U N ITA RY SCHOOL SY STEM
F iled : Jun . 15, 1970
U N IT E D STA TES D IST R IC T COURT
SO U TH ER N D IST R IC T O F M ISS IS S IP P I
JACKSON D IVISIO N
D E R E K JE R O M E SIN G LETO N , E T AL,
P la in tiffs ,
CIVIL ACTION
v e rsu s No. 3379
JACKSON M U N IC IPA L SE PA R A T E
SCHOOL D ISTRICT, E T AL,
D efendan ts.
By decision of M ay 15, 1970, a p an e l of th e F if th C ir
cu it C ourt of A ppeals re m a n d e d th e above s ty le d c a se
to th e D is tr ic t C ourt w ith d irec tio n s to fo rm u la te a new
s tu d en t a ss ig n m e n t p lan . The c u r re n t p lan , now re je c t
ed, w as adop ted by th is C ourt on J a n u a ry 22, 1970, p u r
su a n t to a p rev io u s o rd e r of th e A p p e lla te C ourt d ire c t
ing th e Ja c k so n M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tr ic t to
invoke th e a s s is ta n c e of th e O ffice of E d u c a tio n of th e
U n ited S ta te s D e p a rtm e n t of H ea lth , E d u c a tio n and
W elfare , in p re p a rin g d e se g re g a tio n p lan s. As re fle c te d
in th is C ourt’s o rd e r of J a n u a ry 22, 1970, th e school
b o a rd a g re e d to th e d eseg reg a tio n of fa c u lty an d staff,
e x tra -c u rr ic u la ac tiv itie s an d o th e r po licies spe lled ou t
in a n e a r l ie r S ingle ton decision of D ecem b er 1, 1969.
As req u es ted , H E W filed a p ro p o sa l fo r th e d e seg reg a -
tioix of s tu d en t bodies co n sis tin g of th re e a lte rn a tiv e
p lan s, A, B a n d C. The p rop o sed a ss ig n m e n t of e lem en
ta ry s tu d en ts , g ra d e s 1-6, w as th e sa m e in a ll th re e
p lans, th e a ss ig n m e n ts of seco n d a ry lev e l s tu d en ts b e
ing a lte rn a tiv e ly t r e a te d in th e v a rio u s p roposa ls . T he
school b o a rd o ffered m od ifica tions to th e p rop o sed
H EW p lans. A fte r a h ea rin g , th is C ourt, a s to th e e le
m e n ta ry level, adopted th e H EW plan , essen tia lly a zon
ing p lan , w ith m in o r m od ifica tions re q u e s te d by th e
school board , n o t a ll of w hose sugg estio n s w e re ap
proved , and adop ted th e school b o a rd ’s p ro p o sa ls as
to th e seco n d a ry level, also' a zoning p lan . By su cces
s ive m a n d a te s fro m th e S up rem e C ourt of th e U nited
S ta te s and th e A ppella te C ourt, th is C ourt w as d irec ted
to o rd e r the im m ed ia te im p lem en ta tio n of th is p la n
by F e b ru a ry 1, 1970. I t w as so im p lem en ted and is c u r
re n tly in effect. N onetheless, fou r m on ths a f te r its im
p lem en ta tio n , th e A ppella te C ourt h a s re je c te d th e
p lan , find ing in essence th a t th e ex is ten ce of a n u m
b e r of schools w ith se g re g a te d s tu d en t bodies p re v e n ts
th e sy stem fro m being a u n ita ry one w hen th e re is
a re a so n a b le a l te rn a tiv e p lan th a t w ill re su lt in a m o re
n e a r ly u n ita ry sy stem . W ith re sp e c t to th e e le m e n ta ry
level, th is C ourt h ad befo re it no a lte rn a tiv e p ro p o sa l
— only th e H E W p lan s to w hich it m a d e m in o r m od ifi
cations, as n o ted above. N onetheless, in re sp o n se to
th e re c e n t d irec tio n s fro m th e A p p ella te C ourt, w h e re
by th is C ourt w as d irec ted to ca ll fo r new p ro p o sa ls
fo r th e e le m e n ta ry leve l fro m (1) p la in tiffs , (2) th e
d e fen d a n t school board , (3) H EW , and (4) a b i-ra c ia l
co m m ittee , appo in ted in acc o rd an ce w ith th e m a n d a te ,
sa id p lan s to be filed by Ju n e 1, 1970, in o rd e r th a t
th is C ourt m a k e its find ings by Ju n e 15, 1970, only one
p la n w as subm itted .
E L E M E N T A R Y SCHOOLS
H E W filed a new P la n A. The school b o a rd a v e r re d
th a t it w as u n ab le to p ropose a p lan , e ith e r ed u ca tio n
ally or p ra c tic a lly feasib le , w hich w ould a t ta in m o re
ra c ia l m ix tu re th a n th e p re se n t C ourt im p o sed p lan ,
a p la n th e B o ard m a in ta in s “is w orking ,” an d offered
only one m in o r m odification , to-w it, to p a i r B a r r and
P o in d ex te r, w hich p a irin g would no t p re ju d ice th e r a
c ia l b a lan ce a t e ith e r school. The b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee
o ffered p roposa ls w hich w ould e lim in a te to ta l s e g re
ga tion in th e six now a ll w hite schools, and w ould a s
sign w hite s tu d en ts to w h at a re now th re e p re d o m in a te
ly neg ro schools. P la in tiff-ap p e llan ts d e layed m a k in g
any p roposa ls u n til a f te r ex am in in g th e H EW plan , to
w hich it th e n o ffered m od ifica tions for th e sole pu rp o se
of e ffec tu a tin g m o re ra c ia l m ix tu re . D e p a rtm e n t
of Ju s tic e a tto rn ey s a p p e a re d n e ith e r on b eh a lf of H EW
n o r as am icu s cu riae .
D r. L a r ry W inecoff, h e a d of a n in e -m an H E W te a m
w hich fo rm u la te d th e p lan s of J a n u a ry an d Ju n e 1970,
ag a in te s tif ied as p la in tiffs ’ w itness on b eh a lf of th e
Ju n e p lan . The c u rre n tly p rop o sed p lan , like its p re d e
cesso r, is a zone plan. W h ereas th e fo rm e r p la n e s ta b
lished 37 zones fo r th e 38 e le m e n ta ry schools, eac h hous
ing g rad es 1-6, ex cep t fo r th e p a ir in g of W atk ins and
G reen, and th e cross-zon ing of b lack s tu d en ts fro m Is-
ab le to K ey and L e s te r (a p ro p o sa l now sough t by th e
b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee ), th e p re se n t p la n p roposes to close
th re e schools, R obertson , M a rtin and B a rr , o th e rw ise
re ta in in g b as ica lly th e sa m e zone lines of th e J a n u a ry
p lan , bu t g roup ing 35 schools into ten c lu s te rs o r a re a s ,
in som e in s ta n ces assign ing non-con tiguous a re a s to
th e p a re n t c lu ste r. The schools in e a c h a re a w ould e ith
e r re ta in g ra d e s 1-6, or, w hen p a ire d , se rv e e ith e r
g ra d e s 1-3 or g ra d e s 4-6, g ra d e s 1-2 or 3-6, o r g ra d e s
1-4 or 5-6, th e re b y each a re a se rv in g 1-6 g ra d e s w ith in
its b oundaries.
A c h a r t of th e a ss ig n m e n ts follows:
Capacity
School with Port. Grades White Negro Total
A R E A I
1. Sykes 576 1-6 400 179 579
2. Lee 416 1-6 296 128 424
3. B ak e r 512 1-6 307 153 460
A R E A II
4. M a rsh a ll 576 1-4 432 0 432
5. K ey 576 1-4 368 0 368
6. L e s te r 448 1-4 156 68 224
7. Isab le 1120 5-6 467 607 1074
8. R eynolds 1056 1-4 0 1056 1056
A R E A III
9. W ilkins 576 1-4 373 116 489
10. C lause ll 192 5-6 166 57 223
A R E A IV
11. L ak e 615 1-3 307 329 636
12. W hitfield 480 1-3 127 369 496
13. Jo n es 1248 4-6 434 676 1110
51a
Capacity
School with Port. Grades White Negro Total
A R E A V
14. G eorge 192 1-6 108 83 191
15. D avis 352 1-6 52 303 355
16. P o in d e x te r 192 1-6 82 118 200
17. G allow ay 500 1-6 162 385 547
18. B row n 800 3-6 224 530 774
19. P o w e r 416 1-2 122 267 389
A R E A VI
20. F re n c h 576 1-2 154 404 558
21. Johnson 1008 3-6 310 790 1110
A R E A VII
22. R a in es 608 1-6 360 261 621
23. B rad ley 384 1-6 203 174 377
24. D aw son 608 1-6 174 420 594
A R E A VIII
25. M orrison 544 1-4 0 549 549
26. W atk ins 576 5-6 259 317 576
27. G reen 608 1-4 518 95 613
A R E A I X
28. S m ith 960 1-4 0 488 488
29. W alton 1120 1-4 0 638 638
30. D uling 384 5-6 171 244 415
31. Boyd 608 5-6 269 360 629
32. M cW illie 640 1-4 517 42 559
33. C asey 480 1-4 362 10 372
A R E A X
34. Spann 576 1-6 497 47 544
35. M cLeod 768 1-6 665 51 716
Area I. C onta ins Sykes, L ee an d B ak e r Zones. A ll
th re e schools w ill se rv e g ra d e s 1-6 in e a c h zone, w ith
170 b lack s to be tra n sp o r te d fro m th e M a rtin School
Zone (closed) to Sykes; 128 b lacks f ro m R o b e rtso n an d
M artin Zones (closed) to Lee; and 153 b lack s fro m R ob
e rtso n (closed) to B aker.
