Jones v. The School Board of the City of Alexandria, Virginia Joint Appendix for Appellants and Appellees

    In  t h e

United BUUb (tart nf Appeals
F or the F ourth Circuit 

No. 7897

Otis B. J ones, et al.,
Appellants,

The School Board op the City of Alexandria, V irginia, a body 
corporate, and T. C. W illiams, Division Superintendent of 
Schools of the City of Alexandria, Virginia,

Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

JOINT APPENDIX FOR APPELLANTS 
AND APPELLEES

Oliver W. H ill
118 E. Leigh Street 
Richmond 19, Virginia

Spottswood Robinson III 
623 N. Third Street 
Richmond 19, Virginia

F rank D. Reeves
473 Florida Ave., N.W. 
Washington 1, D. C.

Otto L. Tucker
901 Princess Street 
Alexandria, Virginia

Counsel for Appellants

E arl F. W agner
127 N. Fairfax Street 
Alexandria, Virginia

J. Barton P hillips
108 N. St. Asaph Street 
Alexandria, Virginia

A. S. H arrison, J r.
Attorney General 
Richmond, Virginia

Counsel for Appellees



' INDEX TO APPENDIX

Pages of
Original Printed 
Record Page

Complaint ....................................................  9-16 la

Answer of the School Board of the City of 
Alexandria and T. C. Williams, Division 
Superintendent of Schools of the City of 
Alexandria ............................................... 24-28 10a

Request for Admissions Under Rule 36 .... 43-45 15a

Extracts From Exhibit 2 ...................... 48-53 19a

Exhibit 3 ............................................... 54 23a

Exhibit 3D ...........................................  58 24a

Exhibit 3F ...........................................  60 25a

Exhibit 3L ...........................................  66 26a

Exhibit 3M ........................................... 67 27a

Exhibit 3N ...........................................  68 28a

Exhibit 4 ............................................... 69 29a

Exhibit 5 ............................................... 70 30a

Exhibit 6 ............................................... 71 32a



11

Pages of
Original Printed 
Record Page

Extracts From Interrogatories to Defen­
dants (Oct. 13, 1958) and Answers (Oct.
20, 1958) of T. C. Williams, Division
Superintendent .........................................  40-41 33a

80-83

Extracts From Interrogatories to Defen­
dants (Nov. 18, 1958) and Answers (Nov.
26, 1958) of School Board of the City of 
Alexandria, Va. and T. C. Williams, Di­
vision Superintendent .............................. 126-134 39a

Order Granting Injunction .......................... 146-151 45a

Extracts From Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
8) ................................................................  167-185 51a

Extracts From Motion for Further Relief .. 152-165 60a

Extracts From Testimony .......................... 225-513 69a

Witnesses for Plaintiffs:

T. C. Williams
Direct ..............................................  225-280 69a

James A. Bayton 
Rebuttal

Direct ..............................................  493-513 154a



Pages of
Original Printed
Record Page

Witnesses for Defendants:

T. C. Williams
Direct ............................................. 320-360 113a
Cross ............................................. 374-453 122a

Alfred L. Wingo
Direct ............................................. 468-480 143a
Cross ............................................. 480-489 145a
Recross........................................... 491-492 152a

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law .... 198-203 170a

Order on Motion for Further Relief..........  204 175a

Amended Order on Motion for Further 
Relief ........................................................ 209a 176a

Ill



;

(

-9—
I n  t h e

llniti'ii (Cmtrt ni A^pala
F oe t h e  E astern D istrict op V irginia  

Alexandria Division
Filed 5 September 1958 
Civil Action No. 1770

Otis E. J ones, an infant,
J essie M ay J ones, an  in fa n t,
B etty  J o  J ones, an infant, 

by Leora Jones, tlieir mother and next friend,
T hedosia H undley , an  in fa n t,

P earl H undley , an infant, 
by Blois Hundley, their father and next friend,

T im o th y  Calhoun  T aylor, an infant, 
by Ollie C. Taylor, his mother and next friend,

P atsy R agland, an infant,
J ames R agland, an  in fa n t,

S arah A. R agland, an infant, 
by Sarah Ragland, their mother and next friend,

J ames E dward L omax, an  in fa n t,
M argaret I ren e  L omax, an infant, 

by Hazel Lomax, their mother and next friend,
K athryn  C. T u rn er , an  in fa n t,

S andra A. T u rn er , an infant,
G erald R. T u rn er , an infant, 

by George R. Turner, Jr., their father and next friend,
Plaintiffs,

—v.—
T h e  S chool B oard of t h e  C ity of A lexandria , V irginia , 

a bodv corporate,
— 10—

T . C. W illiam s, Division Superintendent of 
Alexandria City Public Schools,

Defendants.

Complaint



\

1. (a) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked herein 
under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1331, as 
amended by Public Law 85-554 (1958). This action arises 
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, Section 1, and the Act of May 31, 1870, 
Chapter 114, Section 16, 16 Stat. 144 (Title 42, United 
States Code, Section 1981), as hereinafter more fully ap­
pears. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of 
interest and costs, the sum or value of Ten Thousand 
($10,000) Dollars.

(b) The jurisdiction of this Court also is invoked under 
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343. This action is 
authorized by the Act of April 20, 1871, Chapter 22, Section 
1, 17 Stat. 13 (Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983), 
to be commenced by any citizen of the United States or 
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the 
deprivation, under color of a State law, statute, ordinance, 
regulation, custom or usage, of rights, privileges and im­
munities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States, Section 1, and by the 
Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, Section 16, 16 Stat. 144 
(Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981), providing for 
the equal rights of citizens and of all persons within the 
jurisdiction of the United States, as hereinafter more fully 
appears.

2. Infant plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are residents of and 
domiciled in the City of Alexandria, Virginia. They are 
within the statutory age limits of eligibility to attend the 
public schools of said City, and possess all qualifications

—11—
and satisfy all requirements for admission thereto, and are

2a

Complaint



3a

in fact attending public schools of said City operated by 
defendants, with the exception of Margaret Irene Lomax 
and Gerald R. Turner, who are entering public school for 
the first time. All of infant plaintiffs are among those 
generally classified as Negroes.

3. Adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are residents of and 
domiciled in the City of Alexandria, Virginia. They are 
parents of the infant plaintiffs, and are taxpayers of the 
United States and of the said Commonwealth and City. 
All of the adult plaintiffs are among those generally classi­
fied as Negroes. All adult plaintiffs having control or 
charge of any unexempted child who has reached the 
seventh birthday and has not passed the sixteenth birth­
day are required to send said child to attend school or 
receive instruction (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chap­
ter 12, Article 4, Sections 22-251 to 22-256).

4. Plaintiffs bring this action in their own behalf and, 
there being common questions of law and fact affecting 
the rights of all other children attending the public schools 
in the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and their respective 
parents and guardians, similarly situated and affected with 
reference to the matters here involved, who are so numerous 
as to make it impracticable to bring all before the Court, 
and a common relief being sought, as will hereinafter more 
fully appear, bring this action, pursuant to Rule 23 (a) of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a class action, 
also on behalf of all other children attending the public 
schools in the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and their re­
spective parents and guardians, similarly situated and 
affected with reference to the matters here involved.

5. Defendant School Board of the City of Alexandria, 
Virginia, exists pursuant to the Constitution and Laws of

Complaint



4a

Complaint

— 12—

the Commonwealth of Virginia as an administrative depart­
ment of the Commonwealth of irginia discharging govern­
mental functions (Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, Sec­
tion 133; Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, 
Sections 22-1 to 22-9.3, Chapter 5, Section 22-44, Chapter 6, 
Article 4, Sections 22-89 to 22-99, Chapters 7 to 13, Sections 
22-100 to 22-330) and is declared by law to be a body corpo­
rate (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 6, Article 4, 
Section 22-94).

6. Defendant T. C. Williams is Division Superintendent 
of the Alexandria City Public Schools, Alexandria, Vir­
ginia. He holds office pursuant to the Constitution and 
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as an administrative 
officer of the public free school system of Virginia (Con­
stitution of Virginia, Article IX, Section 133; Code of Vir­
ginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, Sections 22-1 to 22-9.3, 
Chapter 4, Sections 22-31 to 22-41, Chapter 5, Section 22-44, 
Chapter 6, Article 4, Sections 22-89 to 22-99, Chapters 7 
to 15, Sections 22-100 to 22-330). He is under the authority, 
supervision and control of, and acts pursuant to the orders, 
policies, practices, customs and usages of defendant School 
Board of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. He is made a 
defendant herein in his official capacity.

7. The Commonwealth of Virginia has declared public 
education a State function. The Constitution of Virginia, 
Article IX, Section 129, provides:

Free schools to be maintained. The General As­
sembly shall establish and maintain an efficient system 
of public free schools throughout the State.



5a

Pursuant to this mandate, the General Assembly of Vir­
ginia has established a system of public free schools in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia according to a plan set out in 
Title 22, Chapters 1 to 15, inclusive, of the Code of Vir­
ginia of 1950. The establishment, maintenance, and admin­
istration of the public free school system of Virginia is

—13—
vested in a State Board of Education, a Superintendent of 
Public Instruction, Division Superintendents of Schools, 
and County, City and Town School Boards (Constitution 
of Virginia, Article IX, Sections 130-133; Code of Vir­
ginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 22-2).

8. The public free schools of the City of Alexandria, 
Virginia, are under the control and supervision of defen­
dants, acting as an administrative department or division 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Code of Virginia, 1950, 
Title 22, Chapter 1, Sections 22-1 to 22-3). Defendant 
School Board of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, is em­
powered and required to establish and maintain an efficient 
system of public free schools in said City (Code of Vir­
ginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, Sections 22-1, 22-5, 22-93); 
and to carry out the specific powers and duties enumerated 
(Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 6, Article 4, 
Section 22-97).

9. Pursuant to a policy, practice, custom and usage of 
segregation, on the basis of race or color, all children at­
tending the public free schools of the City of Alexandria, 
defendants, and each of them, and their agents and em­
ployers, maintain and operate separate public free schools 
for Negro children and children who are not Negroes, 
respectively, and deny infant Negro plaintiffs and all other 
Negro children, because of their race or color, admission

Complaint



6a

to and education in any public school operated for white 
children, and compel infant Negro plaintiffs and all other 
Negro children, because of their race or color, to attend 
public schools set apart and operated exclusively for Negro 
children.

10. The aforesaid action of defendants denies infant 
plaintiffs, and each of them, their liberty without due proc­
ess of law and the equal protection of the laws secured by 
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the

—14—
United States, Section 1, and the rights secured by Title 42, 
United States Code, Section 1981.

11. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United 
States declared the principle that State-imposed racial 
segregation in public education is violative of the Four­
teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 
Pursuant to said decision, formal applications have hereto­
fore been made to defendants in behalf of infant plaintiffs 
for admission to designated public free schools under the 
jurisdiction and control of defendants, to which plaintiffs, 
but for the fact that they are Negroes, in all other respects 
are qualified and entitled to admission and enrollment. 
Notwithstanding, defendants and each of them, have failed 
and refused to act favorably upon these applications and 
purposefully, wilfully, and deliberately continue to enforce 
and pursue the aforesaid policy, practice, custom and usage 
of racial segregation against infant plaintiffs, and all other 
children similarly situated and affected.

12. Defendants will continue to pursue against plain­
tiffs, and all other children similarly situated, the policy, 
practice, custom and usage specified in paragraph 9 hereof,

Complaint



7a

and will continue to deny infant Negro plaintiffs admission 
to or education in any public school operated for children 
who are not Negroes, unless restrained and enjoined by 
this Court from so doing.

13. Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated and affected, 
are suffering irreparable injury and are threatened with 
irreparable injury in the future by reason of the policy, 
practice, custom and usage, and the actions of the defen­
dants herein complained of. They have no plain, adequate, 
or complete remedy to redress the wrongs and illegal acts 
herein complained of other than this complaint for in­
junctive relief. Any other remedy to which plaintiffs and 
those similarly situated could be remitted would be at-

—15—
tended by such uncertainties and delays as would deny sub­
stantia] relief, would involve a multiplicity of suits, and 
would cause plaintiffs further irreparable injury and occa­
sion damage, vexation, and inconvenience.

14. As a consequence of the purposeful, wilful, and 
deliberate action of defendants, in continuing to segregate 
infant plaintiffs and other children on the basis of their 
race or color, in violation of their legal duty to plaintiffs, 
plaintiffs are required to employ attorneys and undergo 
great trouble, inconvenience, and expense to litigate a 
vindication of their constitutional rights.

W h erefo re , plaintiffs respectfully pray that, upon the 
filing of this complaint and as may appear proper and 
convenient, this Court advance this action on the docket 
and order a speedy hearing of this action according to law 
and, upon such hearing, this Court:

Complaint



8a

(a) Enter a preliminary injunction and/or a permanent 
injunction restraining and enjoining defendants, and each 
of them, their successors in office, and their agents and 
emidoyees, forthwith, from enforcing or pursuing against 
infant plaintiffs, and other children similarly situated and 
affected, the policy, practice, custom or usage which pre­
cludes, on the basis of race or color, the admission, enroll­
ment, or education of infant plaintiffs, or any other child 
similarly situated, to and in any public school operated 
by defendants at the same time, under the same terms and 
conditions, and with the same treatment that similarly 
situated children of any other race, color or group are 
admitted, enrolled, educated, or given therein, upon the 
ground that any such policy, practice, custom, usage, or 
action denies infant plaintiffs, and other children similarly 
situated, their liberty without due process of law and the 
equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Sec­
tion 1, and the rights secured by Title 42, United States 
Code, Section 1981, and is for these reasons unconstitu-

—16—
tional and void.

(b) Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, reasonable attor­
neys’ fees for their counsel, and grant such further, other, 
additional, or alternative relief as may appear to the Court 
to be equitable and just in the premises.

Otto L. T ucker  
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs 

901 Princess Street 
Alexandria, Virginia

Complaint



9a

Complaint

Oliver  W . H ill

118 East Leigh Street 
Richmond 19, Virginia

S pottswood W. R obinson , III 
623 North Third Street 

Richmond 19, Virginia
F rank  D. R eeves 

473 Florida Avenue, N. W. 
Washington 1, D. C.

Counsel for Plaintiffs



10a

—2 4 -
Answer o f the School Board o f the City of Alexandria 

and T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent of 
Schools o f the City of Alexandria

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  E astern D istrict  op V irginia  

Alexandria Division

[ same t it l e ]

For their joint and several answers in this case the 
defendants, the School Board of the City of Alexandria 
and T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent of Schools of 
the City of Alexandria, answer and say:

1. These defendants do not deny the jurisdiction stated 
in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, but they do deny 
that any action of theirs, or either of them, has deprived 
the plaintiffs, or any of them, under color of state law, 
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any 
right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution 
of the United States or any amendment thereto, or any act 
of Congress, as alleged in paragraph 1(b) of the complaint.

2. These defendants, for lack of sufficient information, 
deny the allegations of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the com­
plaint.

3. These defendants admit the allegations of paragraph
5 of the complaint.

—25—
4. These defendants admit the allegations of paragraph

6 of the complaint except that they say the defendant, T. C.



11a

Williams as Division Superintendent of Schools of the City 
of Alexandria is under the authority, supervision and con­
trol and acts pursuant to, the orders, policies, practices, 
customs and usages of the defendant The School Board of 
the City of Alexandria, as is alleged in such paragraph 6, 
only to the extent that there is no conflict with the provi­
sions of Section 22-36 of the Code of Virginia, which 
provides that the powers and duties of division superin­
tendents of schools shall be fixed by the State Board of 
Education, or the provisions of Section 22-97 of the Code 
of Virginia, which enumerates the powers and duties of 
city school boards, or Sections 22-232.1 to 22-232.17 of the 
Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 500 of the Acts 
of the Assembly of 1958, known as the Pupil Placement Act, 
or any other statute of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

5. These defendants admit the allegations of paragraph
7 of the complaint.

6. These defendants admit the allegations of paragraph
8 of the complaint except that these defendants deny that 
the public schools of the City of Alexandria are “under 
the control and supervision of the defendants, acting as 
an administrative department or division of the Common­
wealth of Virginia,” and the other allegations of paragraph 
8 of the complaint, to the extent that the allegations of 
paragraph 8 are intended to assert that these defendants 
have any power or control over the assignment or place­
ment of pupils in the public schools of the City of Alex­
andria.

7. These defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 
9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the complaint.

Answer of Defendants School Board
and Division Superintendent



12a

Further Answer
Further answering these defendants jointly and severally 

say:
—26—

8. Section 132 of the Constitution of Virginia sets out 
the duties and powers of the State Board of Education and 
provides, among them, that such board shall have such 
authority to make rules and regulations for the manage­
ment and the conduct of the schools as the General Assem­
bly may prescribe.

Section 133 of the Constitution of Virginia provides, 
among other things, that the supervision of schools in 
each county and city shall be vested in a school board, to 
be composed of trustees to be selected in the manner, for 
the term and to the number provided by law.

Section 22-19 of the Code of Virginia provides that the 
State Board of Education may make rules and regulations 
not inconsistent with law for the management and conduct 
of schools, such rules and regulations when published and 
distributed to have the force and effect of law until revised, 
amended or repealed by the General Assembly or until 
revised, amended or rescinded by the Board.

Section 22-22 of the Code of Virginia provides for a 
superintendent of public instruction; and Section 22-25 
makes it his duty to formulate such rules and regulations 
as shall be necessary for the proper and uniform enforce­
ment of the provisions of the school laws in cooperation 
with the local school authorities.

Section 22-36 of the Code of Virginia provides that the 
powers and duties of the division superintendents of schools 
shall be fixed by the State Board of Education.

Answer of Defendants School Board
and Division Superintendent



13a

Section 22-97 of the Code of Virginia enumerates the 
powers and duties of city school boards, and among them 
are the power and duty to explain, enforce and observe 
the school laws, and to make rules for the government of 
the schools, and the power and duty to perform such other 
duties as shall be prescribed by the State Board of Edu­
cation or imposed by law.

Section 22-232.1 of the Code of Virginia, a part of the 
Pupil Placement Act, as amended by Chapter 500 of the

—2 7 -
Acts of 1958, has vested all power of enrollment and place­
ment of pupils in and determination of school attendance 
districts for the public schools in Virginia in the Pupil 
Placement Board, and has divested the local school boards 
and division superintendents of all authority “now or at 
any future time” to determine the school to which any 
child shall be admitted.

These defendants therefore are wholly without power to 
admit any child to a public school in the City of Alexandria 
except in the sense that they may perform purely minis­
terial acts when clearly authorized to do so by the Consti­
tution and statutes of Virginia above mentioned, particu­
larly the Pupil Placement Act, and the other statutes of 
Virginia, and the rules and regulations made pursuant to 
the authority thereof, and by lawful action of the Pupil 
Placement Board.

9. The prayer of the complaint for a permanent injunc­
tion asks the Court to enjoin these defendants, their suc­
cessors in office, and their agents and employees from any 
and all action that regulates or affects, on the basis of 
race or color the admission, enrollment for education of 
the infant plaintiffs, or any other negro child similarly

Answer of Defendants School Board
and Division Superintendent



14a

situate to and in any public school operated by the defen­
dants, and the complaint is therefore directed at the wrong 
parties, since the Pupil Placement Board alone can grant 
or deny any application by or for any pupil for admission 
to any public school in the City of Alexandria.

10. The complaint is to obtain the entry of an order 
which will enjoin and restrain the enforcement, operation 
and execution of the Pupil Placement Act, by restraining 
the action of officers of the State of Virginia in the enforce­
ment and execution of such statute, and of an order or 
orders made by an administrative board or commission 
acting under such statute, upon the ground of the uncon­
stitutionality of such statute, and under the provisions of 
Title 28 U. S. C. A., Section 2281, such an injunction can­
not be granted by any district court or judge thereof un-

—28—
less the application therefor is heard and determined by 
a District Court of three judges under Title 28, U. S. C. A., 
Section 2284.

Answer of Defendants School Board
and Division Superintendent

T h e  S chool B oard of C ity  of A lexandria

T. C. W illiam s

B y  E arl F . W agner

Commonwealth’s Attorney for the 
City of Alexandria

E arl F. W agner

Commonwealth’s Attorney for the 
City of Alexandria

A. J o h n  S cariot

Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for the 
City of Alexandria



15a

Request for Admissions Under Rule 36
- 4 3 -

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F oe t h e  E astern  D istrict of V irginia

[ same title]

To:
E arl F. W agner , Esq.

Attorney for Defendants 
127 North Fairfax Street 

Alexandria, Virginia

Please take notice that the plaintiffs hereby request the 
defendants, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, to admit within 10 days after service of 
this request, for the purposes of the above-entitled action 
only, and subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility 
which may be interposed at the trial:

1. That each of the following documents is genuine.
a. Map of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, labelled 

“School Zones 1958-1959 City School Board.”, marked as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1.

b. Document captioned “Alexandria Public Schools, Al­
exandria, Virginia—School Zones 1958-1959,” marked as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2.



16a

2. That each of the following statements is true.
a. The infant plaintiffs in this action are citizens of the 

United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
—4 4 -

are residents of the City of Alexandria, Virginia.
b. Each of the infant plaintiffs is among those generally 

classified as Negroes.
c. Each of the adult plaintiffs is a citizen of the United 

States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a resi­
dent of the City of Alexandria, Virginia.

d. Each of the adult plaintiffs is a parent or guardian 
of one or more of the infant plaintiffs herein, and each 
of the adult plaintiffs is among those generally classified 
as Negroes.

e. Each of the infant plaintiffs is within the statutory 
age limits of eligibility to attend the public schools of Alex­
andria, Virginia.

f. Each of the infant plaintiffs possesses all qualifica­
tions and satisfies all requirements for admission to the 
public schools of Alexandria, Virginia, and each of them is 
now enrolled at a public school in the City of Alexandria, 
in which school only Negro pupils are now or have been 
enrolled.

g. Counsel for the plaintiffs, under date of 11 August 
1958, transmitted to the defendants a letter (copy of which 
is attached hereto as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3), with which were 
enclosed applications to the defendants in behalf of each 
of the infant plaintiffs herein in the form of “Request for 
Transfer,” copies of which are attached hereto as Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibits 3(a) through 3(n).

Request for Admissions Under Rule 30



17a

h. By letter addressed to counsel for plaintiffs, dated 14 
August 1958 (copy of which is attached hereto as Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 4), defendant T. C. Williams acknowledged receipt 
of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3 and the enclosures therewith and 
advised that “the appropriate administrative steps are be­
ing taken in this situation.”

i. On 14 August 1958, defendant T. C. Williams sent to 
each of the adult plaintiffs a letter identical in form and 
content to the specimen copy attached hereto as Plaintiffs’

- 4 5 -
Exhibit 5.

j. The defendants have not granted the applications of 
infant plaintiffs (Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 3(a)-3(n)), nor taken 
any other action with reference thereto, except as herein­
above set forth.

k. The “School Zone Map” (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1) and 
“School Zones 1958-59” (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2) are officially 
recognized, approved, and used by defendants in the ad­
ministration of the public schools of the City of Alexandria, 
Virginia.

l. The assignment and/or enrollment of pupils in the 
public schools of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, are made 
pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 and 2.

m. The specific public schools of the City of Alexandria 
in which the infant plaintiffs are enrolled are and have 
been attended only by pupils generally classified as Negroes 
and the specific public schools to which plaintiffs sought 
admission in their respective Bequests for Transfer (Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibits 3(a)-3(n)) are and have been attended only 
by pupils generally classified as “white.”

Request for Admissions Under Ride 36



18a

n. The defendants, in the maintenance and operation of 
the public schools of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, have 
adopted and followed and do now follow the policy, custom, 
and usage of separate schools for the Negro and white 
races.

o. The defendants have not adopted, undertaken, or pur­
sued any plan, program, or course of action designed or 
intended to bring about the end of racial segregation in the 
public schools of Alexandria, Virginia.

Request for Admissions Under Rule 36



19a

A lexandria P ublic  S chools 

Alexandria, Virginia 
S chool Z ones 1958-59

—51—
* * * * *

P atrick  H enry  S chool : For grades one to seven inclusive. 
Beginning at the southern city limits and northeast along 
an imaginary line passing through the intersection of South 
Early Street and Wheeler Avenue to a point just west of 
the intersection of Cockrell Avenue and Duke Street to 
Duke Street. Thence eastward on the north side of Duke 
Street to Quaker Lane. Thence north on the west side of 
Quaker Lane to the intersection of Quaker Lane and Sem­
inary Road. Thence generally northwestward just south of 
Seminary Road but not including either side of this part of 
Seminary Road (which is in the Minnie Howard zone) to 
Howard Lane. Thence westward along a line south of 
Seminary Road to a point just east of Shirley Highway. 
Thence along a line southwestward to a point just north 
of the Brookville Development. Thence southeast to the 
east side of N. Pegram Street. Thence south to the north 
side of Holmes Run. Thence along the north side of Holmes 
Run to the bridge just east of the Quartermaster Depot. 
Thence south along the east side of Holmes Run on an 
imaginary line to the City Limits. Thence east along the 
southern boundary of the city to a point just south of the 
intersection of South Early Street and Wheeler Avenue. 

* * * * *

- 4 8 -
Extracts From Exhibit 2



20a

Extracts from Exhibit 2

* * * * *
W illiam  R amsey S c h o o l : Grades one to seven inclusive. 
Beginning at the southwest boundary line of the city, 
thence north along the western boundary line of the city 
to the north side of Seminary Road. Thence southeast along 
the north side of Seminary Road to Shirley Highway, 
thence south on the west side of Shirley Highway to a point 
just north of the Brookville Development. Thence south­
east to the east side of North Pegram Street. Thence south 
to the south side of Holmes Run, thence along the south 
side of Holmes Run to the bridge just east of the Quarter­
master Depot. Thence south along the west side of Holmes 
Run on an imaginary line to the city limits, thence west 
along the southern boundary of the city to the southwest 
corner of the city.

.Jefferson  S c h o o l : For the eighth grade white pupils for 
the entire city (including the newly annexed areas).

G eorge W ashington  H igh  S c h o o l : For the four years of 
high school as indicated by the following zone lines: Be­
ginning at the north boundary of the city at its intersec­
tion with Old Dominion Boulevard, thence generally south­
ward and west of Notabene Drive. Thence along the line 
going southeast of Old Dominion Boulevard until it inter­
sects the Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. Thence 
along the Washington and Old Dominion Railroad gener­
ally eastward to its intersection with Russell Road. Thence 
southward and east of Russell Road to the intersection of 
Beverly Drive. Thence west just south of Beverly Drive 
to Circle Hill Road. Thence south of Circle Hill to Old 
Dominion Boulevard. Thence southeast of Old Dominion

—52—



21a

Boulevard to Crestwood Drive. Thence west just south of 
Crestwood Drive to Cameron Mills Road. Thence on a line 
east of Cameron Mills Road to the intersection of Braddock 
Road and Fontaine Street. Thence southeast of Braddock 
Road to the intersection of Lloyd’s Lane and Braddock 
Road. Thence west on an imaginary line to a point south 
of Timber Branch Drive. Thence southeast along the north­
east side of Timber Branch Parkway to Ivy Hill Cemetery. 
Thence southwest to the intersection of Janney’s Lane and 
King Street. Thence west on a line south of Janney’s Lane 
to Putnam Place. Thence south on a line east of Putnam 
Place. Thence on an imaginary line to the east of Mon­
cure Drive. Thence south to Duke Street. Thence on a line 
going east just north of Duke Street to a point just west 
of Robert’s Lane. Thence south including both sides of 
Robert’s Lane to the city limits.