Area II. C onta ins M arsh a ll, K ey, L es te r, I sab le , and
R eynolds schools. G rad es 1-4 to be p a ire d into M a r
shall, K ey, L e s te r or R eynolds Zones. A rea g ra d e s 5-6
to a tte n d Isab le .
Area III. C lausell p a ire d w ith W ilkins, W ilkins to
se rv e a re a g ra d e s 1-4, and C lause ll a r e a g ra d e s 5-6.
Area IV. L ake, W hitfie ld and Jo n es a re p a ire d to
se rv e th is a re a : L ake, g rad es 1-3; W hitfield , g ra d e s
1-3 and Jones, g ra d e s 4-6.
Area V. C onta ins G eorge, D avis, P o in d ex te r, G al
low ay , B row n an d P o w er schools. G rad es 1-6 a re zoned
to G eorge, D avis, P o in d ex te r and G allow ay, and
B row n, g ra d e s 3-6, is p a ire d w ith P ow er, g ra d e 1-2.
The B row n-P ow er Zone con ta ins a non-contiguous a re a
n o r th e a s t of th e B row n-P ow er schools.
Area VI. F re n c h to be p a ire d w ith Johnson , F re n c h
to se rv e g ra d e s 1-2 in th e a re a , an d Johnson g ra d e s
3-6 in th e a rea .
Area VII. C ontains R aines, B rad ley an d D aw son.
G rad es 1-6 a re zoned to ea c h school, w ith th e B rad ley
Zone con ta in ing non-contiguous a re a n o r th e a s t of th e
D aw son Zone, som e 8 to 10 m ile s from , th e B ra d le y
school, an d th e R a in es Zone co n ta in ing a non-contigu-
ous a re a se v e ra l m iles n o r th of th e R a in es school.
Area VIII. C ontains M orrison , W atk ins an d G reen
Schools, w ith M orrison, G rad es 1-4 and G reen , g ra d e s
1-4, p a ire d w ith W atkins, g ra d e s 5-6.
Area IX. C ontains Sm ith, W alton, D uling, Boyd, Mc-
W illie an d C asey. G rad es 1-4 a re sub-zoned, to Sm ith ,
W alton, M cW illie and C asey. The M cW illie sub-zone
inc ludes a non-contiguous a re a to th e no rth . D uling and
Boyd a r e to se rv e g ra d e s 5-6 each , bu t w ith no boun
d a ry lines show n as to how th e y a re to be p a ire d w ith
th e 1-4 schools.
Area X. C ontains tw o schools, S p ann and M cLeod,
each zoned fo r 1-6 g rad es , an d w ith M cLeod con ta in ing
a non-contiguous a re a to th e n o rthw est.
E v en un d er th is e la b o ra te p lan , two- schools, M a r
sh a ll and K ey, re m a in to ta lly w hite , two, M cW illie and
C asey, re m a in w ith tok en b la ck a tten d an c e , and fo u r
schools, R eynolds, M orrison, S m ith and W alton re m a in
to ta lly b lack. P la in tif fs ’ p ro p o sa ls a re g e a re d to a l te r
ing the ra c ia l m ix tu re of th e above schools by a ss ig n
ing 480 b lacks fro m R eynolds, 200 to M arsh a ll, 200 to
K ey and 80 to L e s te r in A rea II; in A rea V III, a ss ig n
ing 200 w hites fro m G reen to M orrison , and 200 b lack s
fro m M orrison to G reen ; and in A rea IX assig n in g 100
w hites fro m C asey to Sm ith, 200 w hites fro m M cW illie
to W alton, 100 b lack s fro m S m ith to C asey, and 200
b lacks fro m W alton to McW illie.
54a
D r. W inecoff te s tif ied th a t th e J a n u a ry H EW p la n
w as p re p a re d on th e p rem ise th a t tra n s p o r ta tio n of s tu
den ts is lim ited by s ta te law . The p lan itse lf s ta ted :
“P u p ils liv ing ou tside th e city lim its m a y be tr a n s p o r t
ed to a n a tten d an c e cen te r w ith in th e c ity or w ithou t
th e city . Those re s id in g w ith in th e city lim its m a y be
tra n sp o r te d to an a tten d an c e c e n te r ou tside th e city
lim its. S p ec ia l le g is la tio n p rov ides fo r tra n sp o r ta tio n
of sp ec ia l ed u ca tio n pupils a t pub lic (s ta te ) ex pense .”
U nd er s ta te law s, Section 6336.01, e t seq., M ississipp i
Code of 1942, th e J a c k so n schoo l b o a rd h a s fu rn ish ed
tra n sp o r ta tio n to s tu d en ts res id in g ou tside th e m u n ic i
p a l co rp o ra te lim its, b u t w ith in th e school d is tr ic t, who
a tte n d schools w ith in th e d is tric t, r e fe r re d to h e re in
a f te r as in te r-c ity busing. H is to rica lly , no tr a n s p o r ta
tion h a s been fu rn ish ed to s tu d e n ts liv ing w ith in th e
Ja c k so n sy stem , re fe r re d to as in tra -c ity busing, excep t
sp e c ia l educa tio n s tuden ts. P r io r to J a n u a ry 1970, a
to ta l of 2379 s tu d en ts w ere elig ib le fo r in te r-c ity t r a n s
p o rta tio n . U nd er th e J a n u a ry H EW P la n A, if w as con
te m p la te d th a t 1224 e le m e n ta ry studen ts, and 2343 ju n
io r h igh and h igh school s tuden ts, fo r a to ta l of 3567
w ould be eligible. No fig u res w ere show n as to th e n u m
b e r of ch ild ren now being tra n sp o rte d . U n d er th e p ro
posed p la n for e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts , H EW e s tim a te s
th a t 1055 s tu d en ts w ill be elig ib le fo r in te r-c ity t r a n s
p o rta tio n , in add ition to those now eligible, a t a cost
of $43.00 p e r s tu d en t fo r a to ta l cost of $45,365.00, and
w hich w ill re q u ire 14 busses. I t is p re su m e d th a t th is
am o u n t w ould be re im b u rse d to th e school sy stem fro m
s ta te funds. F o r in tra -c ity tra n sp o rta tio n , a t th e e le
m e n ta ry leve l only, and fo r s tu d en ts liv ing one m ile
or m o re fro m th e school to w hich th ey a re assigned ,
55a
H EW estim ates, th a t a to ta l of 3,2,32 s tu d en ts w ould r e
q u ire tra n sp o rta tio n . A t $30.00 p e r s tuden t, th e cost
w ould be $96,960.00 and 28 b u sses w ould be needed . F o r
s tu d en ts liv ing 1 1 / 2 - 2 m iles fro m school, th e cost
a t $30.00 p e r s tu d en t w ould be $47,730.00, .and 13 b u sses
w ould be req u ired . N one of th e se fig u re s include th e
p u rc h a se p rice of busses. H EW notes th a t th e se costs
fo r in tra -c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n a re in add ition to th e cost
of p re se n t in te r-c ity tra n sp o rta tio n . As an offset a g a in s t
th e m a x im u m cost of in tra -c ity tra n sp o rta tio n , H EW
e s tim a te s a sav in g s of $79,890.00, th e1 p erso n n e l and o p
e ra tio n s cost of th e th re e schools H E W p lan s to close.
D r. W inecoff te s tif ied th a t th e Ju n e p lan , un like the
J a n u a ry plan, is b a se d on th e assum ption, th a t th e
school b o a rd h as a u th o rity to tra n s p o r t s tu d en ts w ith in
th e m u n ic ip a l lim its of Jack so n . H e conceded th a t if
th e b o a rd h a s no such au th o rity th e n he w ould no t r e c
om m en d th e new p ro p o sa l as it w ould be u se le ss and
add no th ing to th e p la n now in o p e ra tio n w hich he un-
equ ivocab ly fu r th e r s ta te d is a u n ita ry p la n in th e a b
sence of in tra -c ity tra n sp o rta tio n .
The School B o ard a g re e s th a t th e s ta tu to ry co n stitu
tio n a lity of bussing s tu d en ts is no t u n d e r a tta ck . I t h as
s te a d fa s tly con tended th a t, as a n ag en cy of th e s ta te ,
i t h as no in h e re n t o r leg is la tiv e au th o rity to expend
funds fo r in tra -c ity tra n sp o rta tio n . In th is th e b o a rd
is upheld by a re c e n t opinion of th e a tto rn e y g e n e ra l
of th e S ta te of M ississippi, a copy be in g on file here in .
The school b o a rd does no t su p p o rt th e p rop o sed H EW
plan . A ssum ing the b o a rd acq u ired a u th o rity to e n te r
into a m a ss iv e in tra -c ity tra n s p o r ta tio n sy stem , th e
56a
H EW p la n does no t e ra d ic a te th e ex isten ce of som e
to ta lly o r n e a r to ta lly s e g re g a te d schools to w hich th e
A p p ella te C ourt m a d e objection . T he school b o a rd
th ro u g h its w itnesses, inc lud ing M r. Jo h n M artin , su
p e rin te n d e n t of schoo ls and m e m b e rs of h is s ta ff in
c h a rg e of s ta t is t ic s an d tra n sp o rta tio n , con tend th a t
th e H EW p ro p o sa l fa ils in its p u rp o se and is a d m in
is tra tiv e ly , ed u ca tio n a lly and econom ica lly unsound.
By w ay of illu s tra tio n , out of 35 schools, 11 w ould con
ta in g ra d e s 1 th ro u g h 4; 5 schools w ould co n ta in g ra d e s
5-6; 2 schools w ould h av e g ra d e s 1-3; one school w ould
con ta in g ra d e s 4-6, 2 schools w ould h av e g ra d e s 1-2;
2 schools w ould h av e g ra d e s 3-6; and 12 schools w hich
w ould con ta in g ra d e s 1-6, w h ereas th e n o rm a l p a t te rn
is for g ra d e s 1-8. The sc a tte r in g of g rad es , and p a ir in g
of g ra d e s th ro u g h o u t th e a re a s w ould th u s p re se n t ex
te n s iv e cu rr ic u lu m and s ta ffin g p rob lem s, w ould d e
s tro y th e concep t of neighborhood schools, im p a ir s tu
d en t m o ra le , and a lien a te p a re n ts and th e com m unity .
A d m in istra tiv e ly , th e b o a rd contends' th e p roposed
tra n sp o r ta tio n is a r tif ic ia lly con triv ed an d poses in su r
m o u n tab le a d m in is tra tiv e p ro b lem s exclusive of costs.
The p la n p roposes th a t ch ild ren a re to be p icked up
a t u n su p erv ised g a th e r in g p laces , in w h a tev e r th e
w ea th e r, w ith p re c ise bus schedules, im possib le to keep
u n d e r n o rm a l city tra ffic , and th a t th e vo lum e of ro u tes
an d b u sses re q u ire d u n d er m in im u m conditions w ould
n e c e ss ita te th e s tag g e rin g o f school hours.
In c o n tra s t to th e n u m b e r of ad d itio n a l b u sses r e
q u ired a n d costs p ro je c te d by HEW , th e b o a rd o ffered
a co m p reh en siv e an a ly sis of th e n u m b e r, len g th an d
tim e schedu ling of ro u tes and costs re q u ire d u n d e r the
H EW p ro p o sa l and as added to by p la in tiffs ’ p roposa ls .
57a
T hese an a ly se s a r e exh ib its here to . O ther th a n th e su r
m ise of D r. W ineeoff, a d m itted ly no t a tra n sp o r ta tio n
ex p ert, th a t som e ro u tes could be conso lidated , or th a t
fu tu re en ro llm en t m a y no t re q u ire as m a n y b u sses as
p re se n t en ro llm en t req u ire s , th e Count finds th e se an
a ly ses a re rea lis tic . On cro ss-exam ination . D r. W ine-
coff ad m itte d th a t he did no t questio n th e a c c u ra c y
of th e b o a rd ’s an a ly sis . A ccord ing to th is ev idence in
te r-c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n fo r 1055 s tu d en ts u n d e r th e Ju n e
H EW p lan a t th e e le m e n ta ry lev e l w ould re q u ire 16
new b u sses a t a cost of $6,600.00 each , and an o p e ra
tio n a l expense of $43.00 p e r s tu d en t fo r a to ta l of $150,-
965.00. In tra -c ity tra n sp o rta tio n , w ith eac h new ro u te
analyzed , tim ed and m e a su re d by m e m b e rs of th e
school staff, show s in A re a I th a t a m in im u m of five
b u sses w ould be n eed ed to tr a n s p o r t 460 s tu d en ts o ver
rou tes ra n g in g fro m 6.4 to 7.5 m iles. In A rea II, n ine
b u sses w ould be re q u ire d to m ove 552 s tu d en ts o v e r
ro u tes v a ry in g fro m 3 to 5 m iles. In A rea III, th re e
b u sses a re n e c e ssa ry to m ove 200 s tu d en ts over ro u tes
fro m 1.5 to 1.8 m iles. In A rea IV, six b u sses a re re q u ire d
to m ove 600 s tu d en ts over ro u tes fro m 3.6 m iles to 3.9
m iles. In A rea V, con ta in ing six schools, fou r busses,
m ak in g double tr ip s , w ould be re q u ire d to m ove 520
s tu d en ts in c riss -c ro ss fash io n th ro u g h o u t th e a re a . In
A re a VI, six b u sses a re re q u ire d to m ove 540 s tu d en ts
over ro u tes from 3.6 m iles to 4.2.. As to A reas V II an d
V III, m o st of th e s tu d en ts involved live ou tside th e city
and a re a lre ad y rece iv in g in te r-c ity tra n sp o rta tio n .
D estina tions only w ould h av e to be changed . In A rea
IX, using only tw o busses, as a ssu m ed by H EW to t r a n s
p o rt 220 S m ith s tu d en ts to D uling, a d is tan ce of 2.9
m iles, w ould leav e 110 s tu d en ts u n su p e rv ised w hile
w aiting fo r b u sses un load ing a t D uling to re tu rn fo r
58a
th em . In th is sa m e a re a th re e b u sse s w ould be re q u ire d
to t r a n s fe r 300 pupils fro m W alton to Boyd, 2.4 m iles ,
and tw o busses, eac h m a k in g tw o trip s , to c a r ry 240
pup ils fro m D uling to C asey and C asey to D uling, a
d is ta n c e of 3.2 m ile s one w ay and 2.9 m ile s th e o th e r
w ay. A lso in th is sam e a re a , tw o b u sse s a re re q u ire d
to in te rc h a n g e 120 s tu d en ts be tw een M cW illie an d B oyd
fo r a d is ta n ce of 1.3 m iles one w ay and 1.5 m iles th e
o th e r w ay. In A rea X, as in A reas V II an d V III, th e se
s tu d en ts a re inc luded in in te r-c ity tra n sp o r ta tio n . F ro m
its an a ly ses, th e school b o a rd h as d e te rm in e d th a t 49
new b u sses w ill be re q u ire d a t a cost of $6,600.00 eac h
fo r $323,400.00 Costs of opera tion , inc lud ing d riv e rs s a l
a rie s , for 1969-1970 th ro u g h A pril 30, on its p re se n tly
ow ned b u sses (44) tra n sp o r tin g 2139 stu d en ts , to ta ls
$81,617.15. U sing th e se costs to ca lc u la te th e cost p e r
pup il ($39.80 in 1989-70) ($43.24 in 1968-69), th e cost of
tra n sp o r tin g 4,012 ad d itio n a l e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts in in
tra -c ity m o v em en t, as p roposed by H EW , w ould be
$164,492.00. This added to th e p u rc h a se p rice of b u sses
c a lls fo r an ou tlay of $487,892.00. A dding to th is th e
$150,965.00 fo r in te r-c ity tra n sp o rta tio n , th e H EW p ro
p o sa ls w ould re q u ire a to ta l cost to th e d is tr ic t’s b u dget
of $638,857.00. U sing a s im ila r an a ly sis fo r p la in tiffs '
p roposa ls , th e b o a rd com pu tes th a t tra n sp o r tin g an ad
d itional 780 s tu d en ts w ould re q u ire a m in im u m of 17
new b u sses a t a cost of $112,200.00, and o p e ra tio n a l
costs, on th e b as is of $43.24 p e r pupil, w ould add $76,-
967.00, for a to ta l of $189,167.00, or a g ra n d to ta l u n d e r
H EW and p la in tiffs ’ p roposa ls of $828,024.00. The a n a ly
s is no tes th a t th is fig u re does n o t re f le c t such ad d itio n a l
costs as m a y be in c u rre d fro m a m a jo r ity to m in o rity
tr a n s fe r policy.