—53—
* * * * *

P arker Gray H ig h  S c h o o l : For eighth grade and four 
years of high school for the entire city (including the newly 
annexed areas).

C harles H ouston S c h o o l : For grades one to seven inclu­
sive. Beginning at the eastern boundary line of the city 
on the north side of Pendleton Street. Thence west along 
Pendleton Street to Washington Street, thence south along 
center of Washington Street to Cameron Street. Thence 
west along the north side of Cameron Street to the R. F. 
& P. Railroad. Thence north to include all pupils in the 
northern part of the city.

L yles C rouch  S chool : For grades one to seven inclusive. 
Beginning at the eastern boundary line of the city on the

Extracts from Exhibit 2



22a

Extracts from Exhibit 2

south side of Pendleton Street, thence west along Pendleton 
Street. Thence south along the center of Washington Street 
to Cameron Street. Thence west along the southside of 
Cameron to the R. F. & P. Railroad. Thence southwest to 
the old city line, thence southeast along the city line to the 
eastern end of the city line. Thence north along the eastern 
boundary line to Pendleton Street.

Also included in this zone will be all pupils living in the 
central part of the city and all pupils living in the annexed 
area.

E ig h t h  Grade (N egro) : From the entire city will attend 
the Parker Gray High School.

* * * * *



23a

Exhibit 3
—54—

August 11, 1958

School Board of the City of Alexandria 
Mr. T. C. Williams 
Superintendent of Schools 
Alexandria, Virginia

Gentlemen:

I am enclosing for your attention and action “Request 
for Transfer” of the following children, signed by their 
parent or guardian.

NAM E

Kathryn C. Turner 
Sandra A. Turner 
Gerald R. Turner

PARENT

Mr. & Mrs. George R. 
Turner, Jr.

ADDRESS

211 Lincolnia Road 
Alexandria, Virginia

Otis E. Jones 
Jessie Mae Jones 
Betty Joe Jones
James Edward Lomax 
Margaret Irene Lomax
Patsy Ragland 
James Ragland 
Sarah A. Ragland
Timothy C. Taylor

Thedosia Hundley 
Pearl Hundley

Mrs. Leora Jones

Mrs. Hazel Lomax 

Mrs. Sarah Ragland

Mrs. Ollie C. Taylor 

Mrs. Blois Hundley

6346 Stevenson Avenue 
Alexandria, Virginia

1120 N. Fairfax Street 
Alexandria, Virginia
6346 B Stevenson Avenue 
Alexandria, Virginia

415 Wilkes Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 
409 South St. Asaph Street 
Alexandria, Virginia

Please inform me within five days after date of this 
letter of the action taken in this matter.

Very truly yours,

OLT :wjc
Otto L. Tucker



24a

Exhibit 3D
—58—

Alexandria, Virginia

School Board of the 
City of Alexandria 
Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. T. C. Williams
Division Superintendent of Schools
Alexandria, Virginia

Gentlemen:
We hereby request that, at the commencement of the 

1958-59 school term, our child, Betty Joe Jones, be trans­
ferred from Lyles Crouch School to Patrick Henry School 
or to such other school her assignment to which may prop­
erly be determined on the basis of objective considerations 
without regard to her race or color.

Betty Joe Jones at the close of the 1957-58 term in June, 
was promoted to the 2 grade.

Respectfully yours,

/ s /  L eora J ones 
Address: 6346 Stevenson Ave. 

Alexandria, Va.

D ate : July 19, 1958



25a

Exhibit 3F
—60—

Alexandria, Virginia

School Board of the 
City of Alexandria 
Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. T. C. Williams
Division Superintendent of Schools
Alexandria, Virginia

Gentlemen:
We hereby request that, at the commencement of the 

1958-59 school term, our child, Otis E. Jones, be transferred 
from Lyles Crouch School to Patrick Henry School or to 
such other school his assignment to which may properly 
be determined on the basis of objective considerations with­
out regard to his race or color.

Otis E. Jones at the close of the 1957-58 term in June, 
was promoted to the 4 grade.

Respectfully yours,

/ s /  L eora J ones 
Address: 6346 Stevenson Ave. 

Alexandria, Va.

Date: July 19, 1958



26a

Exhibit 3L
—66—

Alexandria, Virginia

School Board of the 
City of Alexandria 
Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. T. C. Williams
Division Superintendent of Schools
Alexandria, Virginia

Gentlemen:

We hereby request that, at the commencement of the 
1958-59 school term, our child, Timothy Calhoun, be trans­
ferred from Parker Gray High School, to George Washing­
ton High School, or to such other school his assignment to 
which may properly be determined on the basis of objective 
considerations without regard to his race or color.

Timothy Calhoun at the close of the 1957-58 term in 
June, was promoted to the 9th grade.

Respectfully yours,

Date: August 7, 1958

/ s /  O l l ie  Ca lho u n  T aylor 
415 Wilkes Street



27a

Exhibit 3M
—67—

Alexandria, Virginia

School Board of the 
City of Alexandria,
Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. T. C. Williams
Division Superintendent of Schools
Alexandria, Virginia

Gentlemen:
We hereby request that, at the commencement of the 

1958-59 school term, our child, Pearl Hundley, be trans­
ferred from Parker Grey High School, to George Wash­
ington High School, or to such other school her assignment 
to which may properly be determined on the basis of ob­
jective considerations without regard to her race or color.

Pearl Hundley at the close of the 1957-58 term in June, 
was promoted to the 9th grade.

Respectfully yours,

/ s /  B lois H undley

409 So. St. Asaph St. 
Alex. Va.

D ate :



28a

Exhibit 3N
—68—

Alexandria, Virginia

School Board of the
City of Alexandria
Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. T. C. Williams
Division Superintendent of Schools
Alexandria, Virginia

Gentlemen:

We hereby request that, at the commencement of the 
1958-59 school term, our child, Thedosia Hundley, be trans­
ferred from Parker Grey High School, to George Washing­
ton High School, or to such other school her assignment to 
which may properly be determined on the basis of objec­
tive considerations without regard to her race or color.

Thedosia at the close of the 1957-58 term in June, was 
promoted to the 10th grade.

Respectfully yours,

/ s /  B lois H undley

409 So. St. Asaph St. 
Alex. Va.

Date: August 7th, 1958



29a

Exhibit 4
—69—

(Letterhead of Alexandria City Public Schools,
Alexandria, Virginia.)

August 14, 1958

Mr. Otto L. Tucker 
901 Princess Street 
Alexandria, Virginia

Dear Mr. Tucker:

Your letter under date of August 11 in regard to certain 
children reached me in due course.

This is to advise you that the appropriate administra­
tive steps are being taken in this situation.

Sincerely yours,

TCW :eed

/ s /  T. C. W illiam s

T. C. Williams 
Superintendent



30a

Exhibit 5
—70—

(Letterhead of Alexandria City Public Schools,
Alexandria, Virginia.)

August 14, 1958
Mrs. Hazel Lomax 
1120 North Fairfax Street 
Alexandria, Virginia

My dear Mrs. Lomax:
It has been brought to my attention that you have made 

inquiry as to the possibility of the transfer of certain of 
your children from one school to another in our school 
system.

I am taking this means of advising you that, according 
to the laws under which the schools operate in the State of 
Virginia, a pupil who applies to move from one school to 
another within a school system is designated as a prospec­
tive new pupil or a prospective new enrollee in the school 
to which he indicates a desire to go. This applies also to 
a pupil who finishes the grades offered at one school with­
in a school system and applies to go to another school, 
in the normal sequence of educational advancement, in the 
same school system.

I am enclosing the necessary forms, as required by the 
State, to be used in such cases as are outlined above. These 
forms are to be used by all pupils applying for transfers 
between schools within a school system in this State. There 
are three forms for each child (white, blue and yellow). 
These are fastened together. In using the forms make out 
all three for each child. When the forms are completed



31a

Exhibit 5

they should be sent to this office. Upon their receipt here 
you will be informed further regarding them.

In the case of a pupil entering a Virginia school for the 
first time either a birth certificate or a photostat of same 
must be attached to the forms. This is not necessary if 
the child is already in a school in the City of Alexandria.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  T. C. W illiam s

T. C. Williams 
Superintendent

TCWreed
Enc.



32a

Exhibit 6
—71—

(Letterhead of Alexandria City Public Schools,
Alexandria, Virginia.)

August 22, 1958

Mrs. Hazel Lomax 
1120 North Fairfax Street 
Alexandria, Virginia

My dear Mrs. Lomax:
I have learned since sending out certain information and 

forms to you last Friday, August 15, that this material 
was not sent out under certified mail. I regret that this 
happened this way.

To be sure that this material comes to your hand for 
your information and your use, should you desire it, I am 
again sending the same material but this time by certified 
mail so that 1 can be sure that it conies to you without 
doubt.

Sincerely yours,

TCW :eed 
Enc.

/ s /  T. C. W illiam s

T. C. Williams 
Superintendent



33a

- 40-
Extracts From Interrogatories to Defendants (October 

13, 1958) and Answers (October 20 , 1 9 5 8 ) of 
T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent

# # * # #

4. Give tlie names and locations of all schools operated 
by the School Board of the City of Alexandria, indicating 
with respect to each school whether it is attended ex­
clusively by Negro or white pupils.

- 8 3 -
I n  R esponse  to # 4

A lexandria  P ublic  S chools 
Alexandria, Virginia

S ch o o l A d d r e s s B a c e

Charles Barrett 1115 Martha Custis Drive White
Cora Kelly 3600 Commonwealth Avenue White
Douglas MacArthur 1000 Janney’s Lane White

y/Francis Hammond High 4646 Seminary Road White
George Mason 2601 Cameron Mills Road White

y/George Washington High 1005 Mount Vernon Avenue White
Jefferson 200 North West Street White
Maury 600 Russell Road White
Minnie Howard 3801 Braddock Road White
Mount Vernon 2500 Mount Vernon Avenue White

y/Patriek Henry 4643 Taney Avenue White
Prince Street 1001 Prince Street White
Robert E. Lee 1108 Jefferson Street White
Stonewall Jackson 3332 Duke Street White

y/Theodore Ficklin Second & North Pitt Streets White
y/William Ramsay North Beauregard Street White
y/Charles Houston 905 Wythe Street Negro
y/Lyles-Crouch 530 South St. Asaph Street Negro
y/Parker-Gray High 1207 Madison Street Negro



34a

—40—
5. State the number of students enrolled in each school, 

the student capacity of each school, the percentage of en­
rollment to capacity (overcrowding or undercrowding) at 
each school, and the pupil-teacher ratio at each school.

- 8 4 -
I n Response to # 5

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of Defendant
T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent

E nrollment as of October 1, 1958

S ch o o l E n r o llm e n t C a p a c i ty

P u p il-
P e r c e n t  o v e r  T e a c h e r  

or u n d e r  r a t io

VGeorge Washington High 1635 1600 +  2.2 22.5
\/Francis Hammond High 1294 1200 +  7.8 23.9
\/Parker-Gray High 486 500 — 2.8 21.1

Jefferson 862 740 +16.5 22.7
Mount Vernon 1347 1260 +  6.9 31.7

\/Patrick Henry 950 990 — 4.0 28.5
Minnie Howard 451 750 —39.9 23.4
Robert B. Lee 766 900 —14.9 24.6
Maury 529 540 — 2.0 29.0
Douglas MacArthur 434 550 —21.0 27.0
Charles Barrett 441 600 —26.5 25.8

VTheodore Ficklin 301 360 —16.4 25.0
\/William Ramsay 623 600 +  3.8 31.0
VLyles-Crouch 705 900 —21.7 27.1
VCharles Houston 760 840 — 9.5 27.1

Prince Street 314 450 —30 28.4
Cora Kelly 552 600 — 8.0 27.0
George Mason 666 720 — 7.5 27.5
Stonewall Jackson 323 330 — 2.1 28.5



35a

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of Defendant
T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent

—41—
* * * * *

15. With respect to each of the infant plaintiffs herein, 
list the name of the school presently attended and the 
name of the school which is nearest the home of said 
child, serving his or her respective grade level.

—81—
15. A. Kathryn C. Turner is now attending the Lyles- 

Crouch School. The closest school to her home 
geographically is the William Ramsay School.

B. Sandra A. Turner is now attending the Lyles- 
Crouch School. The school closest to her home 
geographically is the William Ramsay School.

C. Gerald R. Turner is now attending the Lyles- 
Crouch School. The school closest to his home 
geographically is the William Ramsay School.

D. Otis E. Jones is now attending the Lyles- 
Crouch School. The school closest to his home 
geographically is the William Ramsay School.

E. Jessie Mae Jones is now attending the Lyles- 
Crouch School. The school closest to her home 
geographically is the William Ramsay School.

F. Betty Jo Jones now attends the Lyles-Crouch 
School. The school closest to her home geo­
graphically is the William Ramsay School.

G. James E. Lomax now attends the Charles Hous­
ton School. The school closest to his home geo­
graphically is the Theodore Ficklin School.

H. Margaret I. Lomax now attends the Charles 
Houston Elementary School. The elementary



36a

school closest to her home geographically is the 
Theodore Ficklin School.

I. Patsy Ragland now attends the Parker-Gray 
High School. The closest High school to her 
home geographically is the Francis C. Hammond 
High School.

J. James Ragland now attends the Parker-Gray 
High School. The closest high school to his 
home is the Francis C. Hammond High School.

K. Sarah A. Ragland now attends the Lyles-Crouch 
School. The elementary school closest to her 
home geographically is the William Ramsay 
School.

L. Timothy C. Taylor now attends the Parker-Gray 
High School. The closest high school to his 
home geographically is the Parker-Gray High 
School.

M. Theodosia Hundley now attends the Parker-Gray 
High School. The closest high school to her home 
geographically is the Parker-Gray High School.

N. Pearl Hundley now attends the Parker-Gray 
High School. The closest high school to her 
home geographically is the Parker-Gray High 
School.

—41—
16. List the name of the school which a white child of 

the same grade level and living at the same address as 
each of the infant plaintiffs would attend on the basis of 
the established school zones as prescribed on Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibits 1 and 2.

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of Defendant
T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent



37a

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of Defendant
T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent

—82—
16. In the eases of each child listed above the school 

which a white child would attend is shown by the 
letter designating each child in #15

A. The William Ramsay School
B. The William Ramsay School
C. The William Ramsay School
D. The William Ramsay School
E. The William Ramsay School
F. The William Ramsay School
G. The Theodore Ficklin School
H. The Theodore Ficklin School
I. The Francis C. Hammond High School
J. The Francis C. Hammond High School 
lv. The William Ramsay School
L. The George Washington High School
M. The George AVashington High School
N. The George Washington High School

—41—
17. State whether the School Board of the City of Alex­

andria or the Division Superintendent of Schools of the 
City of Alexandria has adopted, prescribed, or admin­
istered a plan, program, or criteria for the admission, 
enrollment, or education of pupils in the public schools of 
the City of Alexandria for the 1958-59 school year other 
than set forth in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 and 2.

—82—
17. The criteria for the admission, enrollment, or edu­

cation of pupils in the public schools of the City of 
Alexandria, Virginia for the 1958-’59 school year 
other than as set forth in Exhibits I and II are 
application for enrollment upon the Pupil Place­



38a

ment Form of the State Pupil Placement Board and 
permanent placement by the State Pupil Placement 
Board.

—41—
18. If the answer to the preceding question is in the 

affirmative, state the time, place, and circumstances of 
its adoption, etc., and give a detailed description of said 
plan, program, or criteria, with specific reference to the 
original minutes or other documentary record where it 
can be found and verified.

—82—
18. The local School Board has not adopted, prescribed, 

or administered any enrollment, placement, admis­
sion or education plan other than that required by 
State law as contained in State statutes. 

* * * * *

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of Defendant
T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent



39a

- 1 2 6 -
Extracts From Interrogatories to Defendants (Novem­

ber 18, 1958) and Answers (November 26 , 1958)  
of School Board o f the City o f Alexandria, Va. 
and T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent

I n t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  E astern D istrict  of V irginia  

Alexandria Division

[ same t it l e ]

1. State whether or not, either prior to or subsequent 
to the preparation and filing of answers to interrogatories 
by defendant T. C. Williams previously propounded here­
in, the School Board of the City of Alexandria, or the 
Division Superintendent of Schools of the City of Alex­
andria, has recommended, proposed, adopted, or prepared 
a plan, program or criteria for the admission, enrollment, 
or education of pupils in the public schools of the City of 
Alexandria for the 1958-59 school year or any portion 
thereof, or for any future school year other than as set 
forth in the School Zone Map and plan for 1958-59 (Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibits 1 and 2 herein).

- 1 2 9 -
1. The defendants herein state that they have adopted

a plan for enrollment of pupils in the public schools 
for the 1958-59 school year.

—126—
2. State whether or not the School Board of the City 

of Alexandria, or the Division Superintendent of Schools



40a

lias cooperated or assisted in the preparation of, or has 
any knowledge of, any plan, program, or criteria of the 
nature of that described in the preceding interrogatory, 
which has been formulated, proposed, or adopted by the 
Pupil Placement Board of Virginia or any other official or 
agency of the Commonwealth or of the City of Alexandria.

—129—
2. The defendants herein reply in the negative to Ques­

tion Numbered 2 of the Interrogatories.
—127—

3. If the answer to either or both of the foregoing in­
terrogatories is affirmative, (i) state by whom the plan, 
program, or criteria was prepared, formulated, recom­
mended, proposed, or adopted, the time and place and 
circumstances of its adoption, etc., including a statement 
as to whether or not the operation of such plan, etc., is 
contingent upon the happening of any event; (ii) give a 
detailed description of said plan, program, or criteria; and 
(iii) give specific reference to the original minutes or other 
documentary record where it can be found and verified.

—129—
3. The defendants herein, in reply to Question Num­

bered 3 (i) state that the Division Superintendent 
of Schools proposed and prepared the plan which 
was adopted October 28, 1958 by the School Board 
of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, at a meeting of 
said board held in the offices of the School Board; 
(ii) Copy of resolution hereto attached; (iii) Min­
utes of the School Board meeting dated October 28, 
1958, said minutes being located at the offices of 
the said School Board.

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of
Defendants School Board and T. C. Williams,

Division Superintendent



41a

Extracts from, Interrogatories and Answers of
Defendants School Board and T. C. Williams,

Division Superintendent

—132—
3. (ii) : Resolution:

W hereas, The School Board of the City of Alex­
andria, Virginia recognizes that the applications of 
the fourteen (14) Negro children in the case of 
Otis E. Jones et ah vs. The School Board of the 
City of Alexandria, Virginia et al. for placement 
in certain schools of the city previously attended 
only by white pupils, as shown on the applications 
for such placement, together with the desired grade 
placement in each case, should be acted upon with­
out regard to race or color; and

W hereas, The School Board of the City of Alex­
andria, Virginia realizes that it has the responsi­
bility of treating all public school pupils alike in 
furnishing them the best possible public educational 
opportunities, within the ability of the School Board, 
and to avoid assignment of any child to a grade 
level or school which does not suit the degree of 
his present scholastic achievement; and

W hereas, The School Board of the City of Alex­
andria, Virginia further realizes that it must oper­
ate all of the schools comprising the city school 
system with full regard to the proper interests 
of all pupils and must not burden any class or 
school by the assignment thereto of more than a 
just proportion of the total number of public school 
pupils in the city, in consideration of existing en­
rollments and of the possibilities of expansion into 
satisfactory and, at present, unused rooms available



42a

within or immediately available to present used 
quarters:

Now T H E R E F O R E  BE IT  R ESO LV ED  T H A T : The School 
Board of the City of Alexandria, Virginia adopt a 
plan of assignment of those pupils applying for 
transfer, enrollment or placement in the public 
schools of the Alexandria, Virginia Public Schools

—133—
to be administered on a racially non-discriminatory 
basis in which the following criteria will be con­
sidered in making assignment of any such pupil to 
the public schools of the city.

1. Location of residence of the applicant in refer­
ence to the closest school to him of the grade level 
to which he is eligible, or offering the program 
needed by him, and in reference to the school which 
he now attends, if in attendance in the city.

2. The condition of enrollment in the schools in­
volved in the requested transfer, or placement, as 
to overcrowding or undercrowding, the pupil-teacher 
ratio of each such school, the ability of each school 
involved to absorb additional enrollment without 
overcrowding.

3. Academic achievement and level of mental ma­
turity to be determined by a program of tests which 
shall be inaugurated and administered by the Super­
intendent as soon as possible for the current year 
and between July 15th and August 15th of succeed­
ing years, to all children who apply, or for whom 
applications are made, for transfers from other

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of
Defendants School Board and T. C. Williams,

Division Superintendent



43a

schools either within or without the City of Alex­
andria, Virginia, or who apply, or for whom appli­
cations are made, for initial enrollment in the public 
schools of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, whose 
applications involve unusual circumstances; pro­
vided, however, that in the cases of the fourteen 
(14) Negro children whose applications involve the 
unusual circumstances of seeking transfers to or 
initial enrollment in public schools of the City pre­
viously attended only by children of the opposite 
race and who have already applied for transfers or 
initial enrollments, shall be judged in this Number 
Three Section upon the results of tests which have 
been given or are being given in the usual course of 
testing for the current session and provided further, 
however, that as to all such children so applying, 
or for whom applications are made, in succeeding

—134-
years within the time limit fixed by this Board for 
making such applications, but, too late to be tested 
by August 15th such tests shall be given within a 
reasonable time after such applications are made; 
such tests to be applied and administered according 
to regular standards on a racially non-discrimina- 
tory basis.

Academic advancement or standing will also be 
ascertained, in part, by examination of the pupil’s 
cumulative record (if available), report cards and 
other representative informational material.

4. Health factors which have a bearing on the 
situation and which influence attendance, alertness,

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of
Defendants School Board and T. C. Williams,

Division Superintendent



44a

wholesomeness, vigor, mental capacity, association, 
acceptability or learning ability and retention.

5. Any facts which may be available indicating 
emotional and social stability, or otherwise, which 
would in any way affect the acceptability of such 
transfer.

6. Eligibility as to actual residence, whether liv­
ing with parents, inlaws, friends or guardians.

7. No pupil affected by the above shall be enrolled 
in any school except by affirmative act of the School 
Board, which shall in all cases exercise its proper 
discretion in making such assignment in view of all 
pertinent facts, but, without regard to race.

—127—
4. If the answer to interrogatories numbered one and 

two or either of them is in the affirmative, state to what 
school in the Alexandria Public School System, each of 
the infant plaintiffs would be assigned in accordance with 
such plan, program, or criteria.

—129—
4. The defendants herein state that the Pupil Place­

ment Plan has been adopted and no action has been 
taken under it for any pupils.

Extracts from Interrogatories and Answers of
Defendants School Board and T. C. Williams,

Division Superintendent

* * *



45a

I n th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  E astern D istrict  of V irginia  

Alexandria Division

- 1 4 6 -
Order Granting Injunction

{same t it l e ]

This cause came on to be heard on the 14th day of Jan­
uary, 1959 upon the complaint and answer, upon plaintiffs’ 
motion for summary judgment based upon the pleadings, 
stipulations, admissions, interrogatories and exhibits filed 
herein, upon the renewal of defendants’ motion to dismiss 
the complaint, and upon defendants’ application for the 
convening of a three-judge District Court, and was sub­
mitted without oral argument by counsel.

Upon consideration whereof, the Court finds, concludes, 
and orders as follows:

1. The Court is of the same opinion as previously stated 
in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, in that the Pupil 
Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not 
a necessary or indispensable party to this action and the 
said motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

2. Virtually the same proposition contained in the mo­
tion to dismiss is raised by defendants’ application for the

—147-
convening of a three-judge District Court, but inasmuch 
as no injunction is asked or required against the enforce­
ment of the Pupil Placement Act or the officials charged



46a

with its enforcement in order to afford the relief prayed 
herein, the Court concludes that no case for the consti­
tution of a three-judge court is presented and the Court 
will proceed with the consideration and disposition of this 
case as a single-judge court.

3. From an examination of the complaint and answer, 
defendants’ admissions, defendants’ answers to the written 
interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs, the exhibits, stip­
ulations and other matters of record herein, the Court finds 
that the following facts are established:

(a) That this Court has jurisdiction of this cause;
(b) That the infant plaintiffs are citizens of the United 

States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are resi­
dents of and domiciled in the City of Alexandria, Virginia. 
They are within the statutory age limits of eligibility to 
attend the public schools of said City, and possess all quali­
fications and satisfy all requirements for admission thereto, 
and are in fact attending public schools of said City oper­
ated by defendants. All of infant plaintiffs are among 
those generally classified as Negroes;

(c) That the adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United 
States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are 
residents of and domiciled in the City of Alexandria, Vir­
ginia. They are parents of the infant plaintiffs, and are 
taxpayers of the United States and of the said Common­
wealth and City. All of the adult plaintiffs are among 
those generally classified as Negroes.

(d) That this action is properly brought and maintained 
as a class action by the infant plaintiffs and their parents 
and guardians on behalf of all other children attending the

Order Granting Injunction



47a

Order Granting Injunction

- 1 4 8 -
public schools in the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and their 
respective parents and guardians, similarly situated and 
affected with reference to the matters here involved;

(e) That the defendant School Board of the City of 
Alexandria, Virginia is a body corporate existing pursuant 
to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Vir­
ginia as an administrative department of the Common­
wealth of Virginia. The defendant T. C. Williams, as Divi­
sion Superintendent of Alexandria City Public Schools, 
is an administrative officer of the public free school system 
of Virginia, acting under the authority, supervision and 
control of, and acting pursuant to the orders, policies, prac­
tices, customs and usages of defendant School Board of 
the City of Alexandria, Virginia;

(f) That the public free schools of the City of Alexan­
dria, Virginia, are under the control and supervision of 
defendants, acting as an administrative department or divi­
sion of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Defendant School 
Board of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, is empowered 
and required to establish and maintain an efficient system of 
public free schools in said City; and to carry out the specific 
powers and duties enumerated in the Code of Virginia, 
1950, Title 22, Chapter 6, Article 4, Section 22-97;

(g) That pursuant to a policy, practice, custom and 
usage of segregating, on the basis of race or color, all 
children attending the public free schools of the City of 
Alexandria, defendants, and each of them, and their agents 
and employees, maintain and operate separate public free 
schools for Negro children and children who are not Ne­
groes, respectively, and deny infant Negro plaintiffs and 
all other Negro children, because of their race or color,



48a

admission to and education in any public school operated 
for white children, and compel infant Negro plaintiffs and 
all other Negro children, because of their race or color, to

—149—
attend public schools set apart and operated exclusively 
for Negro children;

(h) That formal applications have heretofore been made 
to defendants in behalf of the infant plaintiffs for admis­
sion to designated public free schools under the jurisdic­
tion and control of defendants, to which said plaintiffs, but 
for the fact that they are Negroes, in all other respects were 
qualified and entitled to admission and enrollment. How­
ever, defendants, and each of them, have failed and refused 
to act favorably upon these applications, have continued 
to enforce and pursue the aforesaid policy, practice, 
custom and usage of racial segregation against infant 
plaintiffs, and all other children similarly situated and 
affected and defendants will continue to pursue said policy, 
practice, custom and usage against infant plaintiffs and all 
other children similarly situated and affected and will 
continue to deny infant plaintiffs admission to or educa­
tion in any public school operated for children who are 
not Negroes, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court 
from so doing.