A ccord ing to th e school d is tr ic t’s 1969-70 budget, i t
h a s an opera tions incom e b u d g e t of $18,610,210.00. The
c u r re n t budgeted expense of tra n s p o r ta tio n is th e sum
of $114,730.00 w hich inc ludes s tu d en t tra n sp o r ta tio n by
b u sses as w ell as by c o n tra c te d se rv ice s an d pub lic
c a r r ie rs ; it also inc ludes costs a llo ca ted to th e t r a n s
p o rta tio n of sp ec ia l ed u ca tio n pupils. The to ta l am o u n t
budgeted fo r s tu d en t tra n s p o r ta tio n co n stitu te s 0.62%
of th e to ta l budget. The to ta l of add itional tr a n s p o r ta
tion re q u ire d by th e H EW p la n an d p la in tiffs ’ p ro p o sa ls
w ould in c re a se costs of tra n sp o r ta tio n to over 5% of
th e en tire budget, a n am o u n t n o t h e re to fo re a llo ca ted
in th e b u dget n o r au thorized . P la in tiffs , how ever, po in t
out th a t th e budget incom e is d eriv ed from, so u rces
w hich inc lude ta x lev ies to ta lin g 23.55 m ills, w h e reas
th e s ta tu to ry ceiling is 25 m ills, le av in g av a ilab le a
lev y of 1.55 m ills, and th a t th is levy on th e v a lu e of
p ro p e r ty a sse ssm e n ts in th e m u n ic ip a lity w ould re su lt
in ap p ro x im a te ly $800,000.00 m o re incom e. P la in tiffs
also po in t to an i te m in th e 1969-70 b u dget show ing a
su rp lu s of funds in th e sum of $799,039.00, a sum th e
b o a rd n o rm a lly keeps on h an d fo r u n fo rseen e m e rg e n
cies. A ssum ing th a t such funds fro m e ith e r of th e above
so u rc e s m a y be av a ila b le in fu tu re bu d g e ts fo r t r a n s
p o rta tio n , th e y a re no t a v a ila b le n o r au th o rized fo r a
p la n w hich is to be adop ted now. A dded to all of th e
above is th e re p o r t by th e school b oard , a f te r c o n ta c t
ing bus d ea lers , ad d itio n a l new b u sses in th e am o u n t
re q u ire d a re no t a v a ilab le u n til a f te r O ctober, 1970.
This ev idence is u n co n trad ic ted . This C ourt is no t a-
w a re of any au th o rity ap p ro v in g ex ten siv e bussing of
s tu d en ts to ach ieve a u n ita ry sy stem . K em p v. Beasley,
8 Cir., 1970, (No. 19,782, M arch 17, 1970.)
60a
In su m m a riz in g a ll th e ev idence befo re it, th e C ourt
finds th a t th e p ro p o sa ls of H EW as added to by p la in tiffs
a re no t ed u ca tiona lly , ad m in is tra tiv e ly , econom ically
o r p ra c tic a lly feasib le . C erta in ly , th e add itio n al costs
n e c e s s a ry to p u t th e p lan in to effect w ould be w holly
ex cessiv e and to ta lly u n reaso n ab le . See S w ann v. C har-
lo tte -M eck len b u rg B o ard of E d u ca tio n , e t al, 4th Circ.
1970, (Nos. 14517 and 14518, M ay 26, 1970.) Should th is
C ourt e n te r ta in th e adop tion of th e se p rop o sa ls , th e y
a re not im p lem en t ab le u n d er th e c u rre n t deadline.
The b i-ra e ia l co m m ittee appo in ted by th is C ourt m e t
as often a s tim e p e rm itte d , k eep in g m in u tes of its de
lib e ra tio n s , sea led by th is C ourt and m a d e a p a r t of
th e reco rd . The c o m m ittee ’s p ro p o sa ls s ta te on th e fa c e
th e re o f th a t its p lan does no t p rov ide fo r th e com ple te
d e seg reg a tio n of all of th e schools bu t re p re se n ts th e
m a x im u m am o u n t of d e seg reg a tio n upon w hich th e
co m m ittee could ag ree . This co m m ittee a c c e p te d th e
challenge of d e seg reg a tin g th e to ta lly or a lm o st w holly
s e g re g a te d schools th e A ppella te C ourt found o b jec tion
able, and u n e rrin g ly d irec ted its e ffo rts to w ard th a t
en d w ith in th e fra m e w o rk of a v a ilab le tra n sp o r ta tio n .
T he c o m m ittee p rop o ses to a ss ig n b lack s tu d en ts in
th e p re se n t M cW illie, Spann, M cLeod, P o w er and Dul-
ing Zones and divide th e m m o re or less eq u a lly am ong
M cW illie, M cLeod, Spann and C asey; to a ss ig n b lack
s tu d en ts in th e p re se n t F re n c h and R a in es zones an d
d iv ide th e m m o re o r le ss equally am ong F re n c h ,
R a in es and L ake; to c re a te five m o re o r le ss eq u a l
sub-zones in th e Isab le zone and ass ig n g ra d e s 5-6 in
th e se sub-zones to L es te r, K ey, M arsh a ll, Sykes an d
Lee; to a ss ig n enough w hites ( th a t a re p re se n tly elig i
b le fo r tra n sp o rta tio n ) o u t of G reen-W atk ins a re a to
61a
fill to c a p a c ity B rad ley , D aw son, and M orrison ; and,
finally , add to th e W alton zone th a t p a r t of th e Boyd
zone w hich is w est of th e ra ilro a d , so u th of N orth sid e
D rive and n o rth of creek .
On th e b as is of th e la te s t en ro llm en t f ig u res , M ay
8, 1970, c o rre c te d as of M ay 21, 1970, and in c o rp o ra tin g
th e c o m m ittee ’s p roposed a ss ig n m en t, th e p ro jec ted
en ro llm en t in th e Ja c k so n E le m e n ta ry Schools is as
follow s:
Grades Special Sub-
1-6 Education Total Total
Ne Oth Ne Oth- Ne Oth Com
gro er gro er gro er bined,
B ak e r 3 293 1 30 4 323 327
B a r r 43 65 0 10 43 75 118
B oyd 171 340 0 0 171 340 511
B rad ley 341 92 0 0 341 92 433
B row n 658 0 0 0 658 0 658
C asey 30 451 0 0 30 451 481
C lausel 157 6 44 0 201 6 207
D av is 293 46 10 6 303 52 355
D aw son 420 109 0 0 420 109 529
D uling 122 118 0 0 122 118 240
F re n c h 142 318 0 0 142 318 460
G allow ay 367 133 18 29 385 162 547
G eorge 83 91 0 0 83 91 174
G reen 123 484 0 0 123 484 607
Isab le 517 0 0 0 517 0 517
J ohnson 832 50 30 0 862 50 912
Jo n es 1205 10 29 0 1234 10 1244
K ey 50 480 0 0 50 480 530
L ak e 50 615 0 0 50 615 665
L ee 51 371 0 0 51 371 422
Grades Special Sub- Total
1-6 Education Total
Ne Oth Ne Oth Ne Oth Com
gro er gro er gro er bined
L e s te r 138 228 0 0 138 228 366
M arsh a ll 55 573 0 0 55 573 628
M artin 206 17 0 0 206 17 223
M cLeod 51 665 0 0 51 665 716
M cW illie 38 495 0 0 38 495 533
M orrison 461 78 11 0 472 78 550
P o in d ex te r 81 40 10 52 91 92 183
P o w er 39 366 0 0 39 366 405
R ain es 81 494 0 0 81 494 575
R eynolds 982 0 0 0 982 0 982
R o b ertso n 320 0 0 0 320 0 320
S m ith 1008 0 14 0 1022 0 1022
Spann 47 497 0 0 47 497 544
Sykes 51 452 0 0 51 452 503
W alton 798 80 47 0 845 80 925
W atk in s 125 244 4 26 129 270 399
W hitfield 159 230 0 0 159 230 389
W ilkins 16 497 0 0 16 497 513
E le m e n ta ry
T o ta l 10,314 9028 218 153 10,532 9181 19,713
T hese p ro p o sa ls e lim in a te to ta l seg reg a tio n fro m a ll
of th e w hite schools, im p ro v e th e deg ree of m ix tu re
in m ost, a n d le av e five to ta lly b lack schools a ll in th e
h eav ily congested b la ck co m m u n ity .’ D esp ite th is la s t,
th e se p ro p o sa ls w ill re su lt in m o re in te g ra te d schools
th a n an y p roposed p la n befo re th is Court. I t is ad d i
tio n a lly no ted th a t w here H EW a ss ig n m e n ts w ould h a v e
o v e rta x ed th e cap a c ity of 14 schools, w ith tw o addition-
>See Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Fla.,
5th Cir. 1970 (No. 29,124, Feb. 17, 1970)
63a
ally o v e r-tax ed u n d e r p la in tiffs ’ p roposa ls , u n d er th e
p re se n t p la n as m odified by th e co m m ittee and th e
Court, th e o v e r-ass ig n m e n ts a r e red u ced considerab ly .
W ith th e add ition of th e m a jo r ity to m in o rity t r a n s fe r
policy, and th e follow ing a ss ig n m e n t ch an g es o ffered
by th e Court, add itio n a l u n ita ry s tep s w ill h a v e been
taken .
U nder th e p re se n t p lan an d u n ch an g ed by th e b i-ra -
c ia l co m m ittee p roposa ls , only six w hite s tu d en ts a re
a ss ig n ed to C lausell w ith 157 b lack s tuden ts. This r e
su lted fro m th e use by H EW in J a n u a ry of th e g eo g rap h
ic a l h a z a rd of H ighw ay 80. A s th e A ppella te C ourt r e
je c te d con sid era tio n of th is fac to r, H E W in its Ju n e
p la n p roposed th e p a irin g of C lause ll a n d W ilkins w hich
co m p rise th e a re a d es ig n a ted by H EW as A re a III. U n
d e r th e A ppella te C ourt’s ru ling , th e re is no re a so n a b le
ob jec tion now w hy th e se tw o schools shou ld no t
be p a ire d in to one zone, W ilkins se rv in g g ra d e s 1-4,
a n d C lausell se rv in g g ra d e s 5-6. U nder th e school
b o a rd ’s tra n sp o r ta tio n an a ly sis , m in im u m tra n s p o r ta
tion would be req u ired , 1.5 m iles one w ay and 1.8 m iles
th e o ther. The ra c ia l m ix tu re w ould be im p ro v ed to
th e ex ten t of 373 w hites and 116 b lack s a t W ilkins, and
166 w hites and 57 b lack s a t C lausell. F o r th e above
re a so n s th is C ourt is of th e opinion, an d finds th a t th is
m od ifica tion should be m ad e . W ith th e above m o d ifica
tions in m ind , only tw o schools, M a rtin and Jo n es , r e
m a in w here w hite a tte n d a n c e is of a to k en n a tu re . This
is no t d ue to any n a tu ra l o r m a n m a d e b a r r ie rs , fa c to rs
d isca rd e d by th e A ppella te C ourt, n o r to g e rry m a n d e r
ing w hich th e A p p ella te C ourt found did no t ex ist, n o r
th e fa ilu re of th is C ourt to a ss ig n m o re w hites to th e se
schools.
64a
The school b o a rd h as re q u e s te d th e conso lidation of
B a rr , th e sm a lle s t school a t th e e le m e n ta ry level, p re s
en tly w ith a to ta l a tte n d a n c e of 118, w ith P o in d ex te r,
ais an a d m in is tra tiv e accom m odation . H EW h ad lik e
w ise p rop o sed th e closing of th is school. As th e d eg ree
of in te g ra tio n a t P o in d ex te r w ill re m a in a p p ro x im a te
ly th e sam e, th e C ourt co n cu rs w ith th is p roposal.
A ccord ing ly , th e C ourt, as to th e e le m e n ta ry leve l
of th e J a c k so n M unicipal schools, d ire c ts th e adoption
o f th e c u rre n tly co u rt im p o sed s tu d e n t a s s ig n m e n t
p lan , as m odified by th e b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee , and w ith
th e follow ing tw o add itio n al m od ifica tions:
1. C lausell and W ilkins a re to be p a ired , W ilkins
to se rv e g ra d e s 1-4 w ith in th e b o u n d a ry lim its of th e
conso lid a ted zones of C lausell and W ilkins, and C lause ll
to se rv e g ra d e s 5-6 w ith in th e sa m e b o u n d ary lim its.
2. B a r r is to be closed, w ith a ll s tu d en ts fro m th is
zone to be a ss ig n ed to P o index ter.
JUNIOR HIGH AND HIGH SCHOOLS
As to th e ju n io r h igh and sen io r h igh schools a t the
seco n d a ry level, th e A p p ella te C ourt d irec ted th is C ourt
to adop t one of th e p re se n tly av a ilab le H EW p lan s w hich
w ere p roposed a t th e J a n u a ry 1970 h e a r in g of th is
Court. The school b o a rd endo rses none, ex p re ss in g th e
v iew th a t th e p re se n t p lan , a lthough p ro b lem s do con
tin u e to ex ist, h a s th e g en e ra l s u p p o r t of th e co m m u n ity
and is w ork ing as a re su lt of a to ta l com m un ity effo rt.
P la n s “A ” and “B ” a re th e sa m e fo r th e ju n io r h igh
level, and re ta in g en era lly th e p re se n t g ra d e s tru c tu re
of g rad es 7-9 fo r ju n io r h igh and g rad es 9-12 fo r h ig h
school. T hey a re e ssen tia lly zoning p lans. All th re e
p la n s 'con tem p la te th e sa m e use of tw o schools as m a g
n e t schools fo r co m p reh en siv e v o c a tio n a l- tech n ica l
p ro g ram s. P la n “C” com p le te ly re s tru c tu re s th e sec
o n d a ry leve l into a 2-2-2 sy stem . The h o a rd p a r tic u la r ly
ob jec ts to P la n “C” b eca u se of th e a d m in is tra tiv e
p ro b lem s it w ould p rovoke, i.e., th e re -o rg an iza tio n of
p h y s ica l fac ilitie s a n d cu rric u la , re -a ss ig n m e n ts of fa c
u lty an d re -loca tion of la rg e n u m b e rs of p o rtab les , in
c lud ing som e of those re c e n tly re - lo c a ted to m e e t th e
dem an d s of th e J a n u a ry a ss ig n m en ts by th is Court.
The re -lo ca tio n of p o rtab le s invo lves a m in im u m ex
pen se of $750.00 each.
D r. W inecoff ex p re ssed a p re fe re n c e fo r P la n “C”,
solely b ecau se he p re fe rs th e g ra d e 2-2-2 s tru c tu re .
H ow ever, h e recogn ized th a t th e J a c k so n schools h ad
h is to ric a lly used a 3-g rad e s tru c tu re on th e seco n d ary
level, and th a t th e p ro b lem s re fe r re d to above w ould
be a tte n d a n t if “C” w ere adopted . He s ta te d th a t a ll
th re e p lans a r e u n ita ry ; th a t due to chan g es in en
ro llm e n t and re lo c a tio n of p o rtab le s s ince th e p lan s
w ere w orked out th a t a ll th re e w ould h av e to be m od i
fied to som e ex ten t, P la n “A ” re q u ir in g th e le a s t m od i
fica tions; and th a t u n d er p re se n t en ro llm en t, L an ie r,
o ne of th e ta rg e t schools co n tem p la ted in all th re e
p lans, w ould h av e to be u sed as a re g u la r school. H e
ad m itte d th a t in P la n “A”, th e p roposed a ss ig n m e n t
of 691 n in th g rad e s tu d en ts to th e Isab le-H ill com plex,
to g e th e r w ith H E W ’s p roposed c u r re n t a ss ig n m e n t of
1074 e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts to Isab le w ould g re a tly o v e r
66a
ta x Isaible w hose to ta l c a p a c ity is 1120. The C ourt r e c
ognized th is p ro b lem a t th e J a n u a ry h e a r in g in, g ra n t
in g th e school b o a rd ’s re q u e s t to a l te r th is im possib le
a ss ig n m en t. P re se n t a tte n d a n c e of e le m e n ta ry s tu
den ts a t Isa b le is 763. U n d er th e b i- ra c ia l c o m m itte e ’s
p roposa l, ap p ro v ed above, to red u ce th e n u m b e r of e le
m e n ta ry s tu d en ts a t Isab le to 517, th is p ro b lem is r e
duced to one of a m in im a l b o u n d ary ch an g e o r re lo c a
tion of p o rtab les . The C ourt th e re fo re finds P la n “A ”
th e m o st feas ib le of th e th ree , re q u ir in g th e le a s t m od i
fica tions, due to chan g es w hich h av e o c c u rre d since
J a n u a ry 1970, and w hich does no t le ssen th e deg ree
of ra c ia l m ix tu re from e ith e r P la n “B ” or “C”.