4. Wherefore, the Court concludes as follows:
(a) That there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact in this case;
(b) That the aforesaid action of defendants denies in­

fant plaintiffs, and each of them, their liberty without due 
process of law and the equal protection of the laws secured 
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

Order Granting Injunction



49a

United States, Section 1, and the rights secured by Title 
42, United States Code, Section 1981;

(c) That plaintiffs, and those similarly situated and 
affected, are suffering irreparable injury and are threatened 
with irreparable injury in the future by reason of the pol-

—150—
icy, practice, custom and usage, and the actions of the 
defendants complained of in this cause. Plaintiffs have no 
plain, adequate, or complete remedy to redress the wrongs 
and illegal acts of which they complained other than in­
junctive relief granted by this Court;

(d) That summary judgment should be granted the 
plaintiffs.

5. Therefore, it is adjudged , ordered, and decreed that 
effective on and after February 2, 1959, the defendants, 
their successors in office, agents, representatives, servants, 
and employees be and each of them is hereby restrained 
and enjoined from refusing on account of race or color to 
admit to, or enroll or educate in, any school under their 
operation, control, direction, or supervision, any child 
otherwise qualified for admission to and enrollment and 
education in such school.

6. The defendants are directed to report in writing to 
counsel for the plaintiffs, on or before January 26, 1959, 
the action they have taken, or will take upon the effective 
date of the injunction herein, with respect to the pend­
ing applications of the infant plaintiffs herein for admis­
sion and enrollment in the respective schools designated in 
their applications, which report shall include the specific 
reasons for the rejection of any of said applications.

Order Granting Injunction



50a

7. The plaintiffs may, upon notice to defendants, at a 
further hearing in this cause present for consideration and 
action by the Court their objections, if any there be, to the 
action taken by the defendants with respect to the pend­
ing applications of the plaintiffs for admission and enroll­
ment in the respective schools designated in their applica­
tions.

8. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained with the power
—151—

to enlarge, reduce, or otherwise modify the provisions of 
said injunction or of this decree, and this cause is con­
tinued generally.

Order Granting Injunction

January 23, 1959

A lbert  V . B ryan 
United States District Judge



51a

- 1 6 7 -
Extracts From Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 )

I n t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  E astern  D istrict  of V irginia

[ same t it l e ]

At a meeting of the School Board of the City of Alex­
andria, Virginia, held in the City of Alexandria on Jan­
uary 22, 1959, consideration was given the petitions of the 
Complainants to he assigned to certain public schools 
within the City. Upon the recommendation of the Defen­
dant, T. C. Williams, Division Superintendent and upon 
the review of the facts of each particular case by the 
Board, the petitions of the several Complainants are denied 
for the reasons set forth in the attached statements.

/ s /  J ohn  B arton P h il l ip s  
John Barton Phillips

/ s /  E arl F. W agner 
Earl F. Wagner

—168-
C riteria  in  D eterm ina tion  of E lig ibility  U nder th e  

P u p il  A ssig n m en t  P lan of t h e  A lexandria , 
V irg in ia  C ity  S chool B oard

1. Relation of residence location of the pupil with refer­
ence to schools, or school, applied for.

2. State of enrollment conditions in the schools concerned 
in any case, or cases, under discussion.



52a

Extracts from Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8)

3. Academic achievement and mental capacity as these 
factors enter into conclusions on requests for entry or 
transfer.

4. Factors involving the health and/or well-being of the 
applicant which may have a bearing on the request from 
him.

5. Any factors which might affect the mental or emotional 
stability of the applicant so much as to become perti­
nent in placement determinations.

6. Is the applicant a bona fide resident of the city and 
actually entitled to attend school here.

K ey to Cases 

Case A. Kathryn C. Turner 
Case B. Sandra Turner 
Case C. Gerald Turner 
Case D. Otis E. Jones 
Case E. Jessie Mae Jones 
Case F. Betty Jo Jones 
Case G. James E. Lomax 
Case II. Margaret I. Lomax 
Case 1. Patsy Ragland 
Case J. James Ragland 
Case K. Sarah A. Ragland 
Case L. Timothy C. Taylor 
Case M. Theodosia Hundley 
Case N. Pearl Hundley

—169—
and R esidence  

211 Lincolnia Road 
211 Lincolnia Road 
211 Lincolnia Road 
6346 Stevenson Avenue 
6346 Stevenson Avenue 
6346 Stevenson Avenue 
1120 North Fairfax Street 
1120 North Fairfax Street 
6346 B Stevenson Avenue 
6346 B Stevenson Avenue 
6346 B Stevenson Avenue 
415 Wilkes Street 
409 South Saint Asaph Street 
409 South Saint Asaph Street



53a

Extracts from Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8)

Cases A pply in g  foe C erta in  G rades in  Certa in  S chools

Case A. 

Case B. 

Case C. 

Case D. 

Case E. 

Case F. 

Case G. 

Case H. 

Case I. 

Case J. 

Case K. 

Case L. 

Case M. 

Case N.

Applying for sixth grade in Patrick Henry from 
sixth grade in Lyles-Crouch 

Applying for second grade in Patrick Henry from 
second grade in Lyles-Crouch 

Applying for first grade in Patrick Henry from 
first grade in Lyles-Crouch 

Applying for fourth grade in Patrick Henry from 
fourth grade in Lyles-Crouch 

Applying for third grade in Patrick Henry from 
third grade in Lyles-Crouch 

Applying for second grade in Patrick Henry from 
second grade in Lyles-Crouch 

Applying for second grade in Theodore Ficklin 
from second grade in Houston 

Applying for first grade in Theodore Ficklin from 
first grade in Houston

Applying for tenth grade in Hammond High from 
tenth grade in Parker-Gray 

Applying for ninth grade in Hammond High from 
ninth grade in Parker-Gray 

Applying for third grade in Patrick Henry from 
third grade in Lyles-Crouch 

Applying for ninth grade in George Washington 
from ninth grade in Parker-Gray 

Applying for tenth grade in George Washington 
from tenth grade in Parker-Gray 

Applying for ninth grade in George Washington 
from ninth grade in Parker-Gray



54a.

Extracts from Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8)

—173— 
Otis E. Jones

CASE D
D isposition  of R equest by t h e  S chool B oard 

Denied
(a) On basis of Criterion 1 of Placement Plan. Patrick 

Henry School is not geographically closest to pupil’s home. 
No transportation from area.

(b) On basis of Criterion 2 of Placement Plan. Both the 
Patrick Henry and William Ramsay Schools are heavily 
loaded in enrollment. Henry School is 21 above capacity 
with pupil-teacher ratio of 30.64 to 1, while William Ramsay 
School is 67 above capacity with pupil-teacher ratio of 33.35 
to 1. Comparative figures for Lyles-Crouch School are 
175 pupils below capacity with a pupil-teacher ratio of 
27 to 1. Both the Henry and Ramsay Schools are using 
every available classroom. Lyles-Crouch School has three 
vacant classrooms.

(c) On basis of Criterion 3 of Plan.

This pupil accomplishes at the third grade level, much 
below his grade placement. The Lyles-Crouch School fourth 
grade, in which he is, achieves at the third grade three 
month level. The fourth grades of the Henry School and 
the Ramsay School achieve at the fourth grade nine month 
level and the fifth grade and four month level respectively. 
This boy should be in special class. He could never bridge 
such gaps.

(d) On basis of Criterion 5 of Plan.

This boy, if enrolled in the fourth grade at either of the 
alternative schools, will not only be completely lost and



55a

confused by the strains enumerated in Cases A, B and C, 
but these will be severely complicated by his own poor 
emotional adjustments and reactions. His poor academic 
achievement and his inability to cope satisfactorily with 
the situation where he already is, in familiar surroundings, 
indicates a probable complete lack of capacity to meet new, 
strange, more demanding and more confusing problems and 
situations.

Extracts from Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8)

—175— 
Betty Jo Jones

CASE F
D ispositio n  op R equest by t h e  S chool B oard 

Denied
(a) On basis of Criterion 1 of Placement Plan. Patrick 

Henry School is not the closest school geographically to 
home of applicant. No transportation from home area.

(b) On basis of Criterion 2 of Plan. Same as in Cases A, 
B, C, D and E.

(c) On basis of Criterion 3 of Plan. The I. Q. of this 
child is 81 which is a very low average. Her mental age 
is 1 year and 5 months below her chronological age. This 
is consistent with her I. Q. Reading level “low normal”. 
Arithmetic “poor risk”. Her I.Q. is about the level of the 
school which she is now in (Lyles-Crouch). It is 22 points 
below the median of the third grade of Patrick Henry 
School and 30 points below the median of the third grade 
of William Ramsay School. Her mental age is 1 year and 
9 months below the third grade median at Henry School 
and 2 years and 6 months below the third grade median of 
Ramsay School.



56a

(d) On basis of Criterion 5 of Plan. The emotional 
stress in such a transfer under the psychological, academic 
and level of mental capacity conditions would, in our opin­
ion, be disastrous.

Extracts from Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8)

—183— 
Timothy C. Taylor

CASE L
D ispositio n  of R equest by t h e  S chool B oard 

Denied

(a) On the Basis of Criterion 1 of Placement Plan. The 
George Washington High School is geographically more 
distant from this boy’s home than the Parker-Gray High 
School.

(b) The George Washington High School is over ca­
pacity. The Parker-Gray High School is under capacity. 
Pupil-teacher ratio at the George Washington High School 
is higher than at the Parker-Gray High School.

(c) On basis of Criterion 3 of Plan. This boy on eighth 
grade tests was almost a year behind the grade. These 
eighth grade pupils are now ninth graders at Parker-Gray. 
The eighth grade pupils going to ninth grade at the George 
Washington High School rated two (2) years above their 
grade. Therefore, there is a gap of practically three (3) 
years between this boy’s level and the level of the George 
Washington High School.

(d) The unnecessary emotional stresses engendered by 
sending a pupil by one high school to go to another, in 
which he will lie in a novel, abnormal and unusual position, 
will be severe.



57a

Extracts from Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8)

—182— 
(Amended 1/28/59)

CASE L
D ispositio n  op R equest by t h e  S chool B oard 

Denied
(a) On the basis of Criterion 1 of Placement Plan. The 

George Washington High School is geographically more 
distant from this boy’s home than the Parker-Gray High 
School.

(b) The George Washington High School is over ca­
pacity. The Parker-Gray High School is under capacity. 
Pupil-teacher ratio at the George Washington High School 
is higher than at the Parker-Gray High School.

(c) On basis of Criterion 3 of Plan. This boy on eighth 
grade Iowa Silent Reading Test was eight (8) months 
behind the median score in grade placement of those stu­
dents of George Washington High School. These eighth 
grade pupils are now ninth grade pupils at Parker-Gray 
High School. Therefore, there is a gap of two years and 
seven months between the median scores of the present 
ninth grades of George Washington High School and 
Parker-Gray High School.

(d) The unnecessary emotional stresses engendered by 
sending a pupil by one high school to go to another, in 
which he will be in a novel, abnormal and unusual position, 
will be severe.



58a

Extracts from Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8)

—184— 
Theodosia Hundley

CASE M
D isposition  of R equest  by t h e  S chool B oard 

Denied

(a) On basis of Criterion 1 of Placement Plan. The 
school which she attends is closer to her home than the 
one for which she applies.

(b) On basis of Criterion 2 of Plan. The school which 
she attends is less crowded than the one to which she ap­
plies.

(c) On basis of Criterion 3 of Plan. The difference be­
tween median percentile rank for the 10th grade between 
the school attended and the one applied for is indicative 
of too great a gap between accomplishment levels for this 
student who rates in a low average.

(d) On the basis of Criterion 5 of Plan. The abnormal 
stresses in other cases similar to this are complicated by 
this child’s, with an ability level at low average, striving 
to span, for her, an impossible gulf.

CASE N

—185— 
Pearl Hundley

D isposition  of R equest by t h e  S chool B oard

Denied

(a) On basis of Criterion 1 of the Placement Plan. The 
school which this girl attends is closer to her home than 
that to which she applies.

(b) On the basis of Criterion 2 of Plan. See Case M.



59a

(c) On basis of Criterion 3 of the Plan. Applicant’s 
mental ability and grade accomplishment are below the 
school applied to. School now attending is much behind 
school applied to.

(d) On basis of Criterion 5 of the Plan. See cases pre­
ceding (Cases A, B, C—M, etc.).

Extracts from Report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8)



60a

- 1 5 2 -
Extracts From Motion for Further Relief

I n t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  E astern D istrict  of V irginia

[ same t it l e ]

Plaintiffs Otis E. Jones, Jessie Mae Jones and Betty Jo 
Jones, infants, by Leora Jones, their mother and next 
friend; Thedosia Hundley and Pearl Hundley, infants, 
by Blois Hundley, their mother and next friend; Timothy 
Calhoun Taylor, an infant, by Ollie C. Taylor, Iris mother 
and next friend; Patsy Ragland, James Ragland, and 
Sarah A. Ragland, infants, by Sarah Ragland, their mother 
and next friend; Janies Edward Lomax and Margaret 
Irene Lomax, infants, by Hazel Lomax, their mother and 
next friend; and Kathryn C. Turner, Sandra A. Turner, 
and Gerald R. Turner, infants, by George R. Turner, Jr., 
their father and next friend; move the Court to grant 
them further, necessary and proper relief and, as grounds 
for said motion, state:

1. On 23 January 1959, this Court entered an Order 
Granting Injunction in this cause, providing, inter alia, 
as follows:

—153—
5. . . .  it is A djudged, Ordered, and D ecreed that 

effective on and after February 2, 1959, the defen­
dants, their successors in office, agents, representa­
tives, servants, and employees be and each of them 
is hereby restrained and enjoined from refusing on 
account of race or color to admit to, or enroll or



61a

educate in, any school under their operation, control, 
direction, or supervision, any child otherwise qualified 
for admission to and enrollment and education in such 
school.

6. The defendants are directed to report in writing 
to counsel for the plaintiffs, on or before January 26, 
1959, the action they have taken, or will take upon the 
effective date of the injunction herein, with respect to 
the pending applications of the infant plaintiffs herein 
for admission and enrollment in the respective schools 
designated in their applications, which report shall 
include the specific reasons for the rejection of any 
said applications.

7. The plaintiffs may, upon notice to defendants, 
at a further hearing in this cause present for consider­
ation and action by the Court their objections, if any 
there be, to the action taken by the defendants with 
respect to the pending applications of the plaintiffs 
for admission and enrollment in the respective schools 
designated in their applications.

8. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained with the 
power to enlarge, reduce, or otherwise modify the 
provisions of said injunction or of this decree, and 
this cause is continued generally.

2. On 26 January 1959, defendants, by counsel, served 
upon counsel for plaintiffs a Report (copy of which is 
attached hereto as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “A” and prayed to 
be read as a part hereof), pursuant to 1J6 of the aforesaid 
Order Granting Injunction, as follows:

At a meeting of the School Board of the City of 
Alexandria on January 22, 1959, consideration was

Extracts from Motion for Further Relief



62a

given the petitions of the Complainants to be assigned 
to certain public schools within the City. Upon the 
recommendation of Defendant, T. C. Williams, Division 
Superintendent and upon the review of the facts of 
each particular case by the Board, the petitions of the 
several Complainants are denied for the reasons set 
forth in the attached statements.

3. Plaintiffs object to the aforesaid action by defendants 
in denying their several applications for the following 
reasons:

a. In their consideration and action upon plaintiffs’ ap­
plications, defendants applied standards and criteria of 
eligibility for admission to and enrollment in the public

—154—
free schools of Alexandria, Virginia, not similarly applied 
as a basis of eligibility for the admission and enrollment 
of “white” students in said schools, thereby discriminating 
against plaintiffs on account of their race or color in vio­
lation, or threatened violation, of the Order Granting In­
junction herein and in violation of the rights of plaintiffs 
as guaranteed and protected by the “equal protection” 
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States.

b. In their application of the “Criteria in Determination 
of Eligibility under the Pupil Assignment Plan of the 
Alexandria, Virginia City School Board” to the pending 
applications of the individual infant plaintiffs herein, the 
defendants have violated, or threaten to violate, the Order 
Granting Injunction and the constitutionally guaranteed 
and protected rights of said plaintiffs, as follows:

* * * * *

Extracts from Motion for Further Relief



63a

(4) CASE D
(a) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 1 of Placement 

Plan” is validly applied as a basis for denying his appli­
cation for the reasons set out in |j(l)(a), supra.

(b) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 2 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying his application for 
the reasons set out in j[(l) (b), supra.

(c) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 3 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying his application in 
that (i) grade level accomplishment and placement is 
not similarly applied as a basis for excluding “white” 
children from the William Ramsay School; (ii) he is in­
formed and believes that there are “white” children en­
rolled and admitted in the school and grade for which 
he is an applicant whose level of accomplishment is no 
higher than his; (iii) his level of accomplishment, as 
measured and determined by defendants, is not an in­
fallible basis upon which to predict his potential in the 
school to which he seeks admission; and (iv) he is in­
formed and believes that defendants maintain and operate 
a “special” class to which he may be assigned, if necessary, 
in the school to which he has applied.

(d) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 5 of Plan” is
—157—

validly applied as a basis for denying his application for 
the reasons set out in fl(l)(c), supra.

# * # # #

Extracts from Motion for Further Relief
—156—



64a

(6) CASE F

(a) This plaintiff denies that ‘‘Criterion 1 of Placement 
Plan” is validly applied as a basis for denying her appli­
cation for the reasons set out in fl(l)(a), supra.

(b) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 2 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying her application for 
the reasons set out in fl(l)(b), supra.

(c) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 3 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying her application in 
that (i) her alleged very low average I.Q., mental age 
1 year and 5 months below her chronological age, “low 
normal” reading level, and “poor risk” in arithmetic do 
not constitute an infallible basis for prediction of her 
potential achievement in the William Ramsay School; and
(ii) on the basis of defendants’ allegations that her I.Q. 
and mental age ratings are below the median of the third 
grade of William Ramsay School she is informed and 
believes that “white” pupils with I.Q. and mental age 
ratings no higher than hers have been admitted and en­
rolled in said school.

(d) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 5 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying her application for 
the reasons set out in ]|(1) (c), supra.

#  #  *  *  #

—162—
(12) CASE L

(a) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 1 of Placement 
Plan” is validly applied as a basis for denying his appli­
cation in that (i) his assignment to the Parker-Gray High 
School is based solely on his race or color and not upon

Extracts from Motion for Further Relief
—158—



65a

the fact that this school is geographically closer to his 
home than the George Washington High School; (ii) a 
“white” child living at plaintiff’s address would be ad­
mitted and enrolled in George Washington rather than 
Parker-Gray; (iii) unless and until defendants revise their 
existing racial geographic attendance zones, in compliance 
with their affirmative duty to desegregate the public schools 
of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, they may not validly 
use mere geographic proximity to the “Negro” school as 
the basis for denying a “Negro” child’s application for 
admission to a [school in which a] “white” child similarly 
geographically situated would be admitted.

(b) This plaintiff denies that George Washington High 
School’s alleged over capacity and high pupil-teacher ratio 
as compared with Parker-Gray is validly applied as a 
basis for denying his application in that (i) George Wash­
ington High School was not over capacity at the time his

—163-
application originally was submitted and rejected by de­
fendants on account of his race or color; (ii) no “white” 
child’s application for enrollment and admission in George 
Washington High School has been rejected for this alleged 
reason; and (iii) overcrowding is not a legal justification 
for continued racial segregation.

(c) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 3 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying his application in 
that (i) he is informed and believes that there are “white” 
pupils enrolled and admitted in George Washington High 
School whose level is no higher than his; (ii) the “gap” 
between grade levels at Parker-Gray and George Washing­
ton High Schools is of no educational or evidentiary 
significance, apart from considerations of race or color,

Extracts from Motion for Further Relief



GGa

in the determination of this plaintiff’s eligibility for en­
rollment and admission in George Washington High School.

(d) This plaintiff denies that defendants’ allegation that 
“the unnecessary emotional stresses engendered by send­
ing a pupil by one high school to go to another, in which 
he will be in a novel, abnormal and unusual position, 
will be severe,” is a valid basis for denying his application 
for the reasons set out in fl(l)(c), supra.

(13) CASE M
(a) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 1 of Placement 

Plan” is validly applied as a basis for denying her appli­
cation for the reasons set out in f|(12)(a), supra.

(b) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 2 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying her application for 
the reasons set out in fl(12)(b), supra.

(c) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 3 of Plan” is
— 1G4—

validly applied as a basis for denying her application in 
that (i) the alleged difference between median percentile 
rank for the 10th grade between the school attended and 
the one applied for and indicated gap between accomplish­
ment levels for this student who allegedly rates in a 
low average are of no educational or evidentiary signifi­
cance, apart from considerations of race or color, in the 
determination of her eligibility for enrollment and ad­
mission in the school for which she applied; and (ii) she 
is informed and believes that “white” students whose 
accomplishment level is no higher than hers are enrolled 
and admitted in said school.

Extracts from Motion for Further Relief



67a

(d) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 5 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying her application for 
the same reasons set out in U(l)(c), supra.

(14) CASE N
(a) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 1 of the Place­

ment Plan” is validly applied as a basis for denying her 
application for the same reasons set out in 1[(12) (a), supra.

(b) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 2 of Plan” is 
validly applied as a basis for denying her application for 
the same reasons set out in ft(12)(b), supra.

(c) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 3 of the Plan” 
is validly applied as a basis for denying her application 
for the same reason set out in 11(12)(c), supra.

(d) This plaintiff denies that “Criterion 5 of the Plan” 
is validly applied as a basis for denying her application 
for the reasons set out in fl(12)(d), supra.

4. On the basis of plaintiffs’ objections to the afore­
said action by defendants in denying plaintiffs’ several

—165-
applications, as more specifically set out in fl3, supra, 
plaintiffs request a further hearing in this cause and 
action by the Court, pursuant to the provisions of j|7 of 
the Order Granting Injunction entered in this cause 0 2 1  

23 January 1959.

5. By their action in regard to the applications of in­
fant plaintiffs the defendants threaten to further deny 
to said infants their liberty without due process of law 
and the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Four­
teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,

Extracts from Motion for Further Relief



68a

in violation, or threatened violation, of the prior injunctive 
order of this Court.

W h erefo r e , said plaintiffs pray the Court, upon the 
hearing and determination of this motion, to enter a further 
decree ordering that the defendants, their successors in 
office, agents, representatives, servants and employees, be 
restrained and enjoined from refusing forthwith to admit 
the movants to, or enroll and educate them in the said 
schools for which they have made application, and for such 
further, other, additional or alternative relief as to the 
Court may seem just and equitable in the premises.

*  *  *  *  *

Extracts from Motion for Further Relief



69a

* * * * *

Mr. Reeves: We should like to call as our first wit­
ness and examine as adverse, hostile witness, Mr. 
T. C. Williams.

—2 2 5 -
Extracts From Testimony

Whereupon, T. C. W illiam s was called as a witness and, 
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Reeves:
—226—

Q. Would you please state your name, sir! A. T. C. 
Williams.

Q. You are one of the parties of the Defendant in this 
case ? A. I  am.

Q. What official position do you occupy, Mr. Williams? 
A. Superintendent of Schools, Alexandria.

Q. For how long? A. I am in the 26th year.
Q. Mr. Williams, you were present I believe and as a mat­

ter of fact made the recommendation on the basis of which 
the defendant school board’s resolution of October 28, 1958, 
was adopted; is that correct, sir?

Mr. Phillips: If Your Honor please, I object to 
that question. It is asking Mr. Williams if he made 
the recommendation upon which basis the school 
board acted.

Now the school board considered Mr. William’s 
recommendation but there will have to be some evi­
dence that they acted on that recommendation solely 
—if that is the intent of the question—that it acted 
solely on Mr. William’s recommendation.



70a

Mr. Reeves: I am perfectly prepared to rephrase 
the question.

The Court: All right. Break the question down.
—227—

Mr. Reeves: I withdraw the question instead.

By Mr. Reeves :

Q. Did you appear before the Board of Education on the 
28th of October, 1958, Mr. Williams? A. Yes.

Q. Did you at that meeting make certain recommenda­
tions to the board with regard to the cases of the 14 plain­
tiffs in this situation, this particular case? A. On the 28tli 
of October?

Q. That is right; 1958, at 8:00 p. m. in the board room. 
A. Let me get your question straight. Do you mean that 
recommendations were made in individual cases?

Q. No; but with regard to this subject. A. There was 
not a recommendation made there in regard to the disposi­
tion of these applications.

Q. Was there a recommendation that was made at that 
meeting in connection with the court case Civil Action 1770; 
namely, Otis E. Jones et al. vs. the School Board of the 
City of Alexandria for the placement of the fourteen Negro 
children in certain schools, on the basis of which a resolu­
tion was adopted on a motion made by Mr. Dyson seconded 
by Mr. Moeller? A. There was a recommendation made as 
to a course of procedure, yes.

Q. Did you make that recommendation, sir? A. I made 
that recommendation.

—228—
Q. Is that recommendation, or your recommendation, 

what is embodied in the resolution adopted by the school 
board on that occasion which is identified here as Plaintiffs 
Exhibit No. 7? A. Not exactly so; it was substantially.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



71a

Q. Which is “substantially”, the resolution or the recom­
mendation? A. The recommendation was not adopted in 
its entirety. It was adopted substantially in its entirety.

Q. Subsequent to the adoption of that resolution, what 
if anything did you as the division superintendent of schools 
do with reference to the cases of the fourteen plaintiffs in 
this case, fourteen applicants? A. We at the office, with 
me representing the office, proceeded to process these pupils 
in accordance with a plan which was adopted by the school 
board.

Q. Wlien did you complete that processing? A. You 
have just received two amendments here in the last two 
or three days, so I do not suppose it was actually completed 
in its entirety until just a few days ago.

Q. Did there come a time when you made a further report 
or recommendation to the school board? A. Yes; there 
was.

Q. Was that at the meeting of the school board on the 
22nd of January? A. Yes.

—229—
Q. And the school board acted upon your recommendation 

in denying each of these applications? A. The school board 
considered my recommendations and then acted; yes.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge, sir, whether the 
school board had before it at the time it acted any evidence 
or material pertaining to these fourteen cases other than 
your recommendation? A. They had the material con­
tained in regard to the processing of each pupil, yes.

Q. This was the same data on the basis of which you had 
made your recommendations? A. That is right.

Q. Did they have any data available to them other than 
the data on the basis of which you made your recommenda­
tions, to your knowledge? A. No; not that I know of.

Q. What is this data that was before you and was before

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs-—Direct



72a

the board, sir! A. This data that was before the school 
board substantially was what has been placed in the hands of 
attorneys and placed before the school board. The process­
ing of the pupils was in accordance with a plan of pupil 
placement which embodied six criteria. Those criteria if I 
can recite them from memory were:

—230—
The location of pupil’s home in reference to the school 

applied for.
The condition of enrollment of the schools involved.
Any academic considerations or mental maturity con­

siderations which might have any bearing upon the case; 
and

Any health considerations which might bear upon the 
case.

Whether the pupil was a bona tide resident of Alexandria; 
and

Sixth—this is not the sixth; I have not recited them in 
order—

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: You can refer to your records if you 
want to.

The W itness: But the other was psychological or 
adaptability, whatever you want to call that par­
ticular category.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. In what form was this data as it was considered by 
the school board? A. It was in the form of folders of this 
kind. This refers here to designated Case A.

Q. May I see that? A. Yes.
Q. You say this is typical of the form in which the ma­

terial was made available to the board? A. That is right.



73a

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—231—
Q. Did the board have access, or in your presence did the 

board examine any data or material other than that which 
you have presented here, indicated the form in which they 
considered it at that meeting? A. No. I do not think so.

Q. Did you have occasion to examine data or material 
other than that which would appear in this summary sheet? 
A. I examined data which was in the pupils’ cumulative 
folders.

Q. Did you at any time examine similar data of any other 
pupils in the Alexandria public school system other than 
these fourteen? A. Not similarly; only the data of these 
who are making these applications.

Q. Are there any other children or have there been— 
since the applications of these fourteen originally were tiled 
with you have there been any other children admitted to any 
of the schools to which these children have applied? A. 
They have not been referred to us if there have.

Q. You say they have not been referred to you? A. No.
Q. Would you tell us, sir, what is the normal or routine 

process by which children are admitted to the public schools 
of Alexandria? A. Are you speaking of “admitted” or 
“transferred”?

—232—
Q. Transferred or admitted; either or both. Describe 

both. A. Now again I think 1 will need a little clarification.
Q. Let me put a hypothetical case: Assume a child who 

has never been a student. A. You mean after the 22nd 
when this plan was adopted, or before that?

Q. Let me go back. You received I believe applications 
from these fourteen children in August of 1958? A. Right.

Q. What if any action to your knowledge did the school 
board or you take with respect to these fourteen applica­



74a

tions? A. Up until a meeting of the board which you 
speak of, no action was taken in regard to them except 
to refer them to the State Pupil Placement Board.

Q. That was up to October 28, 1958; is that correct, sir? 
Is that the first meeting that the school board had on this 
problem? A. Up until the time this placement plan was 
adopted.

Q. For the resolution of October 28, 1958? A. Right.
Q. Do you know, sir, can you tell me, by what process 

these fourteen children were assigned to any school as of the 
beginning of the current school term? A. They were as­
signed by a State Pupil Placement Board under the then

—233—
existing state law.

Q. By whom were they advised or informed of the State 
Pupil Placement Board’s action on their individual cases? 
A. They were—in the first place they were placed by the 
court I believe in schools which they had been attending.

Q. That is last year? A. And the Pupil Placement 
Board acted on those applications and left them in the 
same schools in which they were.

Q. Was that information and knowledge ever com­
municated to these plaintiffs, if you know, sir? A. I do 
not think it was ever formally done because there was no 
change.

Q. In other words, it was communicated to you? A. It 
was communicated to us. We submitted those to the Pupil 
Placement Board.

Q. But those—so we get the record straight—the four­
teen applications that they submitted by their attorney on 
the 11th of August, you submitted those eleven applica­
tions to the Pupil Placement Board ? A. There were four­
teen at that time, I believe.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



75a

Q. That is right; fourteen. You submitted those four­
teen requests to the Pupil Placement Board? A. Yes.

Q. At some time after these children had returned to the 
schools in which they were in attendance last year pursuant

—234—
to the agreements made here in court, you received a com­
munication from the Pupil Placement Board? A. That is 
right.

Q. Do you have that communication, sir? A. No. I do 
not have it with me. We have it at the office.

Q. Can you tell us the substance of it? A. The com­
munication was that they were assigned to certain schools. 
It happened that these were the schools in which they al­
ready were. There was no change in any of their assign­
ments.

Q. Then your board, or you as division superintendent, 
took no further action with reference to these fourteen ap­
plications? A. No. Not until later when they were proc­
essed according to the pupil placement plan.

Q. Between the 11th of August when these applications 
were first submitted to you and the time school opened, 
which was I believe the 8th of September 1958, were other 
children assigned through you to the schools to which these 
children applied?

Mr. Phillips: If Your Honor please, we object to 
that as immaterial and irrevelant to the question. It 
is these fourteen petitioners who are claiming their 
rights. To go into whether somebody else has been 
assigned is a question of whether they have asked to 
be reassigned, whether they have been refused as-

—235-
assignment or whether it is a matter of routine as­
signment; and I think it is getting beyond the scope

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



76a

of these fourteen applicants as to what was done with 
other pupils.

Mr. Reeves: I disagree with Mr. Phillips, if Your 
Honor please. I think it is the very nub of this case.

The Court: Just a minute. I think he can go into 
the matter as to other pupils, but it seems to me it 
ought to be limited to the same sort of process that 
the fourteen sought; that is, a transfer. Is that not 
the status of the fourteen!

Mr. Reeves: Well, I think 1 would better explain. 
Our position is not that, sir. Our position is that 
these fourteen students made application to the 
School Board to be admitted to certain schools; that 
is, to certain designated schools or to whatever school 
they may be entitled to be admitted upon the same 
consideration as any other student, race aside.

This was the letter that they sent to the School 
Board. It is our position then that in the light of 
the fact that they had made that application—and 
whether you call it an application for transfer or 
request for admission—the operative effect of it is 
that they were seeking to go before the current 
school year opened to a specific school or some school 
other than the one they had been in last year.

The Court: 1 take it your purpose is to show that 
a different test was applied to these fourteen than 
was applied to others ?

—236—
Mr. Reeves: That is right, sir.
The Court: But 1 cannot make that comparison 

or that contrast unless you put them all in the same 
category. If the fourteen were seeking transfers 
they would be, or could be, different from those who 
were seeking original admission.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



77a

I simply want to have it clear that the comparisons 
when they are made are on the same bases.

Mr. Reeves: The situation is this, if Your Honor 
please, as we expect to show. At the beginning of the 
school year—there are in evidence two exhibits, 
namely the school zone map and a statement of the 
school zones—these documents were published in 
the paper, were made available by the School Board.

These documents which set forth the zones serv­
ing certain schools represented according to the ad­
missions in the record the only basis upon which 
students were admitted to the given schools serving 
the particular zone as of the beginning of the 1958-59 
school year. That is what the admission is.

Our plaintiffs, these fourteen plaintiffs, on the 
basis of this map and these school zones, made ap­
plication in writing to go to the schools served by 
those zones; that is, the schools served by those zones 
other than the Negro schools.

So that we contend that they are and were, whether 
it be by written application, by whatever technique 
which was devised, in the same position.

—237—
They read the newspaper; decided this was the 

school that served their zone; and sought to be 
admitted.

The Court: I understand that, and you can make 
any contention of course that you think is supported 
by the evidence; but it will not do me any good in 
making a comparison on a factual basis unless all 
the factors are put on the same basis.

Mr. Reeves: What we intend to show, sir, is that 
the only cases that would fall within that narrow

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



78a

category that yon define would be the category of 
the fourteen Negro children because they are the 
only Negroes that applied to a white school in 
Alexandria. So that we would have—

The Court: You do not give me anything else to 
compare it to.

Mr. Reeves: J am attempting to give you some­
thing. I am attempting to say that what it should be 
compared to is the case of any other students who 
sought to enter at the same time they did.

The Court: It is perfectly all right to argue about 
i t ; J am talking about in examining the witness.

Mr. Reeves: What 1 am trying to point out from 
this witness, sir, is if at the same time these students 
sought to apply there were white children who were 
also seeking to be admitted to these schools.

The record will show for instance that they had a 
registration period in these schools; that our plain-

—238-
tiffs applied and were not admitted; that white 
students applied and were admitted.

The Court: You show the application, but what I 
want to be done as far as possible if they are going 
to be compared is to analogize the two situations.

Mr. Reeves: May I go back and ask another ques­
tion, then.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. Mr. Williams, was this the first school year that the 
William Ramsay School was operated by the Board of 
Education? A. Yes.

Q. That is the 1958-59 school term? A. Yes.
Q. The Lyles-Crouch School, that is the new, present 

Lyles-Crouch School—was this the first year that school

T. C. Williams—-for Plaintiffs—Direct



79a

was operated! A. It was the first year it operated in 
the new building. It operated for years before that.

Q. With reference to the William Ramsay School: as of 
last year, that is the preceding school year 1957, there were 
no students in the William Ramsay School because it did 
not exist; is that right? A. Yes.

Q. Do I understand that it would be correct to say that 
every student who was admitted to and is presently in 
attendance at the William Ramsay School is in attendance 
for the first time? A. That is right.

—239—
Q. Would you tell us the process by which those students 

—all of the students who have been admitted to the William 
Ramsay School for the current school year—by what 
process they were admitted or assigned to that school? A. 
They were admitted under the state law that governed ad­
missions at that time. The state law required that every 
pupil that was admitted to a school or transferred in a 
school should be placed by the Pupil Placement Board of 
the State.

And the Pupil Placement Board—as with other pupils 
in the school system—pupil placement forms were sub­
mitted to all of the pupils who were in admission or apply­
ing for admission. They made those out and they were 
referred to the State, and they were placed by the State.

Q. Do I understand you to say, sir, that every student 
who entered, who is presently in the William Ramsay 
School, filed this year—that is, between June of 1958 and 
September of 1958—a pupil placement application? A. 
You could understand that, but that is not exactly correct.

Q. Will you tell us what is correct, sir? A. Under the 
state law under which the school system was then operat­
ing there is a provision in the pupil placement law in which

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



80a

certain pupils are designated as administrative transfers, 
and they are not required to make a pupil placement form.

Q. What pupils—I am sorry; go ahead. A. I could not
- 2 4 0 -

pick out a specific pupil, but there are pupils in that par­
ticular school who were in attendance for instance at the 
Patrick Henry School last year. Now by administrative 
transfer the law specified those that were transferred from 
a school en masse to another school because of housing 
limitations or something of that kind—and there was trans­
ferred a group of pupils in the Brookville area to the other 
school under the administrative transfer provision—then 
they were not required under the state law to make out 
pupil placement forms.

Other pupils in the ordinary course who were not in­
cluded in this administrative transfer provision did make 
out pupil placement forms.

Q. Would it be correct to say then that all students who 
last yeai-, that is in 1957, school year 1957-58, were enrolled 
in another school, a school other than Ramsay— A. All 
pupils that were enrolled in September were enrolled in 
another school.

Q. During the preceding year? A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. With the exception of those who had not been en­

rolled in any school in Alexandria before? A. They made 
out pupil placement forms.

Q. Those who had not been enrolled in any school in 
Alexandria? A. Yes.

—241—
Q. But all students who are presently in William Ramsay 

who were present at some other school in Alexandria dur­
ing the prior year did not? A. It came under the provi­
sion of an administrative transfer, and that was reported 
to the Pupil Placement Board.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



81a

Q. The assignment of those students was made by whom; 
that is, the transfer to Ramsay was made by whom? A. 
Made in the administrative offices.

Q. In other words, the administrative offices of the school 
system? A. That is right.

Q. The plaintiffs in this case, the nine plaintiffs in this 
case who live in the Ramsay attendance area— A. You 
mean on Stevenson Avenue and Lincolnia Road?

Q. That is right. They do live in the Ramsay attendance 
area; is that right? A. That is right.

Just a minute. That requires a little clarification also, 
I think. Under the law under which the school system was 
operating at the time that the William Ramsay School 
opened there were attendance zones which overlapped, and 
the attendance zone for these particular children under the 
then existing state law—maybe still existing, I do not know; 
anyway it was existing at that time—the attendance zone 
as it applied to those children was to the Lyles-Crouch 
School.

—242—
Q. Specifically that is the attendance zone for the Negro 

children; is that correct? A. That is right; under the then 
existing state law.

Q. So the attendance zone for all children other than 
Negro children—excuse me; strike that.

These particular fourteen children live in what would 
be the Ramsay attendance area but for the fact that they 
are Negroes; is that correct, sir? These nine; I am sorry. 
A. But for the fact of the state law.

Q. Well, that state law—just a moment, sir—that state 
law as you understand it is based upon the fact that they 
are Negroes? In other words, that is what makes the differ­
ence between them and the other children so far as at­

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiff a—Direct



82a

tendance zone is concerned! Is that correct, sir? A. I 
suppose that it might be interpreted that way because the 
state law required that sort of an arrangement.

Q. Right, sir. A. But the School Board had to operate 
under the law.

Q. The School Board published an attendance zone de­
scription, and that description makes a distinction, is that 
right, between Negro and white? A. Yes.

Q. Therefore these nine children, based upon the attend­
ance zone description which the School Board published, 
are distinguished from all the other children living in that

—243—
same vicinity solely on the basis of race; is that correct, 
sir? A. Instead of nine there were seven from Stevenson 
Avenue and Lincolnia Road. The other two are downtown. 
They were zoned that way in accordance with the existing 
state law.

Q. As of September 1958, that is, this current school 
term, you had applications from these seven children to be 
admitted to the Patrick Henry School or such other school 
as they might properly be admitted to except for considera­
tion of race? A. Yes.

Q. And I believe that in your admissions you have ad­
mitted that a white child living at the same address of each 
one of these seven children would be assigned to the 
Ramsay School? A. Under the state law.

Q. Right, sir.

The Court: Now were there nine or seven?
Mr. Reeves: There were seven to Ramsay; two to 

Ficklin. That makes nine.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



83a

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Reeves:
Q. There were three to Hammond High School? A. Two 

to Hammond.
Q. And three to George Washington? A. Yes.
Q. Two to Hammond and three to George Washington? 

A. Yes.
Q. So then there are seven that we are talking about now

—244-
in relation to Ramsay? A. That is right.

Q. And your testimony is that any one of those seven 
students, but for the fact that he is a Negro, would be 
assigned and would have been admitted in September to 
the Ramsay School; is that correct, sir? A. But for the 
fact of the state law.

Q. That state law as you know and understand it is 
based upon race? A. You can interpret the state law 
better than I can.

Q. All right. Now did there come a time subsequent to 
the opening of the school—that is, the 8th of September 
1958—when additional students, that is, students in addi­
tion to those who were admitted on the first day of school, 
were admitted to Ramsay School? A. Yes. There were 
pupils admitted to the Ramsay School.

Q. As a matter of fact, 1 am wondering if you are in a 
position to verify these figures which we took from data 
which was furnished by you, and that is that in the Ramsay 
School as of the third day after the opening of the current 
term there were 608 pupils? A. That is right.

Q. That as of January 1st, 1959, there were 667 pupils? 
A. That is right.

Q. Which would mean a net gain in that period or net
—245-

admissions since the first day of 59 pupils? A. Yes. That 
is the period in which the state law was operating.



84a

Q. So would it he proper to say, sir, then that at least 
59—I say “at least 59” because I understand that these are 
net figures—that at least 59 students have been admitted to 
the Ramsay School since school opened during which time 
the applications of these plaintiffs were pending for ad­
mission to that school? A. That is right.

Q. Can you tell me, sir, whether the criteria which were 
adopted by the School Board were applied to any of these 
59 students? A. No. The entrance requirements as they 
existed were applied to these several students for admis­
sion to the Ramsay School.

In other words, they were required to make out a state 
pupil placement form just as these pupils were sent 
pupil placement forms. I believe only two or three of these 
did make them out.

We made out most of them, but it was reported to the 
state board those that entered the Ramsay School were 
given state pupil placement forms which they made out; 
and they were sent to the State Pupil Placement Board, 
and the board made the assignments.

—246—
As we understood the situation and understand it now 

as it applied then, that was the procedure that we were 
to follow under the law.

Q. I want to be sure I understand you exactly: that the 
applications of these seven students as well as the ap­
plications of the 59 who have entered since the beginning 
of school were processed under the state pupil placement 
law? A. That is right.

Q. But in addition the applications of these seven stu­
dents were processed under the criteria which your board 
established? A. Not at that time, no.

Q. But there came a time when they were processed? 
A. Yes. That is quite recently.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



85a

Q. And none of the 59 has been so processed! None of 
the other 59 applicants who had been admitted to Ramsay 
was processed under your criteria! A. No. They were 
already processed under the state law when they entered 
there.

Q. Is it a fact then—we can shorten this—that these 
criteria have not been applied to the applications for ad­
mission, transfer, whatever you may want to call them, 
of any students presently in the Alexandria public school 
system other than the fourteen plaintiffs in this case! A. 
As far as the pupil placement plan as it exists now—

—247—
Q. Can you answer that question yes or no! That is— 

I will make it again—that no applications or no students 
who have been admitted to any school in Alexandria or 
who were applicants for admission to any school in Alex­
andria have had their applications subjected to these 
criteria other than the fourteen plaintiffs who are in this 
case! A. T think that is true; because the pupil placement 
plan is a very recent addition to the school system. It was 
not activated or put into operation until quite a recent 
date. It was not used by the School Board.

Q. Would you know whether any students have been ad­
mitted to any school in Alexandria since the 28th of Octo­
ber 1958 other than these fourteen! A. I suspect they 
have but I could not say definitely that there have been; 
but I should like to call attention to this, that the pupil 
placement plan was not activated by the School Board 
until quite some time after it was adopted.

Q. Can you tell me, sir, what was the circumstance or 
condition on the basis of which that plan was activated! 
A. It was activated in the case of these fourteen pupils 
because we wanted to dispose of these cases on the basis 
of criteria which had nothing to do with race or color.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



86a

Q. Why was it activated in the case of these fourteen"? 
Was it because this case was pending in court and you were 
required to pass upon the fourteen applications pursuant

— 248—

to the order of the court? Is that the only reason you ap­
plied these criteria to these fourteen children? A. I sup­
pose it was applied to these fourteen children because their 
cases had been pending for some time and there seemed 
to be some uncertainty as to how they could be best dis­
posed of without adopting a plan which was purely ob­
jective in this sense that this placement plan is.

I think a great many things have happened which have 
changed the situation as far as the outlook of the school 
board is concerned; and the state law as we operated 
under it, we felt, did not apply as well as we thought maybe 
—I am getting into a question of law—did not seem to 
take care of these cases very satisfactorily.

Q. By “take care” of them you mean the school law that 
existed was not adequate to keep these children from being 
considered for white schools? Ts that what you are saying? 
Is that what you mean?

Mr. Phillips: If Your Honor please, I object to 
that. The state law was directed to keep them 
separate; and these criteria are to supplement the 
state law or to take the place of state law, and they 
certainly were not to assist the state law in keeping 
them apart. I object to the form of the question.

Mr. Reeves: I withdraw the question. May I ask 
the reporter to read that question?

(The question was read by the reporter.)

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



87a

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—249
Mr. Reeves: I should like to have him answer that 

question if I may, sir.
The Court: All right. Let him answer.
The Witness: After this plan was adopted, I think 

it was the 28tli of October, it was not activated until 
some time after that; and it was activated or put 
into operation with the idea that it would be applied 
to every pupil.

It was applied first to these particular pupils 
because they were the ones that they had applica­
tions from. I do not know how I can describe all 
of the uncertainties of the situation. I can say only 
this: that we operated the school system under the 
state law as we understand the state law and under­
stood the state law up to the time that this plan 
was put into operation, and after that we have 
operated under it.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. You say after that you have operated under it. 
Would it be correct to say then that every application or 
every transfer of a child from any school in the public 
school system of Alexandria has been subjected to this 
plan!

Mr. Phillips: If Your Honor please, I object to 
the question because I think it is irrelevant and im­
material whether they are or not. It is a question 
of the petition of those. In the absence of someone 
making the point that “I want to go to that partic­
ular school,” that is an ordinary, administrative 
matter; and when someone’s rights are affected as



88a

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—250—
is being claimed here today, then it becomes a ques­
tion as to whether the criteria are arbitrary, capri­
cious, or not.

What happened to someone else has not anything 
to do with whether these fourteen petitioners’ rights 
are violated.

The Court: Was your question limited to the 
period after October 28, 1958?

Mr. Reeves: That is right.
The Court: If so, I think the question was proper. 

By Mr. Reeves:
Q. The question is, since October 28 has this plan been 

applied to any students being transferred fx-om one school 
to another within the Alexandria public school system 
other than these fourteen? A. The plan was not activated 
by the board on October 28; it was adopted. It was not 
applied to any pupils until it was applied to these fourteen.

When it was applied to the fourteen, the principals of 
the schools were notified by memorandum to the effect 
that transfers in the future would be handled through the 
administrative office and that they would be done on the 
basis of the six criteria that were contained in this plan.

And I can say I think that after the plan was activated, 
when it was actually applied to these fourteen pupils, from 
that point on it applies to all pupils.

Q. As the plan is in existence now—and it has now been
—251—

activated; is that correct, sir? A. That is right.
Q. As the plan has now been activated and is in ex­

istence, you have not applied it to anyone other than 
these fourteen? A. No. We have not had occasion to.



89a

Q. What was the occasion for applying it to these 
fourteen"? What specifically? A. Because we had their 
applications—

Q. You had applications since August—

Mr. Phillips: Your Honor, he has already stated 
that I think, why this plan was adopted.

The Court: I do not think you let him finish his 
answer.

Did you complete your answer, Mr. Witness?
The Witness: I do not know what the question 

was.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. The question is what specific fact or circumstance 
caused you to activate this plan. A. Because—well, after 
it was adopted on October the 28th it was not applied to any 
pupils until it was applied to these fourteen pupils, as I 
stated.

When it was applied to the fourteen pupils, then the 
schools were advised that it applied to all pupils, and the 
principals were advised of that in a memorandum to them 
that in the future or from that time on applications for

—252-
transfer would have to be handled through the adminis­
trative offices on the basis of these six criteria.

Q. I do not think that is responsive. My question was 
what specific fact or circumstance caused them to activate 
the plan.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: What is the administrative office? 
The Witness: It is the superintendent’s office.



90a

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Reeves:
Q. That is your office now! A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me what specific fact or circumstance 

occurred between the 28th of October and the 22nd of 
January which caused this plan to be activated! A. Be­
cause they had these applications still outstanding and we 
wanted to get rid of them.

Q. That is the only circumstance? A. You mean that 
caused it to be activated?

Q. Yes, sir. A. That was one of the primary reasons 
for it.

Q. As a matter of fact, is not the only circumstance 
which caused you to activate this plan the fact that you 
were ordered and directed by the court to apply this plan 
or at least to take action upon the applications of these 
fourteen students? A. I think befoi’e we got the court 
order we had some sort of tentative plan; but that of course 
added a great deal to it.

—253—
Q. Mr. Williams, is it not a fact that you personally 

had been ordered, back in October, by the School Board 
to study and consider these fourteen applications? Is that 
not true? A. The School Board never took any formal 
action on anything of that kind.

Q. I should like to read to you, sir, from the resolution 
of the board. A. In October?

Q. October 28. A. October 28, yes.
Q. Did not the board instruct you at that time to study 

these fourteen applications? A. That is right.
Q. Did you make any report or recommendations with 

respect to these fourteen applications prior to the time 
this court ordered the School Board or directed the School 
Board to report? A. No, I did not. That precipitated it.



91a

Q. That is what precipitated it? A. That is right.
Q. So the action of the 22nd of January, the activation of 

their plan, directly resulted from the order of this court 
that you must act upon these fourteen applications? A. 
That precipitated it, yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, is it not true, Mr. Williams, that 
prior to the order of this court you had no intention, specific

- 2 5 4 -
intention, of acting on these fourteen applications during 
this current school year? Is that not correct, sir? A. L 
acted under the direction of the School Board. Now whether 
the board had an intention or not, 1 do not know.

Q. You as superintendent, did you have any intention 
of acting upon these fourteen applications prior to the 
order of this court or during this school year? A. I could 
not say that I would not have, or could not say that I 
would have. It depends upon circumstances.

Q. What circumstances? A. I do not know: what cir­
cumstances might come up.

Q. Other than the fact the court ordered you to act on 
the 22nd of January, have there been any changes in cir­
cumstances since the time these applications were first 
submitted? A. No, not up to that time; that precipitated 
it.

Q. This is the only circumstances that precipitated it? 
A. At that time, yes.

Q. May I for purposes of record, Mr. Williams, as we 
did with these other figures—that is, as to Ramsay School 
—get you to verify these figures, sir? The Hammond 
School, Francis Hammond High School, as of the third 
day after the opening of the ’58 school term had an en­
rollment of 1,278 pupils? A. I think that is substantially 
correct.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



92a

Q. As of the first of January 1959, it had an enrollment
—255—

of 1,321? A. That is right.
Q. So there was a net gain of 43 pupils? A. That is 

right.
Q. The George Washington High School as of the third 

day after the beginning of the current school term had an 
enrollment of 1,000; is that correct, sir? A. That is right.

Q. As of the 1st of January 1959 that school had an 
enrollment of 1,069? A. That is right.

Q. A net gain of 69 pupils? A. Eight.
Q. The Ficklin School as of the third day after the 

opening of school had an enrollment of 289? A. That is 
right.

Q. As of January 1st, 1959, it had an enrollment of 317? 
A. That is right.

Q. A net gain of 28 pupils? A. Yes.
Q. The Eamsay School—I think we have given that— 

608 and 667? A. Yes.
Q. And the Patrick Henry School as of the third day 

after the opening of the current school term had an en­
rollment of 936? A. That is right.

—256—
Q. And as of the 1st of January 1959 had an enrollment 

of 1,011? A. That is right.
Q. A net gain of 75 pupils? A. Yes.

The Court: What was the school between Ficklin 
and Henry?

Mr. Reeves: Ramsay.
The Court: What were the figures?
Mr. Reeves: Ramsay 608 as of the third day after 

the beginning of the school term; 667 as of the first 
day of January 1959; a net gain of 59.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



93a

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. Mr. Williams, as I understand, you say a memo­
randum has been issued pursuant to which all future trans­
fers are to be handled administratively through your office. 
Is that correct, sir? A. In accordance with criteria.

Q. Does that mean, sir, that pursuant to those criteria 
and the resolution adopted on the 28th of October 1958 
the School Board will vote in every case! A. It depends 
upon whether the School Board—the School Board usually 
delegates some of its authority. It says there that the 
pupils will be placed by the School Board.