As po in ted out e a r l ie r here in , th e school b o a rd h a s
h e re to fo re adop ted a ll of th e d e seg reg a tio n of facu lty
an d staff, tra n sp o rta tio n , new construc tion , and m a
jo r ity to1 m in o rity t r a n s fe r po licies re q u ire d b y Single-
ton decision of D ecem b er 1, 1969. The B o ard is d irec ted
to do so ag a in fo r a l l succeed ing school te rm s , p a r t ic u
la r ly as to th e t r a n s fe r po licy w hich w as o m itted fro m
th is C o u rt’s o rd e r of J a n u a ry 22,1970.
ORD ER
It is th e re fo re o rd e red th a t th e defen d an t J a c k so n
M unicipal S e p a ra te School D is tr ic t adop t th e d e se g re
g a tion of fa c u lty and staff, e x tra -c u rr ic u la ac tiv itie s
an d o th e r po licies d e ta ile d in th e e a r l ie r S ingle ton de
c ision of D ecem b er 1, 1969, Singleton v. Jackson M uni
cipal Separate School District, 419 F. 2d 1211, sp ec if ica l
ly inc lud ing th e m a jo r ity to m in o rity tra n s fe r policy.
67a
A s to th e s tu d en t a ss ig n m e n t p la n fox e le m e n ta ry
schools, sa id school d is tr ic t is h e re b y d ire c te d to adop t
th e p re se n t C ourt p la n ap p ro v ed in th e J a n u a ry 22,
1970 o rd e r of th is C ourt, as m odified by th e b i-ra c ia l
co m m ittee p roposa ls , and as re f le c te d in p ro je c te d en
ro llm en t a p p e a rin g on p ag e 13 h e re in to g e th e r w ith
th ese ad d ed m odifications:
1. C lausell and W ilkins a re p a ire d , W ilkins to se rv e
g ra d e s 1-4 w ith in th e b o u n d ary lim its of bo th C lause ll
and W ilkins zones, and C lau sed to se rv e g ra d e s 5-6 in
sa id zones.
2. B a r r is closed, w ith a d s tu d en ts fro m B a r r a s
signed to P o index ter.
As to th e s tu d en t a ss ig n m e n t p la n fo r th e ju n io r h igh
and h igh schools a t th e se co n d a ry level, sa id school
b o a rd is d irec ted to adop t P la n “A ” of th e p re se n tly
a v a ilab le H EW p lans, consisting of th e zones show n
th e re in , d escrib ed by m e te s an d bounds an d as re f le c t
ed on m ap s, and th e a ss ig n m e n t of s tu d en ts w hich is
as follows:
JU NIO R HIGH
Name STUDENTS
Zone Of School Grades W N T
I W hitten 7-8 370 165 535
I P eep les 7-8 801 282 1083
I Isab le-H ill 9 501 190 691
II B lack b u rn 7-8-9 268 756 1024
II I H ard y 7-8 572 697 1269
III E nochs 9 248 293 541
IV B ailey 7-8 942 682 *
68a
Name STUDENTS
Zone Of School Grades W N T
692 632 1324
TV R ow an 9 285 281 566
V C hasta in 7-8 823 482 1305
V P ow ell 9 509 379 888
V C allaw ay 7-8 206 350 556-option
456 402 858
* O ption fro m C allow ay overflow 8th to R ow an
TOTALS 5525 4559 10084
HIGH SCHOOLS
Name STUDENTS
Zone Of School Grades W N T
I H ill 10 532 167 699*
I W ingfield 11-12 924 289 1213*
I I P ro vine 10-12 873 533 1406*
III M u rra h 11-12 772 531 1303*
III
IV B rink ley 10 875 762 1637*
IV C allaw ay 11-12 851 759 1610*
TOTALS 4827 3041 7868*
*Tw enty p e r cen t of th e se s tu d en ts w ill go to th e com
p reh en s iv e school (L a n ie r and C en tra l) as d escrib ed
u n d er Magnet Schools for Comprehensive Vocational-
Technical Programs.
M A G N E T SCHOOLS
Two schools — L an ie r and C en tra l — a re to s e rv e
as m a g n e t schools drawing* fro m th e e n tire d is tr ic t.
T hey w ill house spec ia lized v o ca tio n a l and te c h n ic a l
p ro g ra m s . A ny studen t, w h e rev e r re s id in g in th e dis-
69a
t r ic t m a y a tte n d e ith e r school fo r th e pu rp o se of en
ro lling in a sp ec ia lized p ro g ram .
It is recogn ized th a t th e school b o a rd should h a v e
flex ib ility in th e lo ca tin g and re -lo c a tin g of p o rta b le
c la ssro o m s and in fix ing zone b o u n d a rie s in o rd e r to
ad eq u a te ly house s tu d en ts as a ss ig n ed above. H ow ever,
in no in stance , sh a ll zone o r sub-zone lines be e s ta b
lished or changed ex cep t to th e ex ten t such changes
w ill no t ten d to re e s ta b lish a d ual school sy stem .
The p re se n tly co n stitu ted b i-ra c la l c o m m ittee sh a ll
con tinue to function, w ith th e c h a irm a n a lte rn a tin g b e
tw een ra c e s an n u a lly fro m th e d a te of th e o rig in a l a p
po in tm ent, M ay 12, 1970, and th is co m m ittee sh a ll h av e
th e duty of reco m m en d in g to th e school b o a rd w ays
to a tta in and m a in ta in a u n ita ry sy stem .
The school b o a rd and th e b i-ra c ia l co m m ittee a re
to m a k e b i-an n u a l re p o rts — on D ecem b er 1 and A pril
1 — to th is C ourt o n th e m a in te n a n c e of a u n ita ry sy s
tem , such re p o rts to inc lude th e follow ing in fo rm ation :
I.
(a) The n u m b e r of s tu d en ts by ra c e en ro lled in th e
school d is tric t;
(b) The n u m b e r of s tu d en ts by ra c e en ro lled in eac h
school of th e d is tric t;
(c) The n u m b e r of s tu d en ts by ra c e en ro lled in each,
c lassro o m in each of th e schools in th e d is tr ic t.
70ia
II.
(a ) The n u m b e r of fu ll tim e te a c h e rs by r a c e in
th e d is tr ic t;
(b) T he n u m b e r of fu ll tim e te a c h e rs by r a c e in
eac h school in th e d is tr ic t;
(c) The n u m b e r of p a r t tim e te a c h e rs by ra c e in
th e d is tr ic t;
(d) The n u m b e r of p a r t tim e te a c h e rs by r a c e in
eac h school in th e d is tric t.
III.
D escrib e th e re q u e s t an d th e re su lts w hich h a v e a c
crued , by race , u n d e r th e m a jo r ity to th e m in o rity
t r a n s fe r p rov ision w hich w as a p a r t of th is c o u rt’s o rd e r
of N o vem ber 7,1969.
IV.
S ta te th e n u m b e r of in te r -d is tr ic t t r a n s fe r s g ra n te d
since th is c o u rt’s o rd e r of N o v em b er 7, 1969, th e ra c e
of th e s tu d en ts who w ere g ra n te d such tra n s fe rs , a n d
th e school d is tr ic t to w hich th e tr a n s fe r s w ere allow ed.
V.
S ta te w h e th e r th e tra n sp o r ta tio n sy stem , if any, in
th e d is tr ic t is d e se g re g a te d to th e e x ten t th a t n eg ro
an d w hite s tu d en ts a re tra n s p o r te d d a ily on th e sam e
buses.
VI.
S ta te w h eth er a ll fa c ilitie s su ch as g y m n asiu m s, au
d ito rium s, a n d c a fe te r ia s a re be ing o p e ra te d on a de
se g re g a te d basis.
71a
VII.
G ive b rie f d esc rip tio n of any p re s e n t or p ro p o sed con
s tru c tio n or exp an sio n of fac ilities .
V III.
(a) S ta te w h e th e r th e school b o a rd h a s sold o r a-
bandoned an y school fac ility , equp im en t, o r supp lies
h av in g a to ta l v a lu e of m o re th a n $500.00 since th is
c o u rt’s o rd e r of N o vem ber 7,1969.
IX.
(a ) G ive a b rie f d esc rip tio n of th e w ork of th e bi-
ra c ia l co m m ittee since th e la s t rep o rt.
(b) Copies of all reco m m en d a tio n s m a d e by th e bi-
ra c ia l com m ittee .
The school b o a rd is h e re b y d ire c te d to m a k e th e a-
bove s tu d en t a ss ig n m en ts fo r th e 1970-71 school y e a r
on o r befo re J u ly 1, 1970, no tify ing p a re n ts of th e se
a ss ig n m en ts .
The C lerk of th is C ourt is d irec ted to m a il a copy
of th is p la n and o rd e r to a ll p a r tie s of reco rd .
SO O R D E R E D th is th e 15th day of Ju n e , 1970.
(S igned) DAN M. R U SSELL, JR .