Q. Let me read you from the resolution, sir, just to re-
—257-

fresh your recollection. The resolution provides in para­
graph seven—that is, the resolution of October 28—that 
no pupil affected by the above “shall be enrolled in any 
school except by affirmative action of the School Board”— 
A. That is right.

Q. —“which shall in all cases exercise its proper dis­
cretion in making such assignment in view of all the perti­
nent facts but without regard to race.” A. That is right.

Q. Now the administrative regulations which you say— 
or the memorandum which you say you have sent out con­
templates action pursuant to this resolution! A. Recom­
mendations have to be made to the School Board. When 
they report to the superintendent’s office that is a source 
of recommendation to the School Board.

Q. As you understand this resolution, sir, is it to apply 
in the case of every transfer or only in the case of a cer­
tain class of transfers! A. We made no distinction. We 
made no distinction in the memorandum which was sent 
to the principals of the schools. The memorandum which



94a

was sent to the principals of the schools stated any trans­
fer which comes np.

Q. Would I be correct in assuming that you were the 
author of this resolution? A. Well, I was not entirely 
the author of it, no. It was a compilation.

—258—
Q. Did you participate in its drafting? A. Yes, I did.
Q. You are then, I could correctly assume, familiar with 

the meaning and intent of the provisions? A. I would
say so.

Q. Let me read you from that resolution and ask if you 
can shed any light on the meaning of it. This is in para­
graph three:

“Academic achievement and level of mental maturity 
to be determined by a program of tests which shall be 
inaugurated and administered by the Superintendent 
as soon as possible for the current year and between 
July 15 and August 15 of the succeeding years to 
all children who apply, or for whom applications are 
made, for transfers from other schools, either within 
or without the city of Alexandria, Virginia; or who 
apply, or for whom applications are made for initial 
enrollment in the public schools of the City of Alex­
andria, Virginia”—I mean this is the phrase that I 
would like interpretation of—-“whose applications in­
volve unusual circumstances.”

Now what are the unusual circumstances that are con­
templated by that provision? A. I think that was a general 
term used there, and now in my memorandum to the prin­
cipals there are no references to unusual circumstances

—259—

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

whatever.



95a

Q. Of course you are bound by the board resolution, are 
you not? A. The memorandum simply stated that any 
transfer which comes up will have to be determined on the 
basis of these six criteria which will have to be applied to 
it.

Q. You are bound by the resolution of the board, are you 
not, sir? A. That is right.

Q. So you could not change the meaning or intent of the 
board’s resolution without action of the board? A. I do 
not think “unusual circumstances” there has been defined 
except as it was defined a little lower down.

Q. The next clause then says:
“Provided, however, that in the cases of the four­

teen Negro children whose applications involve the 
unusual circumstances of seeking transfers to or initial 
enrollment in public schools of the city previously 
attended only by children of the opposite race and 
who have already applied for transfers or initial en­
rollments shall be judged in this Number Three section 
upon the results of tests which have been given or 
are being given in the usual course of testing for the 
current session; and p ro v id ed  further . . . ”

Now is the “unusual circumstances” as used in this 
clause the same “unusual circumstances” as was intended

—260-
in the preceding paragraph? A. 1 do not think so. I do 
not think that was the intent of that statement there. I 
think that is used more as an example of an unusual cir­
cumstance; but I do not believe that that rules out any 
other unusual circumstance. But that in the situation was 
an unusual circumstance.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



96a

Q. What other unusual circumstances, sir, were contem­
plated by the draftsmen of this resolution, to the best of 
your knowledge? A. Whatever happened to come up as 
an unusual circumstance. I doubt if I could define, sitting 
here, very many unusual circumstances. I do not believe 
that the intent of that was to make this always an unusual 
circumstance.

Q. It is true however, sir, that this resolution was 
adopted because of the unusual circumstance arising from 
the fact that yon had these fourteen applications of 
Negroes; is that correct? A. It probably is, yes.

Q. Mr. Williams, has the board met—that is, the defen­
dant School Board—met since the 22nd of January? A. 
No, I believe not.

Q. Then the amendments or the changes in the report 
in the cases “Gr” and “L,” by whom were they made and 
authorized? A. They were obvious mistakes; a simple 
correction of mistakes. In one instance it was a question

—261 —
of a mistake being made in a mental age. It was simply 
a mechanical mistake.

Q. Do I understand, sir, then that the fact that in case 
“Gr” the mental age of this boy was incorrectly stated 
originally—I assume this was the information that was 
before the board—as being five months below his chrono­
logical age and two months below the median mental age 
of the second grade in the Ficklin School, that is the way 
it was originally presented to the board; is that correct, 
sir? A. I think that is correct.

Q. So that the Board’s reasoning then as to why it 
would reject his application was based upon that fact or 
those facts? A. That is right.

Q. Then as you discovered the mistake and found that 
the mental age of this boy is three months above his

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



97a

chronological age and is three months above the median 
mental age of the second grade of the Ficklin School, that 
would make no difference in the board’s action upon this 
case! A. I do not know about the difference in action of 
the board.

Q. Well, it was not submitted to the board, was it? A. 
No. That was not submitted to the board. That was cor­
rected before it came to the court.

Q. The board had already acted! The board acted upon 
the erroneous information? A. It was a mistake.

—262—
Q. Erroneous information showed he was below the 

mental age of the second grade of Ficklin School? A. That 
is right.

Q. The corrected information showed that he was above 
the mental age of the second grade of the Ficklin School? 
A. That is right.

Q. Do I understand you to say, sir, that in your judg­
ment—since I gather these changes were made under your 
supervision—the difference of being below or above the 
mental age would make no actual difference in the results 
as to whether or not he should be admitted on this criterion? 
A. I do not think that that was a deciding factor in that 
particular situation.

Q. Well, now, the board passed on this? A. Yes.
Q. And the board denied his application, and in denying 

it applied this criterion? A. Let’s see—
Q. Criterion Number Three in paragraph “A” of case 

“G”? A. No. I do not believe that the relative mental 
ages there had a great deal with the placement or non­
placement of that child. I think there were other factors 
that were more dominant. That was a mistake, though.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



98a

Q. As I understand, criterion three is academic achieve­
ment and mental capacity as these factors enter into con-

—263—
elusions on requests for entry or transfer. That is criterion 
three! A. Yes—what is it!

Q. Criterion three: Academic achievement and mental 
capacity as these factors enter into conclusions on requests 
for entry or transfer. A. Yes.

Q. And paragraph “A” of case “G”— A. I think though 
that } ou will find there that it seemed to be based more 
upon relative satisfactions that he would get in each school; 
hut that particular mental age was a mistake.

Q. bo then actually what you have here as criterion 
three as the basis for rejection was not a basis for rejec­
tion in this case! A. The mental age part of it was a 
mistake, yes.

Q. The mental age as incorrectly stated was no factor 
in determining whether or not this child should be rejected! 
Is that what you say! A. As I said in this statement here, 
it seemed that he would get greater satisfactions from the 
school in which he was. There is very little difference as 
a matter of fact between the academic achievements of 
one and the other, in his achievements and the Ficklin 
School achievements.

Q. Would you tell me, sir, as you interpret these criteria 
what is the difference between criterion three and criterion
five! A. Criterion five deals with more emotional stresses

—264-
in unusual situations. This was not “emotional stresses” ; 
this was more satisfaction which derived in the situation 
in which he is.

Q. Do you construe “satisfaction” as emotional! A. 
There may be a very close distinction.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



99a

Q. I am trying to understand what the mental age has 
to do with the rejection of this pupil. A. I think you are 
right, that the mental age was a mistake.

Q. But even as corrected it would make no difference in 
the results? A. I do not think it would make a great deal 
of difference, no.

Q. The fact he was above the mental age or below the 
mental age in the Ficklin School would make no difference? 
A. 1 think the difference was so small it would not make 
any difference.

Q. So small that the difference really is not important.
I am wondering, sir, if you would take a look at this 

map which has been prepared here? A. Yes.
Q. I believe you have also the addresses of these pupils?

The Court: 1 wish you would put them on the 
board.

Mr. Reeves: I want him to verify the placement 
of these pins and then put it on the board.

By Mr. Reeves:
—265—

Q. Would you check and see if these pins are placed 
correctly? A. Here is Calhoun.

Mr. Reeves: Off the record.
(Discussion between the witness and Mr. Reeves.)
The Court: Mr. Witness, while that is being ad­

justed on the board, what is a “percentile point”?
The Witness: Percentile standing or point.
The Court: What is the meaning of “point”?
The Witness: It means, for instance, Judge Bryan, 

if a person has a percentile standing of 40 for in­

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



100a

stance that he, from zero up going up toward a hun­
dred, stands 40th and that 60 pupils would be 
expected to do better than he does and 39 would be 
expected to do less well than he does.

In other words it is a scale, an ascending scale from 
zero to a hundred; and percentile rank of 40 means 
that he stands at the 40 point.

The Court: What does the word “percentile” 
mean?

The Witness: Percentile means the percentage of 
going up or where he is in that scale.

The Court: Is there any difference between that 
and percentage!

The Witness: I do not think so. It is simply an 
educational term. The 47 for instance would be 7 
points above the 40 standing, and 67 would be in the 
upper part, above the 50 percentile. It is terminology.

—266—
Mr. Reeves: If Your Honor please, I wonder if I 

might suggest we have another witness with whom 
we intend to go into the meaning of these various 
IQs and percentiles, the witness who I believe in Mr. 
William’s office actually prepared or compiled this 
data.

The Court: Uo you think he can give these ex­
planations ?

Mr. Reeves: 1 hope so.
The Court: At that time will you go into an ex­

planation of the term that I did recognize, but I no 
longer have the understanding of it that I should, 
in regard to the three-month or six-month rating 
of an academic year ?

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



101a

Go into that when you get to the witness that is 
expected to do that.

Mr. Reeves: That is right, sir.

By Mr. Reeves:
Q. With reference to this map, which is a duplicate of 

the one that has been admitted as an exhibit; is that cor­
rect, sir! A. Yes.

Q. This is the same map ! A. Yes.
Q. And this map I believe shows the school zones as they 

apply to the white schools in Alexandria; is that correct, 
sir! A. That is right.

Q. Am I correct in saying that the school zones for the
—267-

Negro schools as shown on this map are not the same as 
the school zones for the white schools; they overlap! A. 
They are overlapping; that is, when those zones were pre­
pared at the beginning of the session and applied at that 
time.

Q. And whether by state law or whatever the circum­
stance, the fact is that all white students who are presently 
enrolled in the Alexandria public schools, their enrollment 
is consistent with these zones; is that correct, sir! A. That 
is true.

Q. And all Negro students who are presently enrolled, 
whether it be by state law or present criterion, whatever 
other circumstance, the result is that their present enroll­
ment and recommended enrollment also is consistent with 
the Negro school zones! As a fact, I mean; as a result! 
A. You said all of them, and recommended enrollment!

Q. Well, the action as set forth in your report, the denial 
of the change, the denial of the transfers. A. As it applies 
to the fourteen, that had no reference to the zone.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



102a

Q. No. 1 am saying as to the result, the result of the 
board’s action in denying their applications makes their en­
rollment consistent with the racial school zones as they 
exist? A. If it is consistent, it is not on the same basis.

Q. But as a fact it is consistent? A. It may be.
—268—

Q. Is it not a fact that following the action of the School 
Board they are in the same schools that they would have 
been had the School Board not acted in their cases? A. 
Yes. But it was not consistent with school zones.

Q. They are not the schools in which they are presently— 
A. It was not on the basis of school zones.

Q. Were they admitted to school last year on the basis 
of school zones ? A. That is right.

Q. And they are still in the schools, on the basis on which 
they are admitted? A. They are. They were not retained 
on the same basis.

Q. But the fact is they are still there? A. They are still 
there.

Q. The fact is that the seven pupils in this particular 
area (indicating), the seven who are applicants to the 
Ramsay School— A. You have the wrong school.

Q. I am sorry; the Ramsay School right here. The seven 
Negro elementary school students who live here, who are 
applicants to the Ramsay School—here? A. That is right.

Q. But for the application of these criteria and the Negro 
school zones, they would be eligible for admission to the 
Ramsay School; is that correct? A. Under this placement

- 2 6 9 -
plan they are still eligible there.

Q. Let me put it another way. If they were white they 
would have been admitted in the beginning of this school 
year in the Ramsay School; is that correct, sir? A. Under 
the application of the pupil placement plan they are eligible 
to any school.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



103a

Q. You misunderstand me, sir. On the basis of criteria 
that you used in assigning students to the Ramsay School 
at the beginning of this school year, if these seven students 
had been white they would have been assigned to Ramsay 
School; is that correct?

Mr. Phillips: If Your Honor please, I object to 
that because I think the testimony is that the state 
pupil assignment plan was operating at that time 
and Mr. Williams was not assigning them.

Mr. Reeves: The testimony is that Mr. Williams 
assigned them under an exception.

The Court: Include in your question then the ex­
ception in respect to—what do you say, the Pupil 
Placement Act?

Mr. Phillips: That is right; and I understood Mr. 
Williams to testify that all individual assignments 
were through the State Pupil Placement Act but 
when they were taken en masse like from one school 
over to another it did not go through the State Pupil 
Placement.

Mr. Reeves: 1 will ask the question—
—270—

The Court: You can get your question simply by 
adding a further exception, can you not?

Mr. Reeves: That is right.
May I withdraw that and restate it? 1 think I can 

get the same thing, sir.
The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. If these seven students who are presently applicants 
to the Ramsay School and were applicants at the begin­

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



104a

ning of this school year had been white and had been pre­
viously enrolled in a school in Alexandria last year, under 
the administrative exception pupil placement plan pursuant 
to which your office made the assignments, these children 
would have been assigned to the Ramsay School? Is that 
correct, sir? A. I do not think I understand you exactly. 
You said the “pupil placement plan” ; do you mean the State 
Pupil Placement?

Q. State Pupil Placement, the pupil placement plan which 
was in operation at the beginning of the school year. A. 
I testified before that they were placed under the State 
Pupil Placement Plan.

Q. But they were placed by your office as exceptions; 
that is, any child who lives here, who was in school last 
year in Alexandria? A. No. 1 did not testify to that. I 
said where there was an administrative transfer, where

—271—
the children transferred in bulk because of overcrowding of 
school, change in a bus route, or something of that kind, 
that those were not required to make out individual State 
Pupil Placement applications.

Q. Every student who was admitted to that school for 
’57 or ’58 was going there for the first time? A. If there 
had been five or seven pupils out there, that would not have 
been considered a bulk business unless they were trans­
ferred by the administrative office for an administrative 
purpose; that is, because of overcrowding or something of 
that kind.

Q. As a matter of fact Patrick Henry was overcrowded, 
was it not, sir? A. Well, the pupils in the Brookville 
area had to be taken from Patrick Henry because of the 
fact that Patrick Henry would not accommodate them.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



105a

Q. According to the admissions which are in the record, 
that is, the interrogatories which are in the record, your 
answers, signed by you, sir, you were asked the following 
question:

“List the name of the school which a white child in 
the same grade level and living at the same address as 
each of the infant plaintiffs would attend on the basis 
of the established school zones as prescribed on Plain­
tiffs Exhibits 1 and 2.”

A. That is right.
Q. And your answer as to each one of the seven who live

- 2 7 2 -
in this area— A. That was under the operation of the 
state law and the state pupil placement plan.

Q. They would have been assigned to this school if white, 
is that correct? A. That is the school zone. They would 
have been assigned by the state.

Q. Did the State Pupil Placement Board prepare, issue 
or publish in the City of Alexandria in September of 1957 
this school zone map and these school zones'! A. No.

Q. That was done by you, sir? A. That is right.
Q. That was done at your office? A. Yes.
Q. And it was your office that published the school zone 

map and prescribed or supervised the registration of stu­
dents? A. Yes.

Q. And your registration was based upon this published 
material, is that correct, sir; that is, the zone map? A. 
That is right.

Q. So that there is no question then on the basis of the 
zone map which you published and which you supervised, 
these seven students would have been admitted to Ramsay

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



106a

School last year if they were white? A. But for the state
- 2 7 3 -

law—if they were white?
Q. That is right. A. That is right.
Q. But for the state law which prescribes that Negroes 

could not be admitted there.

The Court: What are the letters that you assigned 
to those ?

The Witness: A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Mr. Reeves: A, B, C, D, E, F, and K.
The Court: A, B, C, D, E, F, and K?
Mr. Reeves: That is right, sir. There are seven, 

sir. There are seven elementary pupils. 
* * * * *

—275—
* * * * *

Q. Now you have three students here, and they are cases 
L, M, and N ; is that correct? A. That is right.

Q. They are applicants for admission to the George 
Washington High School. That is located here? A. It is 
next to the railroad track.

Q. Here? A. Yes.
Q. Just on the other side of the railroad tracks is the 

Parker-Gray which they now attend? A. Yes.
Q. But for the fact that they are Negro, and living in 

the same location would they have been eligible for admis­
sion at the beginning of this current school year to the 
George Washington High School? A. Parker-Gray School 
is closer to them.

Q. If they were white would they have been admitted to 
the Parker-Gray School at the beginning of the school 
year? A. If there had not been a state law requiring that 
they would still have gone to the Parker-Gray School.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



107a

Q. Do I understand you to say that under your present 
criteria—under your present criteria if these children were 
white which school would they have been admitted to? A.

—276—
Under present criteria?

Q. Yes. A. Under the present criteria they would be 
eligible to whatever school they applied to with the ap­
plication of these criteria to determine where they would 
be placed.

Q. So the fact that they might live closer to Parker-Gray 
than to George Washington would not be a determining fac­
tor in which school they would be admitted into? A. The 
first criterion is geographical location of the home in refer­
ence to the school. Of course in determining the assignment 
to the school that would be a very serious and very dominat­
ing factor.

Q. So that a white child living at this address under the 
present criteria might expect to be admitted to Parker-Grav 
School; is that correct? A. 1 am quite certain he would 
be considered for it.

Q. Is it possible? A. It is.
Q. Under the present criteria? A. It is possible, yes.
Q. Would that apply to all the other schools in the city, 

all of the Negro schools in the city under the present criteria 
that a white child might be admitted to the Negro schools? 
A. If these criteria apply that way; if it was a closer school 
to the home and the other criteria were consistent with that,

—277—
I would say yes.

Q. If there were no other disqualifying factor, or no 
other factor was considered to be disqualifying, would the 
fact that the Negro school was closest to a white child be the 
basis for that white child being entered in the Negro school ? 
A. Under this criterion it could be, yes.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Dir ext



108a

Q. That is the way you intend to apply the criterion? A. 
We intend to apply it without distinction as far as race is 
concerned.

Q. Do we assume then, on the basis of these criteria, all 
racial distinctions as to these schools as to whether they 
are white or Negro will be eliminated? A. That is what 
is supposed to be done.

Q. Is that what you intend to do as superintendent? A. 
What I intend to do ?

Q. Yes. A. That is the way it has been applied so far.
Q. You have not had any applications of white children 

to Negro schools? A. The fact that makes these different 
is that they are Negroes, all of them are Negroes.

Q. That is the fact that— A. We have not had to apply 
it to anyone but these who applied. If they apply to any 
other they will have to apply.

Q. Do I understand you to mean, sir—I want to be sure
—278—

I do not misunderstand you—that this plan under which 
you have considered the applications of these fourteen 
Negroes will be applied in the future to all persons wdio re­
quest a transfer to schools or who transfer from one school 
whether they apply or not? A. Yes. That is the reason. 
It will be applied to all of those seeking transfers, what the 
memorandum for the principals says.

Q. When you say “seeking transfers,” do you contemplate 
transfers other—let us leave transfers out. How about per­
sons who apply originally to be admitted to school?

Mr. Phillips: If Your Honor please, I object to 
these questions. I think we can get into some very 
speculative matters as to the future.

Mr. Williams has testified as to his good faith.

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



109a

The good faith of the School Board is in question 
here as to the application of these criteria. Now as 
to saying what is going to be done in the future if 
someone does not petition for a transfer but there 
is a transfer what is going to happen then—

Mr. Beeves: I withdraw that question.
Mr. Phillips: I think it is entirely hypothetical as 

to what is going to be done under any case. Mr. 
Williams has stated the broad principle that there is 
not going to be a distinction based on race or color. 

Mr. Beeves: I will withdraw that question; I will
—279-

ask another.

By Mr. Reeves-.

Q. In determining the application of criterion one, is 
the basis geographical proximity; that is, whether the house 
is closest to the school, or is it a school zone? A. Well, 
there can be other things. Generally speaking you would 
say proximity. On the other hand there may be some other 
factors that enter into it. Such things as inconvenience or 
convenience of established transportation routes or free 
transportation routes might have something to do with it.

But generally speaking I think that was meant to apply 
principally to the proximity part of it.

Q. Proximity; actual physical relationship? A. That is 
right; closest,

Q. And as to these pupils here who are seeking admis­
sion to George Washington, the only factor that insofar 
as criterion one was applied was the fact I believe that you 
measured distance between their homes and Parker-Gray, 
and their homes and George Washington? A. I have al­

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



110a

ready said that Parker-Gray is closer to them than George 
Washington; that is criterion one.

Q. Do I understand the facts to be that the distance be­
tween Parker-Gray and George Washington is represented 
by the railroad tracks between the two? A. It is repre­
sented by a little more than the railroad tracks.

— 280—
Q. Approximately how far? A. One is on one side of 

the railroad and one is on the other side.
Q. Well, the distance between the two buildings would be 

how much: a block, half-block? A. It would be more than 
a block. It would be—it is not a great distance but there 
is a distance.

Q. Is there an overpass or underpass? A. There is a 
railroad overpass.

Q. For pedestrian traffic? A. No. It is an underpass 
for pedestrian traffic, over Braddock Road.

Q. That would mean that a child going from the residence 
of these three students to George Washington High School 
would cross the railroad tracks through the underpass? In 
other words, he would not have to, physically have to cross 
the tracks? A. No. He would not have to walk across the 
railroad tracks, but the school would still be closer to them. 

* * * * *
—315—

* * * * *
Mr. Reeves: Excuse me, if your Honor please. 

We would like to offer a stipulation in an effort to 
correct the record as to one case, Case D. In Case D, 
erroneously the application shows that this child had 
been promoted to the fourth grade when, in fact, he 
had been promoted to the fifth grade. We would call

T. C. Williams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



211a

Colloquy

the mother to testify to that fact that an error had 
been made.

However, we thought we might avoid that.
The Court: Where does it appear in error?
Mr. Reeves: It appears first in the record in the 

application itself, that is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 31).
The Court: That accompanied your motion?
Mr. Reeves: No, that accompanied our original 

request for admissions.
The Court: 3D, all right. Where else does it ap­

pear?
Mr. Reeves: It also appears in the report of the 

School Board, which is our Exhibit 8, I believe, in 
paragraph C of which the School Board states, “The

—316—
Lyles-Crouch fourth grade in which he is achieves a 
third grade three month level,” where as a matter 
of fact he is in the fifth grade at Lyles-Crouch.

The Court: Designated by what letter?
Mr. Reeves: D, Otis E. Jones. We would, of 

course, be prepared to accept or to make the stipula­
tion on the basis which 1 believe the School Board 
would take, that the reasons for denying this student 
would be the same.

The Court: In the report of the Defendant it says, 
“This boy is enrolled in the fourth grade.” It ought 
to be fifth.

Mr. Reeves: That is correct, sir.
The Court: Is that stipulation agreeable to op­

posing counsel?
Mr. Phillips: If the Court please, we were just 

advised of this as we were coming into the court­
room and, frankly, haven’t had a chance to talk with



112a

Colloquy

Mr. Williams to find out exactly wliat the situation 
would be. We do not want to assume that the same 
answer would be for one application, on a stipulated 
basis as would apply to another. I just briefly men­
tioned it to Mr. Williams and he said we do not have 
the comparative test for the particular grade they 
now want to consider. I would like to have an oppor­
tunity to discuss it a little bit more.

The Court: It would probably save time by call­
ing the parent.

—317—
Mr. Reeves: The testimony of the parent would be 

the same, the fact that he is in the fifth grade rather 
than the fourth grade.

Mr. Phillips: It would be where we have a com­
parative test on that grade.

Mr. Reeves: On that basis, 1 wonder if we could 
pass this particular question until such time as you 
may have time to amend your reason for denial. 
Then we could submit that as we submitted the other 
amendment.

The Court: Let me get this straight. Pupil D is 
now in the fifth grade, not in the fourth grade ?

Mr. Reeves: That is right. I might say that page 
2 of the document that the School Board offered on 
Friday, which they took back, had some additional 
material which actually shows he is in the fifth grade 
at Lyles-Crouch. So they were aware of the fact that 
he was in the fifth grade, but the data they used was 
on the basis of the fourth grade.

The Court: In none of these cases is there a change 
of grade sought, is there ?

* * * * *



113a

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Direct

—320—
T. C. W illiam s  was called as a witness for the Defen­

dants, and having been previously sworn, testified as fol­
lows :

Direct Examination by Mr. Phillips:
* * * * *

—322—
Q. Mr. Williams, after this assignment plan was adopted, 

1 understood you to testify that you proceeded to arrange 
to have tests in the schools made and that the tests that 
were made and the result of those tests, as pertaining to 
these petitioners were submitted to the school board for 
action. A. Yes. In the main that is true. The tests were 
not used as a criteria in all of the cases. In some of 
the cases, there were other criteria used in addition to

—323—
the tests; in some cases in place of the tests. They were 
not always a basis of indication.

Q. When you made a report on these particular cases, 
did you analyze the particular criteria of the cases as 
related to the particular criteria that had been set up by 
the School Board? A. You mean to the School Board?

Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. Did you participate in providing or setting up this 

criteria that was to be used by the School Board ? A. I 
recommended it, yes.

Q. Did you have any guide at the time that you followed 
in setting that up? A. I think we may say that this is 
mostly a composite of Norfolk and Charlottesville and 
Arlington.

Q. At that time, did you have before you the benefit of 
the opinion that was given by this Court in the Arlington 
case? A. Yes. \



114a

Q. Did you try to follow that in these particular cases? 
A. 1 certainly used it as an indication of procedures or as 
a guide as to what we would use.

Q. When you made your recommendation to the school 
board, did you feel that you were making it in accord with

—324—
the opinion of this Court in the Arlington case? A. It 
was a conscientious recommendation as far as I could de­
termine in conformity with the facts of the case and the 
law, as I understood it.

Q. When this was presented to the School Board, was 
each case considered by the school board? A. Yes.

Q. Upon its own individual merit? A. Yes.
Q. You have 14 cases here. I understand that the Court 

has before it the reasons that the School Board used in 
disposing of these petitions. I think you attached that to 
your motion, so that is before the Court.

The Court: Yes.
* * * * *

—339—
* * * * *

Q. Now, we will go to case F, and tell us about that. 
A. This is a case of a child who is in the second grade 
at the Lyles-Crouch School, who is applying for the second

—340-
in either the Patrick Henry or William Ramsay Schools. 
Going through the folder we find that the child attended 
160 of 180 days, and absent 20 days, which is not too 
bad. Down on the social and emotional adjustment the 
remarks contained in the folder “home condition is 
crowded”. The teacher states, “She does not like to asso­
ciate with other children.” This seems to be a significant

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Direct



115a

remark because children in school have to associate with 
other children and they can do so much better in a familiar 
environment than they can in an unfamiliar environment 
if that is a complex, why that would certainly indicate 
some basis for consideration of denial of transfer in itself.

The criteria that were applied in this case were criterion 
1, which applies again to the Patrick Henry School not 
being geographically the closest school to the home of 
the applicant and no transportation. F is the same as in 
the cases of A, B, C, D, and E. There is no reason for 
repeating them, I assume. And criterion 3 in this case 
is the intelligence quotient, or the l.Q. of this child is 81, 
which is a very low average. Her mental age is one year 
and three months below her chronological age. This is 
consistent with her l.Q. Heading level, as is indicated 
on page 2, at the bottom of the page, is quoted as low 
normal, from the folder. Arithmetic level is “poor risk”. 
Her I.W. is about the level of the school of which she is 
attending, that is Lyles-Crouch. It is two points below

—341—
the median of the third grade of the Patrick Henry School, 
30 points below the median of the third grade of the 
William Ramsay School. Her mental age is one year nine 
months below the third grade median at the Henry School 
and two years and six months below the third grade median 
at the Ramsay School. Also attention was called to the 
fact that there are no mid-term promotion breaks in this 
ease, very much the same as in the other cases.

Reference was made—not reference—but it was pointed 
out in the application of Number 5 that the usual—or the 
emotional stresses and strains and unnaturalness of the 
situation cited in the other cases so far in both the Patrick 
Henry and Ramsay Schools would be complicated by emo

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Direct



116a

tional stresses in such a transfer under the psychological, 
academic and level of mental capacity conditions would in 
our opinion be disastrous.

So in this case the criteria used were criterion 1, criterion 
2, criterion 3, and criterion 5.

Q. Did the School Board have before it the information 
which you have given the Court in respect to this particular 
case? A. Yes.

* *  # *  •

—353—
Q. If you will please take up case designated L. A. 

Case L is that of a child enrolled in the 9th grade of 
Parker-Gray School applying for the 9th grade at the 
George Washington High School. It was found from the 
folder, attendance good, academic progress good, health 
good, but we find also these remarks under social and 
emotional adjustment, “needs careful guidance, has poor 
self-control, cannot stick to a job, easily upset, angered, 
and embarrassed. Given to emotional upsets. Home ac­
tivities often create stresses which accompany him to 
school.”

Some teachers’ comments are inconsistent as to his ad­
justment and working up to ability.

In the criterion which applied in this case, criterion 1, 
and that is geographical location, the Parker-Gray High 
School in which this pupil is enrolled is geographically 
closer to his home than George AVashington High School 
is.

This boy lives on Wilkes Street, I believe, down near 
the Lyles-Crouch School and Parker-Gray is closer to him

—354—
by at least a half a mile, the distance between Parker- 
Gray High School and George Washington High School

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Direct



117a

by actual measurement is over a half a mile. So geo­
graphically he is in the school already which is closer 
to him and also both schools are accredited by exactly the 
same agencies, that is accredited by the state agencies and 
by the Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. No 
differences in accrediting standards.

That is criterion 1.
Now, under criterion 2, which is not the designated 

criterion 2 in this particular case, unfortunately, but it 
comes under B, George Washington—this criterion applies 
to enrollment, comparative enrollments. George Wash­
ington High School is over-capacity, as is shown on tin; 
enrollment sheet. George Washington High School has 
1669 pupils, official capacity of 1500 pupils, which means 
it is 169 pupils over-enrollment, or a percentage of over­
load is 11 and 25/100. Pupil teacher ratio in that school 
is 23 to one. The comparative figures for the Parker- 
Gray High School are enrollment 492, official capacity, 
500, under-enrollment by 8. Percentage of under-enrollment 
1 and 6/10, pupil teacher ratio, 21 and 4/10.

Also attention is called to the fact that—that is the 
application of criterion 2. On the basis of criterion 3, 
which is academic and so forth, we find that this bou—this 
is another situation in which the eighth grade tests were 
given last April and the eighth grade pupils went into

—355—
the ninth grade this year. Those tests were recent enough 
to be entirely objective and indicative.

This boy on eighth grade reading test was 8 months 
behind the grade in which he was, that was eighth grade, 
behind the median score of grade placement—wait a min­
ute. I will have to correct that. He was 8 months be­
hind the George Washington High School median. These

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Direct



118a

eighth grade pupils are now ninth grade pupils at Parker- 
Gray High School. Therefore, there is a gap of two 
years and seven months. The gap is indicated on page 2 
of Case L, where the median accomplishment or the median 
level of accomplishment of the Parker-Gray High School 
in the eighth grade was seventh grade and three months. 
Seventh grade and three months was one year and live 
months behind what it should have been. At the same 
time the George Washington High School was operating 
—the eighth grade pupils that went to George Washington 
School are in Jefferson School. This takes in only the 
pupils that went to the George Washington High School. 
They are not complicated or confused with any which might 
have dropped out of school or any that went to Hamilton 
from that location.

They were accomplishing at the tenth grade level, which 
was about a year and two months above their level, which 
added to what he was below, which creates about a three 
year gap. He has not been in school long enough to make 
that up with this particular level of ability, although he

—356—
has 110 I.Q., which is average.

This boy on the eighth grade level is months behind 
the median score of placement. The gap is two years and 
seven months between the median scores of the present 
ninth grade of the George Washington High School and 
the Parker-Gray High School. Here, again, this is cri­
terion 5, which is not so designated, but comes under 
Case D, comes under division d in this particular case, 
is emotional and so on, unnecessary emotional stresses 
created by sending a pupil by one high school to another 
in which he will be in an abnormal and unusual position 
will be severe, particularly if he has to bridge a gap

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Direct



119a

of the size of two years and seven months. They are the 
criteria that applied in the Case of L, criterion 2, criterion 
3, and criterion 5.

Q. Did the School Board have before it the information 
which you have given the Court? A. Yes.

Q. Will you please take up the case designated Case M? 
A. This is the case of a child who was enrolled in the 
tenth grade of the Parker-Gray High School and is apply­
ing to the tenth grade of the George Washington High 
School. The folder indicates good attendance, good health, 
good academic progress, some variance with testing, social 
and emotional adjustment was also indicated as being very 
good.

In this case we denied the application of criterion 1,
—357—

which indicates that the Parker-Gray School is closer to 
where this child lives on the 400 block of St. Aesop Street, 
than the George Washington High School is by fully a 
half a mile.

On the basis of criterion 2, we go back again to the 
same figures that were cited in the case of L, that the 
George Washington High School is above capacity, pupil 
teacher ratio is higher, and the percentage of over-enroll 
ment is significant as compared to the Lyles-Crouch School, 
which is under-capacity, not Lyles-Crouch, Parker-Gray 
High School, which is under-capacity. It has a lower pupil 
teacher ratio.

Now in criterion 3, it refers to the academic achievement, 
the difference between median percentile rank for the 
tenth grade of between the school attended and the one 
applied for is indicative of too great a gap between ac­
complishment levels for this student who rates in a low 
average. Now, the percentile rank is 46, which means 
again that he is below the level of the median 50 per cent.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Direct



120a

Also the median for the school which is attending, which 
is significant, the percentile rank, I think, we referred to 
before in one case of 11, which is 11 from the bottom 
while the percentile rank to which the school he is applying 
is 63. Here the percentile rank is explained on the second 
page. The percentile rank in this case means that out of 
100 pupils taking this test, 54 will achieve a higher score 
than this particular case, and that 89 will achieve a higher 
than the median of the Parker-Gray High School, that only

—358—
37 will achieve a higher and the median for the George 
Washington High School.

The gap of accomplishment between the two schools is 
significant, but this child is not, certainly, above average 
in accomplishment.

We believe that that gap is too great for her to span. 
That coupled with the fact that she is already in a school 
that is closer to her home than the school she wants to 
go and the school she wants to go to is more heavily loaded, 
with the psychological factors, as cited in Case A, com­
plicated by the differences in academic level of those 
two schools seems to us to be prohibitive.

Q. Mr. Williams, did the School Board have this infor­
mation before it at the time it acted upon this petition? 
A. Yes.

Q. If you will come to the last one, case designated N. 
A. This is a case of a child enrolled in the 9th grade 
of the Parker-Gray High School applying for 9th grade 
of the George Washington High School. In going through 
the folders, we find elementary records, good, no record 
particularly of Parker-Gray in that particular folder, en­
tered Lyles-Crouch in the third grade which is not par­
ticularly significant. The consistency of the cumulative

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—-Direct



121a

record information brought forth this remark, “results of 
standardized tests do not reflect the academic achievement 
of this child as indicated by her teachers. This child’s

—359—
teachers rate well above average and the standardized 
tests rate her a full grade below the level of the grade 
in which she is enrolled.”

The criteria applied in this case, criterion 1, criterion 
2, criterion 3, and criterion 5, in criterion 1, we find 
that the Parker-Gray High School is closer to the pupil 
than George Washington High School by fully a half a 
mile. On the basis of criterion 2, we find that the George 
Washington High School is more heavily loaded than the1 
Parker-Gray High School is, the George Washington High 
School is over-enrolled by a significant amount, the Parker- 
Gray High School is under-enrolled by a slight amount.

On the basis of—incidentally both those schools are 
accredited by the same agencies, state agency and by the 
national agency, that the Association of Secondary Schools 
and Colleges.

Now, on the basis of criterion 3, this statement is made, 
“applicant’s mental ability and grade accomplishment are 
below the school applied to, and school now attending is 
much behind the school applied to.”

It is a rather curious fact that the achievement level 
of this pupil is exactly the same as that of the school which 
he was attending. In the 8th grade—this is again an 8th 
grade test, as you see in the upper left hand corner, the 
reading test administered April 1958, 8th grade level. That 
was 8-8. This is a reading level of one year and five

—360-
months below her grade placement at the time of the 
test. In other words, she was below the grade by a year

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Direct



122a

when the test was made. Also the school that she is 
attending, or attended, at that time, was a year more, more 
than a year below the grade. While the George Washing­
ton High School at that time was above that level by 
over a year, so the two added together makes a gap of 
over two years, closer to three years. The I.Q. rating is 
93, which is a low average. Mental age is 12 years and one 
month, chronological age in this case is 12 years and 11 
months. Chronological mental age is 10 months below the 
chronological age.

On the basis of criterion 5, I think, I can say briefly 
that we feel the same stresses and strains apply in this 
case which would be complicated by a rather low capacity, 
rather low mental age, a low mental age compared with 
the chronological age, and a large gap between the schools 
that she is accomplishing in and the school to which she 
applies.

The criteria we used in this case were 2, 3, and 5.
Q. Mr. Williams, did the School Board have before it 

the information which you have submitted to the Court 
this morning? A. Yes.

Mr. Phillips: I think that is all.

Cross Examination by Mr. Reeves:
*  #  #  #  #

—374—
The Court: You want to know whether criterion 5 

would disqualify every applicant. Ask him that.
The Witness: Everyone of—
Mr. Reeves: Everyone of these.
The Witness: Not in itself, no.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



123a

Q. Not in itself, 1 understand that. We all appreciate 
that there are other criteria that applied to all of them, 
but in so far as this criteria applied it would disqualify 
everyone, is that correct, sir? A. I think it would.

Q. And it would also disqualify every Negro who ap­
plied, is that correct? A. All of these.

Q. Even in addition to these 14. A. 1 think you are 
getting into suppositions.

Q. I am asking you did you have an informed opinion 
on that? A. These are all we have before us.

Q. I am asking you as the author of these criteria, and 
as the principal exponent of them, isn’t it a fact that this 
criteria would, if applied to any Negro seeking admission 
to the Alexandria public schools, be a basis for disqualifi­
cation? A. On the present situation, I think it would, yes.

—399—
* # * # *

Q. Case D. This is the one where we have this conflict 
about the 4th grade and the 5th grade. Do I understand 
your testimony to be, however, that whether it be for the 
4th grade or the 5th grade, that generally, the same con­
sideration would apply as a justification for denying this 
application? A. What is that under, criterion 3 or what?

Q. Under all of them, all that you rejected. A. On 
criterion 1, the Patrick Henry School is not in the geo­
graphical zone. As far as criterion 2, it would, yes.

Q. Let’s go back to 1. I think we have established before 
this student applied for Patrick Henry, or such other

—4 0 0 -
school as he might be properly admitted on the basis of 
objective considerations, right? A. Yes, but it is already

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross

By Mr. Reeves:



124a

agreed that the William Ramsay School was in his geo­
graphical zone.

Q. And you considered his case in relation to William 
Ramsay School? A. Yes.

Q. So criterion 1 would not disqualify him? A. No.
Q. Criterion 2, overcrowding, would that be the same as 

in the other case? A. Yes.
Q. In criterion 3, isn’t it a fact that in the fifth grade 

at Ramsay, you have at least one student, one White 
student who has a grade placement of three years, three 
months? A. Probably so.

Q. And, therefore, that low grade placement was not a 
basis for rejecting that student or keeping that student 
from attending Ramsay School? A. We have some there 
that are around third grade.

Q. According to your exhibit here, the lowest grade place­
ment at Ramsay was three years no months, the same as 
that of this student. A. Three years no months?

Q. 3.0. A. Yes.
-^ 0 1 —

The Court: This student had 3.1.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. Below this student? A. Yes.
Q. 3.1. A. Yes.
Q. So then this student, if admitted into Ramsay, would 

not be the lowest student in his grade in Ramsay, would 
he? A. Not necessarily.

Q. You are not contemplating putting that White student 
out, are you? A. I haven’t considered that.

Q. And your explanation as to criterion 5, is it the same 
as to this child and the considerations are the same that

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



125a

if based upon race or color or if invalid based upon race 
or color, this child was similarly invalid as the others. 
A. The same as the others.

Q. In Case F, you made comment which I didn’t get. 
A. F?

Q. In regard to the social and emotional adjustment of 
this student based on your record, your cumulative record. 
A. The cumulative record states here, or it is stated in 
the cumulative record “home conditions crowded. Teacher

—402-
states she does not like to associate with other children.”

Q. Do you know whether you have any White students 
in Ramsay with similar problems?

Mr. Phillips: I object to that. I don’t think it is 
material to this issue as to whether they have other—

The Court: I think you would have to consider 
every other student if he did. Let’s just stick to the 
examination as to those subject students unless it is 
necessary to digress here and there to show an 
analogy.

Mr. Reeves: Your Honor will bear in mind that 
one of our contentions is that there is a difference 
in treatment.

The Court: Yes.
Mr. Reeves: These problems of home adjustment, 

however, which you testified to were not included 
in your report in this case so I assume they were not 
used as a basis for action in this case, is that right, 
sir?

The Witness: They were commented on on the 
front part of it.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



126a

Q. They are not in the report that you gave to counsel, 
and to the Court? A. No.

Q. So, therefore, we are to assume, I believe that this 
report that you gave to the Court and to counsel indicates 
the basis upon which you acted? A. That is right.

—403—
Q. So these were just comments, but did not figure in 

your action? A. That is true.
Q. You say this student has an LQ. of 81, which is a 

very low average. Would you tell me what is the average 
I.Q. on the national basis for children of this particular 
age? A. The average is from 100 to 115.

Q. 100 to 115 is the average? A. Yes. And the low 
average is, averages are 100 to 114, the low average is 80 
to 99. The low average is below 80.

Q. This student had 81. A. That is a low average.
Q. The low in Ramsay is 70, is that right, sir? A. I 

believe it is.
Q. So that it would be true to say that there were stu­

dents in Ramsay, at least one, who had an average below 
that of this particular applicant? A. Apparently so. 

* * * * *
—426—

Mr. Reeves: Your Honor, please, I am trying to 
ascertain a matter of fact as to what has happened, 
not as to what may happen in the future. My ques­
tion is whether any child, regardless of the gap 
in percentile rank, any white child has been refused 
admission to Hammond for that reason.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross

By Mr. Reeves:



127a

The Court: I understand. This same question has
—427—

arisen in nearly every aspect of this case, that the 
witness’s answer is this: That prior to the order 
of Court, there had been no refusal of a white child’s 
application by reason of any of these criteria, and 
the reason was they were following the pupil place­
ment act.

That subsequent to the order of Court, there had 
been no occasion to apply it to anyone save these 14.

That, I understand, is his explanation. I do not 
say that that is acceptable to the defendant or ac­
ceptable to the plaintiff. But I understand that 
would be his testimony.

Mr. Reeves: I am trying to protect my record, if 
your Honor, please.

The Court: Just a minute. Let’s not try it for 
the record. Try it for the judgment of the Court.

Mr. Reeves: I am trying to gain experience from 
the fact the question has been raised that we did 
not show in another case the fact that other students 
with lower ratings had been admitted without ap­
plication of this criteria.

If the defense will stipulate the fact these criteria 
have not been applied as the bases for admitting or 
rejecting any white students in the Alexandria Pub­
lic School System, of course, I can dismiss that 
question.

The Court: That is my understanding of it. I do 
not know about the stipulation, that the criteria was 
non-existent.

—428—
Mr. Reeves: That was our understanding. I want 

the record to clearly show that has not been done.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



128a

Q. Mr. Williams, am I clear that the use of academic 
standards, such as are used in criterion three, were first 
called into existence in connection with the case of these 
14 negroes? A. They were called in after the order of 
the Court.

Q. That order of the Court is based upon the applica­
tion of these 14 negroes for admission to white schools? 
A. Yes.

Q. That is the case for the use of academic standards 
in relation to admission for the first time in your school? 
A. That is correct.

Q. What is the present policy of the school’s adminis­
tration relative to the accommodation of students pro­
moted to the same grade? A. I do not think I understand 
your question.

Q. Under the present policy of the administration, do 
you make any accommodation for children of different 
levels of academic achievement within the school system? 
A. Yes, we have some special classes.

Q. Those are for gifted children? A. We have some 
for gifted children. We have some for backward children.

Q. How about those that do not fall in the category of
—429—

either being gifted or backward. Do you have any present 
policy for the accommodation of those children in different 
grade levels? A. No.

Q. The same grade level, or different levels of accom­
plishment? A. They are divided into groups.

Q. Within a grade? A. Generally so.
Q. Is that within the same school? A. That is done 

within the same school.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross

By Mr. Reeves:



129a

Q. So then a student with a low average level, grade 
level, under present policy would not be excluded from a 
particular school solely because of the fact of the difficulty 
in grade level, difference in accomplishment level, within 
a particular grade? A. If it was not complicated with 
anything else.

Q. If it was not complicated with the fact of raise? A. 
No, I would not say that.

Q. A hat other factors are they that are required in this 
case! A. Transfer during the course of a session that 
we have spoken of several times.

Q. Other than that and of raise, there are no complicat­
e s ! ) —

ing factors? A. Of course, all the divisions in one grade 
obviously cannot take care of all the differences. You can­
not have so many groups if there are large differences 
within the grade that you could not accommodate them all.

Q. How about a difference of 19 percentile points within 
a grade? A. I would not think so.

Q. In other words, at Ramsay, you do accommodate those 
with a difference ol 19 points below the median, do vou not? 
A. Not necessarily.

Q. You have no students, no white students? A. Yes, 
we do. We have some in there now.

Q. They are being accommodated at Hammond? A. Not 
through the whole range.

Q. At 19, I am talking about. A. They are accommo­
dated at Ramsay.

* * * # #

—436—
Q. Wrth reference to Case L, Mr. Williams, this student 

rs presently enrolled in Parker-Gray seeking admission to 
George Washington? A. Yes.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



130a

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross

—437—
Q. You object to this pupil on the basis of criterion 

number one, among others, that Parker-Gray is geographic­
ally closer by approximately a half mile. Is that correct! 
A. That is true.

Q. What about a white student living at the residence of 
this particular student ! What school would that white stu­
dent be assigned on the basis of geographic proximity! 
A. The white students that are located in the same area 
would enroll in the George Washington High School under 
the pupil placement plan.

Q. Again, I ask the question, under your present plan! 
A. lTes, at George Washington.

Q. Even under the present plan, he would not go to 
Parker-Gray, white students! A. Under the present plan!

Q. Under the present plan, where would a white student 
go, George Washington or Parker-Gray, on the basis solely 
of geographical proximity! A. It depends on the applica­
tion of the plan, probably—It depends on the application 
of the plan.

Q. Is there any question about the application of the 
plan! As I understand, you have already instructed your 
principals to apply the plan to everybody and to the extent 
they are using geographic proximity as a criterion under 
the plan as it is presently applied, a student living, white

—4 3 8 -
student living at the same residence as this plaintiff would 
l)e assigned to what school! A. We have white students 
in that section that go to George Washington.

Q. You have not answered my question. My question is:
Under the present plan— A. 1 could not tell you. I 

could not answer that.



131a

Q. Would you make any distinctions on the basis of 
geographic proximity between a negro applicant and a 
white applicant who lived at the same address? A. An 
application of any plan as 1 understand it—

Mr. Phillips: Please, Your Honor, is it a question 
of transfer that you have in mind?

Mr. Reeves: Let’s make it a question of transfer. 
Would a white student making a transfer to the 
school to which you, the administration, would prop­
erly assign, living at the same address as the negro 
students involved in this case, be assigned under the 
present plan to Parker-Gray High School?

Mr. Phillips: I think he has already answered that, 
he would use the same criteria for anyone asking 
for assignment.

Mr. Reeves: 1 would like for the witness to answer 
the question, rather than Counsel.

Mr. Phillips: He has already answered the ques­
tion three times.

Mr. Reeves: If you have, would you mind repeat-
—439—

ing the answer?
The Witness: White pupils living in the same place 

asking for a transfer would be enrolled in the George 
Washington High School.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. We have the additional fact, the fact no negro who 
is not already in George Washington could get into George 
Washington living at this address because of geographic 
distance, geographic proximity; a white student, because 
he is already there, even if he sought a transfer, would be 
allowed in, because he is already in. Is that it?

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



132a

In other words, there is no way we would have an equiv­
alency. A. He would.

Q. Let’s take a white child who is not presently in George 
Washington. Let’s assume, that one of these, let’s take a 
white child, who is presently in Hammond High School, 
who moves to the same house, with this plaintiff, and there­
fore asks a transfer to George Washington on the basis 
of your application of this criterion to what high school 
would you assign that student? A. It is a question of re­
fusing an entrance in a school. I think as I understand 
the Supreme Court decision, a pupil cannot be refused on 
the basis of his race, only.

Q. On what bases would you refuse— A. What is that?
—440—

Q. Would you admit the white student to George Wash­
ington who lived at the same address as this student who 
is asking a transfer? A. We are dealing with a mytho­
logical case.

Q. That is right. It is a hypothetical case. I would like 
to have your answer based on your knowledge and your 
understanding of this criteria and its application. A. I do 
not think I can very well deal with a case that is not before 
us.

Q. Mr. Williams, do you have any difficulty in applying 
figures to facts, or facts to figures in an individual situa­
tion?

You have got a test. Do you have any difficulty in ap­
plying that test to a person? A. I think I testified Friday 
about this application of these tests.

Q. I am asking if you would answer my one question? A. 
I give you an answer to such situation, if you would accept 
it as such.

Q. Answer the one question. A. We apply the pupil 
placement plan.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



133a

Q- By that, you mean what! Let’s be honest. Is it not 
a fact that you would not under this plan or any other plan 
in existence or contemplated assign a white student living 
at the same address as this student to the Parker-Gray 
High School?

—441—
Is that not a fact?

Mr. Phillips: 1 think that question presupposes 
that Mr. Williams has the right to make assignments. 
The school board is the one.

Mr. Reeves: Pardon me. Recommend.
The Court: Just a minute.
Mr. Phillips: I think the assumption is wrong 

whether it is Mr. Williams that wants to do this or 
the Board.

In other words, the Board has outlined a policy. 
It is a question of whether the Board is going to 
carry out that policy, not a question of whether Mr. 
Williams is going to carry it out.

Mr. Reeves: You have the power and authority, 
the administrative duty that you make the recom­
mendation.

The Witness: Not necessarily. I do not have to 
make every recommendation.

The Court: Let the question implementing the 
policy of the School Board, where would he be 
placed?

Mr. Reeves: Implementing the policy of the School 
Board as you know it, and understand it, where 
would a white student living at the same residence 
as this negro pupil seeking a transfer from Hammond 
to George Washington High School be placed?

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



134a

The Witness: It would depend on the results of 
the application of the plan.

— 442—

Mr. Reeves: Talking about criterion on, only.
Mr. Phillips: May I suggest this? I do not think 

the question is applicable here. If there is a student 
in Hammond asking for a transfer to George Wash­
ington, the School Board, then, would pass on this 
criterion as to whether he should be transferred or 
not, not that he has to be put in some other school.

It is a question of whether the transfer application 
is going to be recognized and he is going to be put in 
George Washington.

If it is turned down, he is going to stay where he 
is. It is not a question before he makes an applica­
tion he must be put in some other school, a school 
he has not applied for.

1 think that is what Counsel is directing this to, 
if a student is asking for a transfer to George Wash­
ington, would he be considered for Parker-Gray? I 
do not think that is the question here, because he 
has not asked for Parker-Gray.

The Court: 1 think if you ask him were these 
criteria operative, where would he place a student 
living in this vicinity that you named, and who was 
then in Hammond, where would he be placed.

Can you answer that question ?
The Witness: As far as the geographical location 

was concerned ?
— 443—

Mr. Reeves: Yes.
The Court: My question was under the criteria as 

established, you would have to apply them all, I pre­
sume, where would he finally be put?

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



135a

The Witness: Taking into consideration all the 
criteria, it would depend on what seemed to be the 
best advantage of the child, whether he measures up 
academically, so forth.

Mr. Reeves: Your Honor, please, I would like to 
tender and ask permission to ask that same question.

The Court: Did he answer your question f
Mr. Reeves: No. My question is limited to geo­

graphic proximity.
The Court: Just on the one criteria?
Mr. Reeves: Yes. I say if it is true, if these cases 

were disposed of on the basis of all of them, the only 
way we can tell about the validity of the application 
of each, is to ask what would be the relation of this 
case in relation to that criteria.

The Court: What value would that answer have?
Mr. Reeves: That answer would have value if it 

establishes any one of these criteria is applied on 
an individual basis, then that criteria would be valid 
as applied to this child.

The Court: Let’s get at that directly. If any one 
of these criteria would prevent him from going to 
Parker-Gray, George Washington High School or 
any other high school, I obviously do not want to

— 444-

take the time to get evidence in the record that would 
not be helpful to me in deciding the case.

Mr. Reeves: If any one of them would, of course, 
it might be decided on that basis. The only way we 
can tell whether any one of them was was to test it 
on each of them.

The Court: That is what 1 thought the question 
did. Reframe your question.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



136a

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross 

By Mr. Reeves:
Q. Mr. Williams, insofar as your responsibility for the 

implementation of this policy and plan as adopted by the 
School Board, and insofar as you have made a recommenda­
tion in this case on the basis of criterion one, just one, 
would your recommendation on that criterion be the same 
with reference to a white student similarly situated as to 
all factors, other than race, as this student! A. Who ap­
plied for entry into the Parker-Gray High School!