U N IT E D STA TES
D IST R IC T JU D G E
72a
IN T H E
U N IT E D STA TES COURT O F A P P E A L S
FO R T H E F IF T H C IRCU IT
No. 29226
D E R E K JE R O M E SIN G LETO N , E T AL.,
P la in tiff s-A ppellan ts,
v e rsu s
JACKSON M U N IC IPA L S E P A R A T E SCHOOL
D ISTR IC T, E T AL.,
D efendan ts-A ppellees.
A ppeal fro m th e U nited S ta te s D is tr ic t C ourt fo r th e
S ou thern D is tr ic t of M ississipp i
(A ugust 12, 1970)
B efore BROW N, Chief Ju d g e , M ORGAN and
INGRAHAM , C ircu it Judges.
P E R CURIAM : H ere we rev iew th e D is tric t C ourt’s
o rd e r im posing a p la n fo r a u n ita ry school sy s tem fo r
th e e le m e n ta ry g ra d e s in th e Jack so n M unicipal Sep
a r a te School System . This p la n w as adop ted p u rsu a n t
to our m a n d a te in Singleton IV, Singleton v. Jackson
Municipal Separate School Dist., 5 Cir., 1970,____ F.2d
____ [No. 29228, M ay 5, 1970].’
T h a t m a n d a te re q u ire d th e D is tr ic t C ourt to reco n sid
e r th e p la n (ado p ted in J a n u a ry 1970) fo r th e sy s te m
a t th e e le m e n ta ry level. The D is tr ic t C ourt app o in ted
a B i-R ac ia l C om m ittee also p u rsu a n t to th a t m a n d a te .
A nd th a t C o m m ittee2 and H EW prop o sed new p lans.
The School B oard o ffered no new p lan , bu t did su p p o rt
th e B i-R ac ia l C o m m ittee ’s p roposal. P la in tiffs did no t
p ropose a new plan , bu t did su g g es t su b s ta n tia l m od i
fica tio n s to th e J a n u a ry 1970 p la n p u t fo rw ard by
H EW .3
U nd er th e s tr in g e n t tim e lim ita tio n s im posed by
Alexander v. Holmes County School System , 1989,____
U.S----------------- S.Ct______ , 24 L .Ed.2d 19; Singleton II I ,
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Sys-
'With the intervening order for the secondary level of July ,
1970, Singleton v. Jackson Municipal School District, 5 Cir.,
1970, ____ F .2 d____ [No. 29226, July , 1970, as Singleton
V, the current one becomes Singleton VI].
&The Bi-Racial Committee is composed of 12 persons, 6 white,
who were suggested by the School Board, and 6 Negro, who
were suggested by Plaintiffs. Its proposal was a result of
extensive effort by people with little expertise in this field,
practically no assistance for staff, and no funds. Its work did,
however, represent a very commendable effort and a contribu
tion to this community problem.
This experience suggests that for the problems posed by
out reversal and remand the District Court should enlist the
cooperation of both HEW and the School Board in supplying
one or more liaison representatives to the Committee. With
this professional staff-like assistance this will enable it to be
directly involved in the essential exploratory activities lead
ing to recommendations to the District Court.
sHereafter all references to the “HEW Plan” will be to the June
HEW unless otherwise specifically stated.
74a
tern, 5 Cir., 1970, 419 F.2d 1211, and Singleton IV, th e
D is tr ic t C ourt held a n ev id en tia ry h e a r in g 4 on Ju n e
8, 1970, and on Ju n e 15, 1970 it o rd e re d th e p la n p ro -
4° n the hearing the District Court did not allow the Plaintiffs
to make any testimonial inquiry into the considerations taken
into account in the preparation of the Bi-Racial Committee’s
plan. It is not necessary for us to categorize this as “error”
especially since under our mandated time schedules the hear
ings themselves often must be compressed. But in the full
factual development of justifications required on remand, we
thing the proposals and any modifications should be explored
as fully as needed to determine strengths and weaknesses,
etc.
5The results under this plan are:
Under District Court
Approved Plan
1.
Schools
Baker
Negro
4
White
323
Percentage
99%
2. Boyd 171 340 67%
3. Bradley 341 92*** 79%
4. Brown 658 0 100%
5. Casey 30 451 94%
6. Clausell 57 166 75%
7. Davis 303 52 85%
8. Dawson 420 109*** 79%
9. Duling 122 118 51%
10. French 142 318 69%
11. Galloway 385 162 70%
12. George 83 91 52%
13. Green 123 484 80%
14. Isable 1-4** 517 0 100%
15. Johnson 862 50 94%
16. Jones 1,234 10 99%
17. Key 50** 480 90%
18. Lake 50 615 92%
19. Lee 51** 371 88%
20. Lester 138** 228 62%
21. McLeod 51 665 93%
22. Me Willie 38 495 93%
23. Marshall 55** 573 91%
23a. Martin 206 17 92%
24. Morrison 472 78 86%
posed by th e B i-R ac ia l C o m m ittee3 to be im p le m e n t
ed .6
We find the re su lts to be u n acc ep tab le . U nder th is
p la n ap p ro x im a te ly 70% of th e N egro e le m e n ta ry s tu
den ts w ill be in a ll (o r su b s ta n tia lly all) N egro e le
m e n ta ry schools. In fa c t th e 70i% fig u re is an u n d e r
s ta te m e n t fo r B rad ley and D aw son a re no t inc luded
in th e schools th a t a re su b s ta n tia lly a ll N egro. The in
te g ra tio n in th o se schools is confined to only tw o
g rad es . See n o te 5, supra, ite m s 3 and 8. W e h a v e to
75a
25. Poindexter 134 167 55%
26. Power 39 366 90%
27. Raines 81 494 86%
28. Reynolds 982 0 100%
28a. Robertson 320 0 100%
29. Smith 1,022 0 100%
30. Spann 47 497 91%
31. Sykes 51* ** *** 452 90%
32. Walton 845 80 91%
33. Watkins 129 270 68%
34. Whitfield 159 230 59%
35. Wilkins 116 373 76%
TOTAL 10,488 9,217
*The percentage figures here and elsewhere reflect the [propor
tion that the] children of the majority race bear to the total
student enrollment. Percentages are listed here strictly as
informational aids. We expressly disclaim any intimation that
racial balance is the standard by which we determine the
acceptability of various desegregation plans.
**This plan provides for the reassignment of blacks attending
Isable 5 and 6, “more or less” equally among the formerly
white Lester, Key, Marshall, Sykes and Lee Schools. There
fore the desegregation reflected in those formerly white
schools is limited to grades 5 and 6 only.
*** Whites assigned to these schools were assigned to Watkins
under previous court order; and since Watkins serves grades
5-6 only, these grades are integrated in grades 5-6 only.
6The District did modify the Bi-Racial Committee’s plan slightly
by pairing Clausell and Wilkins Schools and closing Barr
School and assigned those students to Poindexter.
76a
be p a r tic u la r ly sen sitiv e to th is b eca u se th e zones fro m
som e su b s ta n tia lly s e g re g a te d seco n d a ry schools cov
e r th e sa m e a re a s a s a re co v ered by a ll N eg ro ele
m e n ta ry school zones. A nd som e s tu d en ts w ill like ly
h a v e an edu ca tio n in p re d o m in a te ly N egro schools
th ro u g h o u t th e ir school life. T his is esp ec ia lly t r u e fo r
th o se s tu d en ts a tten d in g B la ck b u rn Ju n io r H igh an d
L an ie r H igh School. See c h a r ts in Singleton V. Single-
ton IV: Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mo
bile County, 5 Cir., 1 9 7 0 ,____ F.2d _____ [No. 29332,
Ju n e 8, 1970]; Mannings v. Hillsborough County, 5 Cir.,
1970,____ F .2 d _____ [No. 28643, M ay 11, 1970]; Bradley
v. Pinellas County, 5 Cir., 1970, ____ F .2d ____ [No.