Q. G. W., sir. Applied for entry into G. W. A. Ap­
plied for entry into G. W.!

Q. G. W.

The Court: From Hammond!
Mr. Beeves: From Hammond or any other high 

school.
The Witness: Let me understand, if he moved 

from the Hammond neighborhood down into this 
neighborhood!

Mr. Beeves: Into this house.
—445—

The Witness: Into this house, all the same thing. 
Then wants to be assigned to high school!

Mr. Beeves: That is right. Wants to be assigned 
to go with high school just as this plaintiff, and you 
therefore under the Board’s policy had to apply the 
criterion of geographic proximity.

What would you do!
The Witness: If I follow the geographic proximity 

part of it, the Parker-Gray School would be the 
closer school.



137a

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross 

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. Would your assignment to that school— A. It de­
pends on the rest of the criteria. None of these are assigned 
on one criteria.

Q. On the basis of all the other criteria in this case, 
let’s assume this student’s academic achievement, all his 
other qualifications, a white student, is exactly the same as 
the student’s in this case. Would you assign him to Parker- 
Gray School? He is white. A. In the application of the 
operation of the criteria, you would have to assign him to 
the one geographically closer, if you use that as criteria 
and if that is the way they are going to proceed.

Q. Do you have any doubt that is the way they are going 
to proceed?

Is there a question in your mind that a white child would
—446—

be treated any differently than a Negro child under the 
exact same circumstances except as to race? A. I think 
the whole situation stems, does it not, from the decision of 
the Supreme Court that they cannot be denied entry into a 
school on the basis of race ?

Q. Do you interpret that? A. If any one applies for a 
different school, apply to a school of a different race, why, 
then, you apply the criteria concerned.

Q. How about a white child applying for admission to 
Parker-Gray? A. He would have the criteria applied to 
him.

Q. How about the criteria, of criterion five? A. Cri­
terion five? I doubt if it is the same sort of situation. Yes, 
it would apply to Parker-Gray.

Q. Yes? A. Yes, it would be.
Q. How about criterion one, a white child that lives 

across the street from Parker-Gray, who applies to Parker-



138a

Gray. Would you recommend his admission ? A. Across 
the street from Parker-Gray?

Q. Yes. A. I do not think there would be any ques­
tion about that.

Q. You would recommend his admission? A. I think I
—447—

would.
Q. Do I understand you are using geographic proximity, 

that is actual distance or are you using geographic zones 
under this criteria as you understand it? A. Actual dis­
tance.

Q. Not zones? A. Not zones.
Q. Do I understand that to mean that you have aban­

doned the present attendance zone for the Parker-Gray 
High School, which is the entire city of Alexandria? A. 
Not necessarily so, no, although I think there is a tendency 
in the application of these criteria is going to be to elimi­
nate zones.

Q. Do I understand you to be saying that the City of 
Alexandria under these criteria, this plan as you now 
understand it, has abandoned the existing Negro school 
zones for the purpose of the assignment of any pupil, 
whether he applies for transfer or not? A. I think that 
would be the effect of the plan. That has not been discussed 
as far as that part is concerned.

Q. You are the one who bears the responsibility of the 
implementation of the plan? A. This particular plan.

Q. So when it comes next September, it is your anticipa­
tion and expectation that all students in the City of Alex-

—448—
andria, whether they be admitted for the first time, or 
transferred, will be assigned on the basis or without refer­
ence to school zones? A. I am not sure about that. 1 
could not answer that.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



139a

Q. As a matter of fact, so far as you know, there is no 
intention to abandon Parker-Gray High School as a Negro 
high school for such students who do not apply for trans­
fer to a white school, is that correct? A. None of the zone, 
the zone part of it, has not been considered at, determined 
at all.

Q. There has been no consideration of that? A. Not 
so far.

Q. Insofar as you know, Parker-Gray will still be a 
Negro high school next year? A. There has been no 
elimination of zoning plans formalized?

Q. The zone for Parker-Gray is city-wide for Negroes?
A. Yes.
Q. There has been no elimination of that? A. Not so far.
Q. The zones for these other schools is fixed for white 

children. There has been no change in that? A. There 
has been no change in that, no formal motion nor action 
has been taken on it.

Q. So the only desegregation of the public schools of Al­
exandria that is possible of accomplishment under existing

—4 4 9 -
Board policy as you know it are those cases where a person 
seeks a transfer from one, from a Negro school to a white 
school, or a white school to a Negro school under this plan 
those are the only people to which the plan applies ? A. It 
has not been carried to the ultimate development of the 
plan. It has been put into operation quite recently. All of 
those adjustments have not been made, have not been 
raised.

Q. But it is non-racial? A. It has not been changed so 
far.

Q. But it is not non-racial, it will apply without regard 
to race? A. That is what it is supposed to do.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



140a

Q. But only where people request transfers'? A. This 
plan, as I told you the other day, was supposed to apply to 
the applications of pupils who wanted a transfer.

Q. As a matter of fact, it was specifically devised to ap­
ply to these 14, that was the cause of it being set up? A. 
As I say, it was precipitated by action of the Court.

Q. That was the reason it was activated? A. That was 
the reason it was set up?

The Court: I think you have covered that.
Mr. Reeves: Case M—
The Court: Let me interrupt you.
(Whereupon, recess was taken.)

—450—
By Mr. Reeves:

Q. With reference to Case L, I have one more question.
This student has an IQ of 110. Is that correct? A. Yes, 

that is true.
Q. As a matter of fact, that IQ of 110 is the highest IQ 

achieved by any students in the school that this student 
presently attends, is that correct, in that grade? A. I 
think so.

Q. This compares favorably with George Washington’s 
median IQ of 100, does it not? A. Yes.

Q. I will now pass to Case M.
In Case M, as to the application of criteria one, two and 

five, we have the same considerations as in the other cases? 
A. That is right.

Q. And as to criterion three, this student has a per­
centile rank of 46 as compared with the National norm of 50. 
George Washington median of 63, George Washington low 
of two. Is that correct? A. Yes.

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



141a

Q. Parker-Gray median of 11, low of two, and a high of 
63! A. Yes.

The Court: Where do you see the National
median 50?

—451—
Mr. Beeves: That is the National norm on the 

percentile scale based on the National.
The Court: Percentile ?
Mr. Reeves: Percentile, based on a National scale.
Looking at Case N, you made the comment that 

upon consideration of this student’s lile, it appeared 
that the results of the standardized tests as applied 
to him were not consistent with the teacher com­
ments in regard to academic progress, although you 
did not state what those statements in regard to 
academic progress were?

The Witness: As I remember, it said the student 
doing good work, stood well in the school, so forth.

By Mr. Reeves:
Q. This student has an IQ of 93, as compared with the 

G. W. median of 100? A. Yes.
Q. And a low of 54-50? A. In the George Washington?
Q. George Washington. A. Yes.
Q. The reading level grade placement of this student 

is 7.3 as compared with the National norm of 8.8? Parker- 
Gray median? A. That was of the eighth grade in April.

Q. Which would be 8.8. Is that right? A. Yes.
—452—

Q. Eight years, eight months? A. Yes.
Q. Parker-Gray median of 7.3; G. W. median of 10. How­

ever, George Washington’s low score was 5.6 and below, so

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



142a

that this student’s grade placement of 7.3 would be above 
someone or more students in the same grade at George 
Washington. Is that correct? A. Yes.

The Court: Why is the April grade placement 
placed at 8.H ?

Mr. Reeves: 8-H?
The Court: That is what I think it ought to be. 

It is 8-H here.
The Witness: That means it was given in the 

eight high group.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. Tell us what that is. A. 8 high group in the high 
school field which the eighth grade is a part of, is the upper- 
section of the eighth grade.

Q. Does that mean the upper section in terms of sort of 
a tiack system, those students who are in the higher group? 
A. No, it means the mid-term promotions have not been 
entirely done away with. In the high school field they have

—453—
not been.

Q. You do have a mid-year break in the high school? 
A. In the high school.

Mr. Reeves: I have no further questions of this 
witness.

The Court: Is there any redirect examination ?
Mr. Phillips: None.
The Court: Let him step down.

*  # # # #

T. C. Williams—a Defendant—Cross



143a

Whereupon, A lfred L. W ingo having been duly sworn 
as a witness, was examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Wagner:
* * * * *

—469—
The next case, D, we have a grade placement for the case 

of 3.1, meaning third grade, first month. That is against 
a median placement for the school, for the Patrick Henry 
School, of 4.9 and for the Ramsay School of 5.4.

For this grade and test, in terms of grade placement, the 
Standard Error of Measure is 3.1 months. If we add 3.1

—470-
months to grade placement 3.1, we would get third grade, 
four months, and one point month. I think we can forget 
that decimal for our purposes.

The third grade, four months against a median grade 
placement in the case of Patrick Henry of four point nine, 
we, of course, would have the child way under. The chances 
are two out of three obviously.

To go further, we can double that 4.1, 3.1, double the 
score and give him 3.7 and he is still way below the median 
grade placement for Patrick Henry on that particular thing, 
which is the California Achievement Test, which is achieve­
ment and skills.

The chances there are more than 95 in 100 that that child 
in this school would be well in the lower half of the class.

In the case of William Ramsay, the situation is even more 
exaggerated. William Ramsay, as you can see, the median 
is about five months ahead of Patrick Henry. Consequently, 
the child would be still lower in the ranks.

The probabilities would be more than 95 in 100.
For the next—

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Direct



144a

Alfred L. Wingu—for Defendants—Direct 

By Mr. Wagner:

Q. Let me interrupt. If Case D here were a white student, 
with this grade placement score, would you recommend a 
transfer to William Ramsay School! A. I certainly would 
not, on terms of academic qualifications.

—471—
Mr. Reeves: You would not!
I did not hear the answer.
The Witness: I would not.

* * * * *
—472—

The next case, Case F, is one in which the Otis Quick 
Scoring Mental Ability Test was used. The IQ for this child 
as given here is 81. IQ for Patrick Henry is 103. The 
Standard Error of Measure or for this test in this grade 
is 4.0.

Add 4.0 to 81, you get 85, well under 103. The chances 
are, well, two in three that the child is under half.

If you go further and deduct the 4.0, add it to the 81, 
you get 89. The chances would be at least 99 in 100 that 
this child would be way down in the lower half of the class 
in terms of IQ.

The same thing is even more true of the William Ram­
say School where the IQ is 111, which means it is eight 
points higher for this grade than in the Patrick Henry 
School.

So that child would be well into the lower, without doubt, 
99 in 100 cases.

* * * * *
—478—

The Witness: Well, Case D, which you notice was 
marked “very low” there, certainly should not be,



145a

from the standpoint of academic efficiency. The same 
thing is true for Case E and Case F.

* * * * *
—479—

Case L, again, the reading score is so low that 
the child would be terribly handicapped in attempt­
ing to transfer.

—480—
For Case M, again, the score, scholastic aptitude 

score, is too low to count on good successful work, 
if the transfer were made. In the case of N, the 
reading score particularly here is as a matter of 
fact the other two, but the reading score is way 
down, so that transfer would be to me unthinkable, 
from the standpoint of academic work.

The Court: Would be what?
The Witness: Unthinkable from the standpoint 

of academic work.

By Mr. Wagner:
Q. These cases you have just summarized, for white 

students having the academic standing that they have, 
children for transfer to the school these pupils are seeking, 
would you recommend the transfer of them? A. No, 1 
would not.

Mr. Wagner: May we have a moment?

Cross Examination by Mr. Reeves:
Q. Mr. Wingo, 1 believe you said the basis of the median 

level at the schools to which these children seek a transfer 
in Cases I), E, F, K, L, M and N, you would not recom-

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Cross



146a

inend the transfer. In Cases G, H and I, you would have 
some question about it? I am sure that is correct. A. I 
did not make any notations.

Q. I was trying to follow you. D, E and F, you said
—481—

they should not be transferred, white or negro, on the 
basis of academic achievement; G, H and I, you said there 
was some question about it, in the shadow area. A. 
Shadow area, that is right. I would not personally, I would 
not transfer any of those.

Q. As to K, L, M and N, you would say they should 
not be transferred? A. No.

* * * * *

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. \  ou recognize, 1 believe, Mr. Wingo, that in every one 
of these cases, based upon your review of the statistics, 
there aie cases of white children in these schools whose 
rating or scoring is lower? A. Oh, yes.

Q. Than that of these applicants? A. Yes.
Q. Would your answer, or would your recommendation 

with lespect to any of these applicants be affected by the
—482—

testimony of the superintendent that there exists in these 
schools at the present levels or a grade within a grade, 
various levels for the superior, the average or the below 
average, the existing conditions. On that basis, would 
your recommendation or your opinion as to the transfer 
ability of any of these students be affected? A. Yes, Mr. 
lleeves. Strike that.

Let me put it this way: That, of course, is a widely 
known fact and has been true of schools ever since public 
schools were started.

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Cross



147a

In order to answer your question, 1 think 1 would have 
to get at the fundamental theory as to why I use a median. 
It seems to me that the school board and superintendent 
faced with an educational problem that is posed for them, 
need to set up in order to hold to present academic stand­
ards, need to set up a plan that would assure them they 
would not lower their academic standards.

Here is the situation in Virginia, it is true throughout 
the South, this I know for Virginia, for forty years it has 
been true, going back to 1916, 1919. The scores for whites 
when the children get above the lower grades, the medians 
for whites will always exceed medians for negroes in grade 
placement or mental ability by at least two to three years, 
as we get above the early grades.

Of course, it cannot be in the first grade, because they 
are starting together. In the high school grades, this has

—483—
been true since 1918 or 1919 as we know of record in the 
white grades, 25 percent for whites is regularly equivalent 
to 75 or SO percent for negroes. That means the lower 
fourth, white is equivalent to lower 75 to 80 percent of 
negro, 75 or up to 80 percent of white is equal to upper 
25 percent of negroes.

In the thirty percent—

The Court: Can you interrupt here? We will take 
a short recess.

(There was a short recess).
The Court: Proceed.
The Witness: As I said, of course, it cannot be 

in the first grade, because they are starting together. 
In the high school, this has been true since 1918 or 
1919, as we know of record in the white grades, the

Alfred L. Wingu—for Defendants—Cross



148a

thirty percent, the 20 percent for whites is regularly 
equal to seventy-five or eighty percent for negroes.

That means that the lower fourth, which is equiva­
lent to the lower 75 to 80 percent of negro or up to 
75 to 80 percent white, is equal to the upper 20 
percent of negroes.

By Mr. Reeves:

Q. The substance of your answer to the last question, 
could you repeat that in detail! Let me see if I understood 
you, in substance you were saying that the gap between 
the negro schools, levels of accomplishment of achievement 
in the negro schools and the white schools has been in

—48 4 -
existence over a period of time? A. Yes.

Q. On the basis of that answer, Mr. Wingo, is there any 
educational value for the negro children in continuing him 
in the inferior level? That is, the schools having the in­
ferior level of achievement and accomplishment? A. For 
the negro child who is very low, 1 think one of the worst 
things, I said this in all honesty and candor, one of the 
worst things that could happen tomorrow would be to 
biing him into a situation where he would find it very 
difficult indeed, to keep pace with the group to which he 
might be assigned.

Q- If the negio child who is very low were brought into 
a situation where he was grouped with a white child who 
was very low, would that be injurious to the child? A. If 
they were on the same level. I am testifying as you under­
stand on the basis of academic and mental ability as far 
as academic achievement is concerned, as mental ability 
is concerned, if the children are near the same level, I can

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Cross



149 a

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Cross

see where there would be no particular advantage or dis­
advantage from that standpoint.

Q. Those that fall within the class of those who are 
questionable, or those who you would not recommend the 
transfer, if there are presently maintained in the white 
schools to which they would be assigned, class groupings, 
or levels, for students with levels in comparison with theirs,

—485—
there would be no reason why they should not be trans­
ferred! A. No, I could not agree with that for this reason:

There is an administrative problem here I recognize is 
difficult for the school board and superintendent. As 1 
understand it, they are concerned about maintaining, lift­
ing if possible, certainly maintaining present academic 
standards.

If they admit negro pupils willy-nilly without any screen­
ing whatsoever, they are going to lower intelligence levels 
and academic levels, if they admit negro pupils without 
any screening whatsoever.

Q. If they admit negro pupils with screening, and as­
sign them to grade levels within the white schools of white 
students who have comparable ratings to theirs, would 
there be any problems in the terms of lowering of academic 
standard of white schools? A. If they admit negro pupils 
who would be consistently above the median, it would not 
low’er it.

Q. If they admit those below the median, assign them 
with white students who are below the median, would there 
be problems? A. Yes, there would. You will have diffi­
culty as a layman understanding statistical problems here.

Q. Let me ask you this: As a matter of fact in this par­
ticular case, how significant would be the statistical prob­
lem in admitting two students into a high school enroll-



150a

inent of 1600, three in a high school enrollment of 1300,
- 4 8 6 -

seven in a high school enrollment of 600, two students in 
a grade school enrollment of 200? A. Statistically, that 
number would not make a great deal of difference. I am 
trying to get to an administrative principle that ought 
to be involved.

If the negroes are admitted, as we know, over a period 
of years, they have scores at the levels now, because they 
aie established by white children. Negro schools are what 
they are because they are established by negro children.

If negioes are admitted indiscriminately because their 
scores aie two or three grades lower, 50 percentile against 
70 percentile, we will immediately begin to lower the aca­
demic standards for the group: that is the administrative 
problem they are faced with.

Q. That administrative problem, if based on statistics, 
would mean a substantial number of negroes under those 
circumstances could never be admitted to white schools, I 
see, never within the foreseeable future? Because as long 
as they remain in the negro schools, these gaps are going 
to continue, are they not? A. No, you are making a gen­
eralization there, I do not think you have any basis for.

Q. Did I understand you to say for thirty or forty years 
these gaps had existed? A. Yes.

—487—
Q. Is there any basis on which you could predict there 

is going to be any change if we continue the separate 
schools? A. No reason whatsoever to think that segrega­
tion makes the difference. You are assuming that.

Q. In other words, the fact these are negro children in 
the negro schools, based upon whatever are the reasons for 
these lower— A. I am not trying to supply the reason, 
hut I am not saying that segregation is it.

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Cross



151a

Q. Certainly, the fact is that the only factor that we now 
know, in terms of this case, that makes the difference, 
between the gap in the negro and the white schools is the 
fact they are negro, and are white; that is all you have 
mentioned. That is all that would be deducible from what 
has been testified. A. No, these scores are the scores the 
children made, of course. What I am trying to say, if 
negroes are admitted without screening, the academic 
standards would be lower, no question about it.

Q. What about admitting whites without screening"? A.
I hey would not be, they are what they are because they 

are whites.
Q. Negroes are what they are because they are negroes? 

A. Yes.
Q. The tact is it is race that represents the present 

ratings? A. Yes.
—488—

Q- If we continue that, those ratings will continue to be 
higher and lower based upon race? A. Yes, and we have 
no reason that mixing will make any difference.

Q. If, as a matter of fact, you are to determine transfers 
on a basis unrelated to race, then there is no reason for 
applying a different standard for the negro and a white 
child, academically? A. Yes, an indiscriminate admission 
of negroes will lower the academic standards. That is a 
statistical fact.

Q. What about a discriminate admission of negroes? A. 
They will stay right where they are.

Q. If you add a white student with low rating to a white 
school, the rating will stay the same? A. Yes.

Q. If you add negro rating to the white school, it would 
change? A. No.

Q. What is the difference? A. We come back to statis­
tical facts. If you have a hundred white children or perhaps

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Cross



152a

10,000, if we have, say, a thousand white children, add 
them to the present enrollments, \vTe do not change because 
the laws of chance will keep them where they are. You see?

—489—
Q. Let’s take 14. A. Excuse me. If we had a thousand, 

on the other hand, a thousand negro children, we do lower 
the academic standards because the chances are there will 
be more lower than the present median than they are 
above. The whites are what they are, you see.

Q. If we add these 14, how significant will be the differ­
ence in the standards of the white schools based on that 
fact? A. These 14 in this number, of course, would not 
make an appreciable difference. But the principle, an un­
sound educational principle, would have been established.

Q. It is an unsound educational principle to separate on 
the basis of race, is it not? A. Not in my judgment. I 
say that on the basis of honesty.

* * * * *
—491—

* * * * *

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Recross

Recross Examination By Mr. Reeves'.
Q. Do I understand the substance of your opinion to be 

that a negro child to be eligible for transfer to one of 
these schools, should be better than 50 percent of the pres­
ent students in the school, in his grade and class, whereas 
you will say that that same standard would not be true of 
a white child? A. You are not expressing it quite pre­
cisely :

If you do not mind, I will say it again, 1 will try to 
make it as I want to say it.

If the negro child, if negro children are not, this is 
assuming statistical treatment has been given, are not at



153a

the median or above, then educational standards will be 
lowered because any indiscriminate admissions, because 
of the differences in the two races, would automatically 
lower the standards.

Q. You say differences in the two races. Scientifically, 
what do you mean? A. Differences with regard to these 
tests as to educational and intelligence tests, of course.

Q. So then, again, the negro child, on the basis of these 
statistical facts, in order not to lower the educational 
standards of the white school, should not be admitted un-

—492—
less he is above the median level? The white child, how­
ever, if below the 50 percent level, or the median level, 
his admission to the white school should not be based upon 
whether or not he is within that lower 50 percent? A. 
For every one that is in the lower 50 percent among the 
whites, there will be one in the upper. We know that.
< Q- So it is the individual child we are talking about. 

So as to the individual child, the standard for the negro 
is he should be median or above; the standard for the 
whites, because of these statistical facts, he need not be 
median or above? A. That is if we may assume, I think 
these are times when we need_

Q. Can you answer that? A. No, it is not a “yes” or 
“no” question.

Q. Let me put it again, to be sure:
Based on your testimony, that you would not recommend 

the transfer of anyone of these students, these 14 students 
whose rating, achievement, or intelligence rating is not 
above the median of the white school— A. No, make it 
“equal to or above.”

Q. Equal to or above? A. Yes, I would not.
Q. You would not recommend him. But you would not

Alfred L. Wingo—for Defendants—Recross



154a l

prescribe the same standard of eligibility, for a white 
child! A. That is right.

— 493—

* * * * *
The Court: Is there rebuttal testimony?
Mr. Reeves: We have one witness.

Whereupon, J ames A. B ayton having been duly sworn 
as a witness for the Plaintiff, was examined and testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination By Mr. Nabrit:
* * * * *

— 494—

Q. Dr. Bayton, will you tell me the difference between 
the concept of mental ability or IQ test and the concept 
of achievement tests? Will you describe that? A. The 
intelligence test or IQ is a measure, attempt to measure 
a person’s capacity for learning something. It is a measure 
of his potential.

If he were exposed to learning opportunity, how well 
would you expect him to accumulate this material.

The Court: Why is it called a quotient, Doctor?
The Witness: A quotient?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: You have two items. It is a frac­

tion. You have two items that go into it, as Mr.
Wingo explained his mental age. He makes over a 
test, really, translated over years and months. |

You kind of stack that up against how old he is 
in terms of years and months, his mental age, if he

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct

i



155a

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct

—495—
is a perfectly normal individual, normal average. 
His mental ability in terms in years and months 
would coincide with his actual years in years and 
months. You make that into a fraction. You get 
the answer of 100. It is a quotient because it is a 
fraction, because it is the relationship between the 
two ages. It is a quotient.

The Court: Is it one point, north-north, as you 
express it?

The Witness: When you give him the test, you 
get a score, which is then translated into so many 
years and so many months such as mental age. Then 
you know how many years and months he actually 
is.

5 ou do the arithmetic, you get an answer. Yon 
come out to 101 points, 29, just as arithmetic, that 
is all.

The point 29, as Mr. Wingo was testifying, that 
does not mean much, because there is a plus or minus 
four or five, something like that, associated with 
what you get in the first instance.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. That plus or minus four or five is the probable area? 
A. It is a decimal. That does not mean anything really.

To get back to the question, an intelligence test then 
must always be considered as a measure of an individual’s 
potential for learning.

For example, if you take somebody who is illiterate out 
in a place where there had never been any school available,

—49G—
he still has an IQ. It would be difficult to measure it, of



156a

course. He still lias a potential for learning. That is 
what the intelligence test measures.

The achievement test is a measure of how much he has 
actually learned, once he has been exposed to instruction. 
These are two different things; of course, they are related 
in a sense with a person’s IQ, all other things being equal.

A person with an IQ of 150, another person with an 
IQ of 50, given the same instruction, you would expect 
that first person would acquire that more rapidly than the 
second. That is the idea here. You must always remember 
the achievement test is measuring how much the individual 
actually has learned.

For example, this could be a point on that. You could 
have an individual who would have an IQ of 150. But if 
for some reason, he had never been exposed to any academic 
training, he could have an achievement score level that 
would be lower than somebody who had an IQ of 75, but 
who had been going to school.

That is merely because of the fact even though he has 
potential for learning, nobody has tried to teach him any­
thing.

If he has not been taught anything, he cannot get much 
of an achievement test.

I think it is important to make a difference between the 
two as to what is involved.

—497—
Q. You have been present during the entire testimony 

today, have you not, Hr. Bayton? A. Yes.
Q. Relating the explanation you have just made to the 

Court to the facts testified today about gaps between in­
struction levels, at the negro and white schools, what con­
clusion would you reach based upon this explanation? A. 
In terms of gaps? Are you talking about IQ?

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



157a

Q. The intelligence level as affecting achievement. A. 
The way I can answer that, I think, is to go back with 
what I have done with this material. Is that permissible?

Q. I will withdraw the question until you discuss the 
individual cases. I would like to ask you one more general 
question:

There was testimony by Mr. Wingo in respect to the 
samples, the manner in which the National norms are de­
rived, so forth.

Would you care to comment about the type of sampling 
used m deriving the norms of these tests? A. I would like 
to prefix this with a statement about something 1 do. As 
I testified in the other cases, 1 am the director of research, 
m a research organization in Philadelphia, which is a sub­
sidiary of the Curtis Publishing Company.

Oui whole business is based upon making surveys and 
studies which go back to this concept of drawing samples.

—498—
It is very nice to refer to something being done on the 

basis of “scientific sample,” but there are still some tech­
nical questions you need to know about the samples to 
know whether it’s scientific or not.

Ihe  first question that is always a fault in determining 
whether a sample is scientific, is just the sheer number of 
cases involved.

For example, you can have a sample of 100,000 cases,
and if it is biased in some other respect in terms of_
Let’s suppose you are taking a sample of the population 
of the United States and you had 100,000 cases but it 
turned out 80 percent of the cases were men, only 20 
percent were women; then this is not a scientific sample 
m spite of the fact you had 100,000 cases.

Q. There is a difference between a random sample or 
selecting sample? A. Another way around, is that all the

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal-Direct



158a

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal Direct

kinds of people who could affect whatever you are mea­
suring must be represented in their proper proportions. 
They must be represented in their proper proportions. If 
you do not have this in your sample, then your sample 
is not scientific, no matter what the numbers are.