28639, Ju ly ,1970],
T he H EW p la n 7 w as a su b s ta n tia l im p ro v em en t o v e r
<7The results under the HEW Plan are:*
Under HEW Plan
Schools Grades Negro White Percentage
1. Baker 1-6 153 307 67%
2. Boyd 5-6 360 269 57%
3. Bradley 1-6 174 203 54%
4. Brown 3-6 530 244 68%
5. Casey 1-4 10 362 97%
6. Clausell 5-6 57 166 75%
7. Davis 1-6 303 52 85%
8. Dawson 1-6 420 174 75%
9. Duling 5-6 244 171 59%
10. French 1-2 404 154 72%
11. Galloway 1-6 385 162 70%
12. George 1-6 83 103 57%
13. Green 1-4 95 518 84%
14. Isable 5-6 607 467 57%
15. Johnson 3-6 790 310 72%
16. Jones 4-6 676 434 61%
17. Key 1-4 0 368 100%
18. Lake 1-3 329 307 52 %
19. Lee 1-6 128 296 70%
77a
th e p la n app ro v ed by th e D is tr ic t C ourt. I t reduced, th e
n u m b e r of all N eg ro schools fro m 9 to 4 and th e n u m b e r
of N egroes in w hich th ey co n stitu ted 95% or m o re of
th e s tu d en t body to 2,731. P la in tif fs ’ m o d ifica tio n s8 of
th e H EW p la n w ere an even g re a te r im p ro v em en t
20. Lester 1-4 68 156 70%
21. McLeod 1-6 51 665 93%
22. Me Willie 1-4 42 517 92%
23. Marshall 1-4 0 432 100%
24. Morrison 1-4 549 0 100%
25. Poindexter 1-6 118 82 59%
26. Power 1-2 267 122 68%
27. Raines 1-6 261 360 58%
28. Reynolds 1-4 1,056 0 100%
29. Smith 1-4 488 0 100%
30. Spann 1-6 47 497 91%
31. Sykes 1-6 179 400 69%
32. Walton 1-4 638 0 100%
33. Watkins 5-6 317 259 55%
34. Whitfield 1-3 369 127 74%
35. Wilkins 1-4 116 373 76%
10,314 9,028
Special Ed. 218 153
TOTAL 10,532 9,181
■"Under this plan Barr, Robertson, and Martin would be closed.
**For use of percentages see note 5* supra.
s HEW Plan With Modifications
as Proposed by Plaintiffs*
NAME OF SCHOOL NEGRO WHITE % **
I - All-Negro
as of
May 8, 1970
1 . Brown 530 244 68%
2. Isable 607 467 57%
3. Morrison 349 200 64%
4. Reynolds 576 300 66%
5. Robertson CLOSED
6. Smith 388 100 80%
7. Walton 438 200 69%
NAME OF SCHOOL NEGRO WHITE % *;
II - All-white
as of
May 8, 1970
1 . Casey 110 262 70%
2. Key 200 218 52%
3. Lake 329 307 52%
4. Lee 128 296 70%
5. Marshall 200 282 59%
6. Sykes 179 400 69%
Ill - Overwhelmingly
white or Negro
as of May 8,
1970
1 . Baker 153 307 67%
2. Bradley 174 203 54%
3. Clausell 57 166 75%
4. Dawson 420 174 75%
5. Johnson 790 310 72%
6. Jones 676 434 61%
7. Martin CLOSED
8. McLeod 51 665 93%
9. Power 267 122 68%
10. Spann 47 497 . 91%
11. Wilkins 116 373 76%
IV - Integrated
as of
May 8, 1970
1 . Barr CLOSED
2. Boyd 360 269 57%
3. Davis 303 52 85%
4. Duling 244 171 59%
5. French 404 154 72%
6. Galloway 385 162 70%
7. George 83 103 57%
8. Green 295 318 52%
9. Lester 148 156 51%
10. Poindexter 118 82 59%
11. Raines 261 360 58%
12. Watkins 317 259 55%
13. Whitfield 369 127 74%
14. McWillie 242 317 58%
*Only the italicized schools are affected by Plaintiffs’ modi
fications. And all grade structures and zone boundaries are
identical to those of the HEW plan.
**For use of percentages see note 5* supra.
79a
T h e re w ere to be no a ll N egro schools u n d e r th a t p lan .
B oth of th e se p lan s a re b a se d on a ty p e of zoning
th a t d iv ides th e D is tr ic t into la rg e A reas , 10 in bo th
p lans, an d th e n es tab lish es a s e p a ra te g ra d e s tru c tu re
in th e A rea . F o r ex am p le , u n d e r th e H EW plan , A re a
II, w hich is abou t 4 m iles ac ro ss , con ta in s fou r schools
in w hich g ra d e s 1-4 a re p re se n te d an d one la rg e school
in w h ich g ra d e s 5-6 a re p resen ted . (See n o te 5, lines
14, 17, 18, 20, 23, supra). T h ere w as m u c h d iscussion
in th e b rie fs th a t u n d er th is ty p e of “c lu s te r in g ” it w ill
be n e c e s sa ry fo r th e School D is tr ic t to p rov ide in tra -
c ity tra n s p o r ta tio n fo r th e p lan s to be effective. B u t
w e do no t re a c h th is since th e ch an g es w e m a n d a te
p e rsu a d e us th a t th e re is a v a r ie ty of w ay s to im p ro v e
th e resu lt.
W e re p e a t th a t th e re su lt below is no t accep tab le .
W hen m a k in g th is d e te rm in a tio n in m a n y re c e n t
cases, we h a v e often specified th e fu ll fo rm th a t th e
d e seg reg a tio n p lan is to take . H ow ever w e do not b e
lieve th is is the w ise cou rse h e re since th e re c o rd is
in ad eq u a te . C onsequently , a re m a n d w ill be req u ired .
B u t m e a n tim e som eth ing m u s t be done now. W e can
no t a cc ep t th e p roposition th a t over 70% of the N egro
e le m e n ta ry s tu d en ts a re to re m a in in su b s ta n tia lly a ll
N eg ro schools du ring th e tim e th e ca se u n d erg o es
m o re com ple te exp lora tion . C onsequently , pend ing th e
re m a n d h e a r in g and o rd e r of th e D is tr ic t C ourt, d is
cussed nex t, th e School D is tr ic t is to o p e ra te u n d e r th e
p la n app ro v ed below by th e o rd e r of Ju n e 15, 1970, bu t
w ith th e follow ing m odifica tions:
80a
(i) B row n is to be p a ire d w ith P ow er.
(ii) Boyd is to be p a ire d w ith W alton.
(iii) G eorge is to be p a ire d w ith M artin .
(iv) R o b ertso n is to be p a ire d w ith P o in d ex te r.
(v) L e s te r is to be p a ire d w ith Isab le .
(v i) W atk ins, M orrison , an d S m ith a re to be
g rouped .9
(vii) T he School D is tr ic t sh a ll h a v e th e option of
p a irin g :
(a ) Jo n es w ith L ak e or
(b) Jo h n so n w ith L ake.
B y th e se p a irin g s and c lu s te rin g s th e p e rc e n ta g e of
N egroes in su b s ta n tia lly a ll N egro schools w ill be r e
duced fro m over 70% to abou t 20%.’° We m u s t reem -
s Schools N W
(i) (Power 39 366
(Brown 658 0
(ii) (Boyd 171 340
(Walton 845 80
(iii) (George 83 91
(Martin 206 17
(iv) (Robertson 320 0
(Poindexter 134 167
(v) (Lester 138 228
(Isable 517 0
(vi) (Watkins 129 270
(Morrison 472 78
(Smith 1022 0
vii(a) (Jones 1234 10
(Lake 50 615
vii(b) (Johnson 862 50
(Lake 50 615
loThe final number in the paired schools will vary depending
the option under (vii) (a) or (b), supra:
Jones-Lake Johnson-Lake
N W N W
(i) - (vi) 4754 1637 4754 1637
vii(a) 1284 625 vii(b) 912 665
TOTAL 6038 2262 5666 2302
81a
p h asize th a t th e se m a n d a te d m od ifica tions a re an in
te r im re q u ire m e n t an d a re not “fro zen ”. The D is tr ic t
C ourt is to beg in a h e a r in g no t la te r th a n S ep te m b er
25, 1970. T he h e a r in g and o rd e r w ill c a n v a ss th e w hole
e le m e n ta ry sy s tem w ith w h a te v e r ch an g es a r e n eed ed
such as a p p ro p ria te o r re q u ire d p a irin g , grouping,
c lu ste rin g , g ra d e re s tru c tu r in g , an d a ll o th e r fa c to rs
ca lled fo r by our decisions an d 'those of th e S up rem e
Court. I t will, of course , p re sc r ib e th e tim e th e chan g es
a re to becom e effec tive w h ich m u s t be a t a tim e not
la te r th a n J a n u a ry 1971 re p re se n tin g a m id y e a r d a te
re g a rd le s s of fo rm a l te rm s or se m e s te rs . L ikew ise,
all of th e p rov isions of P a r t III, S ingle ton w ill app ly
as to appea ls , reco rd , b rie fs , etc.
Of course, th e ch an g es th a t w ill com e as a re su lt
of th e m od ifica tio n s w e now specify and fro m th e No
v e m b e r o rd e r now ca lled fo r w ill cau se m id y e a r d is
ru p tions, pup il re a s s ig n m e n ts an d th e like. B u t on b a l
ance , th is is le ss costly th a n a co n tin u ed loss of r ig h ts
of a la rg e n u m b e r of studen ts.
M O D IFIE D AND R EM A N D ED .
Scofields’ Quality Printers, Inc. — New Orleans, La.