Q. Refer to the tests we have here. Go ahead. A. One 
of the things that comes up in these tests, it is very diffi­
cult to know when they say about scientific samplings 
of children, one of the things we know about tests of this 
type, both intelligence tests and achievement tests, is that

—499—
they are heavily influenced by the socio-economic status 
of the child that takes it.

For example, there have been study after study in 
the literature which will show among white children, for 
example, if you give this to thousands of them, you do 
not have to worry about it, that those children whose 
parents are professionals in contrast to those whose parents 
who are managers, you come down to semi-school workers, 
down to laborers, that the average score among the whites 
will sharply go down.

This demonstrates the socio-economic status of the 
child’s background, reflected by the parents’ background, 
is a matter that affects the test scores.

Therefore, in your scientific samples, you have to be 
certain the children you test in the original samples have 
to properly represent in terms of percentages, these back­
grounds.

Otherwise, for example, if a scientific sample should say 
that there should only be five percent of the children 
in professional backgrounds, it turns out in your sample 
that 20 percent of them are from professional backgrounds, 
this means the resulting performance is really too high 
for the average child.



159a

lliat would be if they were all white, even.
Now, what you discover is if you go back to the key 

intelligence test which all the other ones refer back to, 
the Stanford-Binet Test, the 1937 edition, they specifically

—500-
state in the book which describes the standardization, that 
all the children used were white children. They described 
that the children come from different states. They named 
the state where the children come from. They tell you 
how many there are, tell you how many percent were from 
professional parentage backgrounds, how many from man­
agerial-type backgrounds, so on.

They give all that in there. Then they specifically state 
all of these children were white. They further say, if 
they had had the proper proportion of negro children, 
say, if ten percent of the group had been negro children, 
given the way that negroes distribute themselves in occu 
pations, then they would have had to have much higher 
percentage of the children coming from the lower socio­
economic backgrounds than they do have.

If you take white children from lower socio-economic 
backgrounds, increase their numbers, that pulls the average 
down. There is no question about that.

Negroes in this country happen to fall so heavily in 
these low economic backgrounds, if you put them in the 
sample because you want to accommodate them, have it 
in there, that would automatically pull it down because 
of the socio-economic status factor that is in there now.

Knowing this fact, this makes it very difficult.
I have had one professor in clinical psychology say, 

this means if you were giving the test, the negroes were
—501—

not included in the original samples that set up the

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



160a

standards, in one sense, you really do not know wliat 
tlieir score means. But you do have one general idea, that 
their score is most likely an underestimate of what they 
really are like.

It is underestimated because they are being tested on 
standards that are really artificially too high on the av­
erage.

At one course that I had—
Q. Is the clinical practices based on this statement you 

made? A. Sometimes in clinical practice making individ­
ual studies of children, they study a negro child, give him 
an intelligence test, because of this factor being in there, 
they say, maybe the best estimate would be add ten points 
to his IQ no matter what it is.

Say, a negro child tested, as some negro children do, 
they might test IQ and get an IQ of 180. Bven that child 
they might add five to ten points because he was dis­
advantaged in the standardization.

By the same token, if one had an IQ of a 100, the best 
thing you can do is add five or ten points to him; an 
IQ of 50, add five or ten points.

It makes no difference what this score was, the idea 
is, since there were no negroes in the original groups, then 
this performance on the test is bound to be an underesti­
mate.

So this is a general thing in clinical practice. This is
—502—

a judgment matter. Some might decide to do this. Some 
might not. I am telling you what the facts are that lie 
behind the situation.

Q. I was interested in the statement you made, that the 
success, or tests, go back to Stanford-Binet. Will you ex­
plain that? A. There is something else besides standard-

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



161a

ization. There is another technical matter known as 
validation of a test. It gets down to this:

I come in here with a list of questions written down 
on a piece of paper. I say, “this is an intelligence test.” 
i  ou take the position I am from Missouri because I am 
a professor of psychology. That does not make it an in­
telligence test.

You have to demonstrate that this does divide it up 
into that. In this country the accepted test that does this 
test is the Stanford-Binet Test.

There is a more recent edition than 1937, which is more 
recently considered the Standard Intelligence Test for 
Children.

You would be hard put to justify any intelligence test 
if it did not give you basically the same kind of results 
the Stant0 1  d-Binet Test would give, if you gave that

That is the validization of it.
Q. In other words, what you are saying is, or is this 

what you are saying, that if the Otis Quick Scoring Test,
—503—

which is a shorter test, gave you results somewhat dif­
ferent from Stanford-Binet, there has been a question 
about it? A. There would be a question about it. Then 
you would want to know the Otis Quick Scoring Test is 
based on different scoring system than Stanford-Binet. 
You want know’ about the sample of that test, you would 
want to know’ about the sampling of children that is based 
on, first thing I would want to know, however, what dis­
tribution, how “scientific” was that sample you used in 
measuring?

Q. Does the same thing apply to the California test? 
A. It wall apply to my test. The name does not matter 
If it is a test used on a National basis, that supposedly 
gives National norms, then you raise this question.

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



162a

Q. Now, sir, Dr. Bay ton, would you refer to the in­
formation that you have, briefly. I believe that is based 
on the Exhibits in evidence, with respect to these in­
dividual students. I would ask you if you have attempted 
to classify them in any way in your own mind for purposes 
of discussion? A. Yes, I did. I went through the infor­
mation that was available. I divided them up into two 
groups, in terms of bearing primarily in mind the factor 
of their potentials for learning.

In other words, I would place, another point 1 could 
say on this: You have to have some perspective on these 
two different kinds of tests, the intelligence test and 
achievement test.

—504—
In my judgment, I do not think they are of equal im­

portance when you evaluate something. Between these two 
types of tests, the one that should get priority in evalu­
ation of individuals would be his IQ.

That establishes his potential for learning. That is 
basically within him. Matters of circumstance will deter­
mine whether he is given the opportunity to learn any­
thing with his IQ.

I think that the achievement test is of second order of 
importance, in terms of IQ. I place more stress on the 
individual IQ. I made my division on this basis. I come 
up with two groups. I have one group which I say they 
are definitely below average in terms of what you would 
expect in terms of normal, or normal level of functioning.

Then I have another group which I would classify as 
either average or above.

Let me talk to the below average ones, first.
Q. Yes. A. The ones I put in the below average group 

are “D”, “F ”, “H”, “I”, and “N”.

James A. Bay ton—for Plaintiffs Rebuttal Direct



lC3a

As a psychologist, I do not think 1 could defend any 
other placement for those five individuals.

Q. With respect to those, do you have IQ scores for all 
of them? A. Whatever information is available, on all of

—505—
them, 1 do not have IQ scores. Whatever information is 
available, 1 think that I would put them in the below av­
erage group.

Now, however, the question comes up, I suppose, what 
would you do if such a child applied to transfer into an­
other school?

Well, if as was testified earlier, that for a given grade 
in a school, they have some type of a track or grouping 
system in which above average children get one type in­
struction and treatment, below average gets another, they 
have a program to teach the below average children, well, 
I think, if that condition exists within the school, I think 
that answers the question.

If a child, let’s say, if one of these children has an IQ 
of 65, and may have a program for children of IQ’s 
50 to 80, he goes in this particular program. As a matter 
of fact, I think, I would not put a value on it, I think 
there is a little bit of misleading-ness in something that goes 
on.

If you have a three track system, for dividing children 
up into abilities, then you are really engaging into some 
kind of gratuitous argument if you always keep talking 
about the median for the class.

If you keep on talking about this median for a class, 
that has no pertinence if you have got them divided up 
in the first place.

This is something 1 did not think applies on the point.

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



164a

—506—
So I would say about these individuals, they are below 

average. If they have arrangements to handle this kind 
of a child, then I cannot see why this is held against him 
to transfer.

Q. Having heard the testimony of the witnesses for the 
Defendant, here, that there are children in each of these 
schools with lower scores on test achievement or IQ than 
these plaintiffs’, what is your understanding as to the 
arrangement that the school system makes as to accom­
modating high, low and average children? A. It seems to 
me what the school system is saying by having such 
arrangement, they are saying that there are children 
like this, that there are children that exist with these levels 
of intelligence. Since they exist, they are going to come 
to us in appreciable numbers, then we have to make 
arrangements for them.

So, if they have made arrangements for them, they have 
made arrangements for them, period.

Q. That would be true no matter what school they went 
to? A. That is right. They have arrangements to try to 
handle these children to give them the best education 
they have. They either have it or they have not, period.

Q. Go ahead with the others. A. The ones I put in 
average or above groups, average or above are “A”, with 
an IQ of 119, “B” with IQ of 128, “C”, with a reading

—507-
readiness percentile, the 70th percentile which, of course, 
is very high.

Q. Is that percentile figure National or local? A. This 
is based on the National.

Q. Let me interrupt: Are all the percentile rankings 
referred to in the testimony today National percentile?

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



165a

A. This one, I do not have the other sheet, I am certain 
that refers to the National.

The Court: I think that can be agreed, that they 
are all National.

The Witness: All right. That is “C”.

Then, 1 would put in there “L” with an IQ of 110; 
“J ” with an IQ of 107; “G” with an IQ of 104.

I would like to comment on these:
In a sense, I would ask what can a person do? The 

average IQ is 100. This is considered perfectly solidly 
normal. I just cannot see what you can hold against a 
person for having an average, normal IQ.

The Court: Was “G” the last one you mentioned? 
The Witness: “G” was the last I mentioned. “G” 

has 104. I want to comment about these with 100 
and above.

Then 1 would also put “E ” in here with an IQ of 98; 
“N” with an IQ of 93.

Going back to the point I tried to make before, really, 
in a sense, I believe all these negro children’s basic in-

—508—
telligence level is somewhat higher than what these test 
scores show, going back to what I was saying about the 
original standardization problem, and so on.

In a case like this, obviously, I would want to give the 
child the benefit of the doubt. I would give the child the 
benefit of the doubt, add five points to his IQ, boost him 
up. I would go ahead on that basis, put the IQ, even with 
an IQ of 93, in the average or above group.

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



166a

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal-Direct

Remembering, what I said before, the difference between 
the intelligence test and achievement test in that the in­
telligence test measures the individual’s potential to learn, 
the achievement test measures what he actually acquired 
within the opportunity given him to learn.

'Ihis all suggests to me these children in this group had 
been seriously disadvantaged in being given the oppor­
tunity to live up to what they might possibly acquire. This 
comes from some information that is right in these sheets.

If you look at the information they give about these 
schools that the children go to, in other words, you look 
at the information that is in the sheets. You find out that 
Lyles-Crouch School, with a first grade, the reading readi­
ness level was at the 17 percentile, at the National norm.

The second grade, the median IQ in the second grade 
is 83.

The third grade, the median IQ is 87.
—509-

In the fourth grade, the median grade placement is 
3.3, against what should be four.

In the sixth grade, median grade placement is 5.7, against 
what should be six.

Take the Houston School, the first grade, reading readi­
ness has percentile rank for the school that grades in that 
school of eight.

In the second grade, median IQ was 87.
Turn to Parker-Gray. In the ninth grade, reading tests 

shows a median grade placement of 7.3, when it should be 
8.8.

In the tenth grade, Parker-Gray, American Council of 
Education Psychological Examination, percentile rank is 
equal to 11.



167a

These are some indications of things you can pick out 
of the records that are here.

To me, this adds up to the fact that here you have chil­
dren, for example, a child with an IQ of 128, as shown by the 
test, and maybe it is even a little bit higher, here is a child 
with an IQ of 128, who then only has the opportunity to 
learn the kind of material which teachers will be tailoring 
to the average of these classes and these are the kinds of 
people.

I think it is an acceptable principle, that teachers will 
aim their instructional level at the average, or mavbe even

—510—
a little bit below the average of the classes. This means 
then that this child with an IQ of 128 is surrounded in an 
informational climate and knowledge climate at a level way 
below what this child could be acquiring.

If an IQ of 128 means anything, it means this child 
could certainly be acquiring material way beyond something 
that may be a couple of grades below that or pitched at a 
level that a child only has an “IQ” of 80 could acquire.

If the intelligence test has any meaning, it means a child 
with 128 IQ is supposed to learn more and better than a 
child with an IQ of 80.

If the instruction in the class is pitched to the child of 
an IQ of 83, then this child of 128 is not being given the 
material it could acquire and utilize.

that is just a fact. Otherwise, the IQ does not mean 
anything if that is not true.

I have a couple of cases here for example. You take 
Case C; Here is a child who is applying for the first grade. 
This child’s reading readiness test is at the seventieth 
percentile. This means in the National basis, there are only 
30 percent of the children on a National basis that have a 
higher level of reading readiness than she has.

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



168a

What class is she in ? She is in a class in which the read­
ing readiness level is at the 17 percentile, at 17 percentile. 
Here is a child, 1 do not think anybody can argue, is con-

—511-
si der ably above the average in the potential to learn how 
to read, considerably above. I do not think anybody can 
defend that, if she is at the 70th percentile, if you assume 
the class is at the 17th percentile, the teacher will work to 
try to instruct that class at that level, the 17th percentile.

What is this child going to learn! She will be damaged 
by this trying to be instructed. She knew all that before 
she came to school in the first place. She is sitting around 
with some ears. This will continue. She will not be learn­
ing. This is a reading readiness test. She will not be learn­
ing as readily as she could learn how to read because the 
learning is at the other end of the point.

Another interesting thing is that these average children 
are not getting enough as they could with their IQ’s. “J ” 
has an IQ of 107. 1 heard it implied a person with an IQ 
of 100, there is something wrong with him. There is nothing 
wrong with him, he is perfectly right on the beam, normal.

His reading ability by test is 7.7. The class he is in, 
the average is 7.3. Whereas, if he were doing as he should 
do, the norm indicates he should be at 8.8 level.

Now, we have another case, “N” with an IQ of 93. The 
reading test shows 7.3. The class he is in is 7.3 in con­
trast to the norm which should be 8.8.

I would at least raise a question as to whether or not 
these two cases, “J ” and “N” are not reflecting just what is

- 5 1 2 -
going on. They are learning what they are being exposed 
to.

The class average is 7.3. This apparently reflects what 
the teacher is teaching the children, and what they are able 
to acquire, the 7.3.

James A. Bayton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct



169a

So this boy in a sense unless he is getting some good 
stimulation outside, you would not expect him to be in a 
class of 7.3. He is expecting to learn what the teachers are 
teaching him.

I suggest this is pitched at the level, the class level at 
7.3 what is his score, 7.7. The other boy, the class level 
is at 7.3, his score is 7.3. That, to me, at least raises a ques­
tion as to whether or not these two cases are simply re­
flecting what they are being exposed to, that if they had 
been exposed to higher level materials, then they would be 
up to higher levels.

As I said before, you do not learn through osmosis. You 
have to have somebody around giving you the material, ex­
posing you to these things, stimulating you and so forth; 
otherwise, you do not get it.

If that were true, there would not be any educational 
systems.

James A. Bay ton—for Plaintiffs—Rebuttal—Direct

Mr. Nabrit: 1 have no further questions.
The Court: Doctor, according to my notes, I did 

not catch your classification of “K”. The average 
or above?

The Witness: I have one group I call average or
—513—

above, with an IQ of 100, 1 put him in that group. 
The Court: “K” is in that group ?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: What was his IQ ?
The Witness: 100.
As I said, I do not know what we are coming to 

if a person with an IQ of 100 is considered as having 
something wrong with him.

* * * * *



170a

- 1 9 8 -
Findings o f Fact and Conclusions of Law

I n t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  E astern D istrict  of V irginia  

At Alexandria

[ same t it l e ]

The administrative action of the School Board of the 
City of Alexandria, Virginia in declining the applications 
of 14 pupils for admission or transfer to certain schools 
of the city has been reviewed with the following results:

(1) Pupils L, M and N, refused admittance to George 
Washington High School because their present school, 
Parker-Gray High, is logically their school by reason of 
its proximity to their homes, are bound by this determina­
tion of the Board, for it is not without substantial evidence 
to support i t ;

(2) I) and F, refused admission to Patrick Henry or 
Ramsay School for academic deficiency, are bound by this 
determination for the same reason; but

(3) The remaining nine applicants should be admitted to 
the schools they requested, the evidence not giving a basis, 
other than race, for their rejection.

The criteria formulated and applied by the Board in
—199—

its ascertainments have been judged by the court in the light 
of the available decisional law, especially of the Alabama 
three-judge decision in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Board 
of Education, 162 F. Supp. 372, 384, affirmed November 24,



171a

1958, 358 U. S. 101, by the Supreme Court. The grounds 
of the present rulings upon each of the applications in 
suit follow, with the court testing both the validity of the 
factors employed by the Board and the adequacy of the 
evidence before it. Its factors were: (1) “Relation of resi­
dence location of the pupil with reference to schools, or 
school, applied for.” ; (2) “State of enrollment conditions 
in the schools concerned in any case, or cases, under dis­
cussion.” ; (3) “Academic achievement and mental capacity 
as these factors enter into conclusions on requests for 
entry or transfer.” ; (4) “Factors involving the health and/ 
or well-being of the applicant which may have a bearing on 
the request from him.” ; (5) “Any factors which might 
affect the mental or emotional stability of the applicant 
so much as to become pertinent in placement determina­
tions.” ; and (6) “Is the applicant a bona fide resident of 
the city and actually entitled to attend school here.” 

Factors 4 and 6, supra, were not used by the Board at all. 
Mental or emotional stability, factor 5, invoked by the 
Board in every case, has been discarded by the court 
throughout, for under the evidence No. 5 is not apposite 
to any of the applications. This leaves for consideration 
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 pertaining, respectively, to residence-school 
locations, school building capacities and academic-mental 
attainments.

— 200—

1(a) Pupils L, M and N Are Barred by 
Geographical Locations

Students L, M and N were excluded on the geographical 
criterion. They reside in southeast Alexandria, immedi­
ately below Wolfe Street and just east of St, Asaph Street. 
Presently students in the Parker-Gray High School, they 
petitioned for George Washington High School. The lat-

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



172a

ter is slightly farther from their homes than is Parker- 
Gray, and is separated from Parker-Gray by the main line 
of the railroads splitting the city and running between 
Washington and the South, as well as by a part of the 
Potomac Railroad Yards. Parker-Gray is on the east side, 
that nearer the petitioners’ residences. George Washing­
ton, to the west, is readily accessible by way of a street 
underpass.

As no difference in educational facilities between the 
schools appears, it cannot be said that in assigning these 
pupils to Parker-Gray, rather than to George Washington, 
the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously. This conclu­
sion is not affected by the well-known fact that Parker- 
Gray has always been a Negro school and George Washing­
ton has not previously received Negro students. The ruling 
of the Board will not be disturbed.

1(b) A, B, C, D, E, F and K Cannot Be Barred 
on Geographical Criteria

A, B, C, D, E, F and K live on Lincolnia Road and 
Stevenson Avenue. They are in the elementary grades at 
Lyles-Crouch School; they wish to enter Patrick Henry 
School. With their residences in the very extreme south­
west corner of the city and Lyles-Crouch in the very south-

— 201-

east corner of the city, school attendance requires travel 
of several miles for these students. On the other hand, 
Patrick Henry is well to the west of the center of the city 
and at a very much shorter distance from these applicants. 
Ramsay School, just completed in September 1958, is even 
closer. In the circumstances Criteria 1 cannot be inter­
posed by the Board to bar these children from Patrick 
Henry or Ramsay.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



173a

II. A, B, C, I), E, F , 1, ,J and K Cannot Be 
Barred for Overcrowding

Nine children were refused admissions to Ramsay and 
Patrick Henry elementary schools and to Hammond High 
School on the basis of overcrowding. Seven of these would 
be pupils in Ramsay or Patrick Henry and two in Ham­
mond. In these school buildings the ratio of enrollment to 
capacity is not so great as to justify any exclusion for the 
proposed slight increase. The adverse ruling of the Board 
cannot stand.

III. D and F Can, But E, G, H, I, J  and K  Cannot, 
Be Excluded for Academic Deficiency

Eight of the minor plaintiffs failed of admission on the 
test of academic achievement or mental capacity. With the 
exception of D and F, that determination must be over­
turned.

D is in the fifth grade at Lyles-Crouch School and sought 
entrance to Patrick Henry or Ramsay. His grade place­
ment is scored at 3.1 (3 grade, 1 month) on the California 
Achievement Test. The median at Patrick Henry is 4.9. 
The lowest grade placement at Patrick Henry is 3.3. The 
median at Ramsay is 5.4 and the lowest placement is 3.0. 
On the other hand, the median at Lyles-Crouch is 3.3 with 
the lowest at 1.1. This recital shows that the Board was

— 202—

not without reason in refusing to remove Otis from Lyles- 
Crouch to either Patrick Henry or Ramsay.

The same is true of second-grader F, with an l.Q. of 
81 and a mental age of 5 years, 9 months, against a chron­
ological age of 7 years, 4 months. She is below both the 
median l.Q. and mental age in Lyles-Crouch, her present

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



174a

school, and well below Patrick Henry’s median I.Q. of 103 
and mental age of 7 years 8 months, as well as Ramsay’s 
median I.Q. of 111 and mental age of 8 years, 5 months.

Summary

Kathryn C. Turner, Sandra Turner, Gerald Turner, 
Jessie Mae Jones and Sarah A. Ragland should be ad­
mitted either to Patrick Henry or Ramsay school, as the 
Board may select; James E. Lomax and Margaret 1. Lomax 
should be admitted to the Theodore Ficklin School; and 
Patsy Ragland and James Ragland should be admitted to 
Hammond High School.

Effective Date
The court has studied the suggestion of the defendants’ 

counsel that, if any of the 14 applications were granted by 
the court, the admissions be deferred until the commence­
ment in September of the 1959-60 session. This delay cannot 
be allowed, for the reason that, aside from a consideration 
of the rights of the plaintiffs, a postponement from one 
session to another, as distinguished from one semester to 
another in the same session, would involve many problems. 
Among others, it would mean a wholly new review, admin­
istrative and possibly judicial, of the qualifications of all 
the applicants here, because of their completion of one

—203-
grade and entrance into another in the interval.

The admissions now found to be required should be ef­
fectuated at the opening of the several schools on the morn­
ing of Tuesday, February 10,1959.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

February 4, 1959.

A lbert  V. B ryan 
United States District Judge



175a

Order on Motion for Further Relief

I n t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F or t h e  E astern D istrict  of V irginia  

At Alexandria

- 2 0 4 -

[ sam e  title]

Upon consideration of the motion of the plaintiff's for 
further relief, filed January 28, 1959, the evidence and 
counsel’s arguments thereon, it is by the court, on its state­
ment of findings of facts and conclusions of law this day 
filed,

O rdered that the defendants, their officers, agents and 
employees, do not refuse admission and enrollment of plain­
tiffs Kathryn C. Turner, Sandra Turner, Gerald Turner, 
Jessie Mae Jones and Sarah A. Ragland in either Patrick 
Henry School or Ramsay School; plaintiffs James E. Lomax 
and Margaret I. Lomax in Theodore Ficklin School; and 
plaintiffs Patsy Ragland and James Ragland in Hammond 
High School, all at the opening of said schools on the morn­
ing of Tuesday, February 10, 1959.

February 4, 1959.

A lbert V . B ryan 
United States District Judge



176a

— 209a—
Amended Order on Motion for Further Relief

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F or t h e  E astern D istrict  of V irginia  

At Alexandria

[ same t it l e }

Upon consideration of the motion of the plaintiffs to 
amend the order entered February 4, 1959 on the motion 
tor further relief, filed January 29, 1959, the defendants 
interposing no objection to the amendment, it is by the 
court, on its statement of findings of facts and conclusions 
of law filed February 4, 1959.

Ordered that said order of February 4, 1959 be amended 
by adding thereto the following: that the plaintiffs’ motion 
for further relief be and it hereby is denied as to Otis E. 
Jones and Betty Jo Jones, infants, and their mother and 
next friend, Leora Jones, Theodosia Hundley and Pearl 
Hundley, infants, and their mother and next friend Blois 
Hundley; and Timothy Calhoun Taylor, infant, and his 
mother and next friend, Ollie C. Taylor.

A lbert  V. B ryan 
United States District Judge

April 15th, 1959.
A True Copy Teste
W alkley  E. J ohnson

Clerk
By F lorence W. B urgess 

Deputy Clerk



47a

Q. You stated in various papers that you filed here in 
court that principals and various staff members had various 
meetings with Negro parents? A. Yes.

Q. Now, are you representing to the Court that you 
know of your own knowledge that they advised these Ne­
gro parents—let me ask you this. These were Negro parents

—71—
of children who were assigned to white zones, weren’t they, 
that they had these conferences with? A. We requested 
them to meet with us prior to the opening of school the 
first year.

Q. Did you request the parents of Negro children who 
were assigned to Negro schools to meet with you, to tell 
them about this discretionary power that you were exer­
cising? A. I didn’t meet with—

Q. Did you request any parents of white children who 
resided in zones of white schools to meet with you so you 
could tell them that they had a right to transfer—to ask 
you to let them transfer to the Negro schools? A. No, I 
didn’t. The question or the point you are making is not 
germane, Mr. Williams, because the Negro parents that 
already had the right to go to that school by the zone, 
they didn’t need to make any request to go to it, they were 
there.

Q. What I asked you about, and I wanted to make sure 
you knew what you were answering, did you have any 
meetings with Negro parents of Negro children who under 
your unitary zoning were assigned to Negro or formerly 
Negro schools, did you advise them that under this 2-i— 
A. No, I was meeting with parents of Negro children who 
had the right to go to a new school because of the change 
in zoning.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



48a

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross

—72—
Q. And actually those were the only parents you met 

with, wasn’t it? A. Surely.
Q. You did not meet with any individual parents of any 

white children who were zoned to a Negro school, did you? 
A. No.

Q. You never let it be known through the PTA that 
those children could automatically be transferred— A. I 
never let anything be known through a PTA pertaining 
to this.

Q. How did they all get automatically transferred back 
to the white schools? A. They came to my office, they 
made the request, they stayed out of school and the visiting 
teachers brought them in, they came in for one reason 
or another.

Q. The visiting teachers brought all of these parents in, 
in a group? A. No, we would find that a child was not 
attending school. Where is he, why isn’t he? We would 
send the visiting teachers for them, and some of these cases 
drifted along for four and five weeks, trying to get them 
located and get them in school. I would meet with them in 
conference by individual parents.

Q. Hadn’t you notified these white parents that their 
children were assigned to Negro schools? A. Yes, we

—73—
had, we had done everything we knew to do.

Q. Except meet with them like you did with the Negro 
parents? A. Yes. We had done everything we knew, 
though, to make it knowledgable to them as to where they 
were supposed to go to school.

Q. And what did that consist of, Dr. Carmichael? A. 
Publishing it in the paper. If I’m not mistaken we printed



49a

some leaflets and so on and distributed them from the 
schools.

Q. You didn’t send individual notices to them? A. I 
think I did, yes.

Q. I want you to state positively? A. I cannot state 
positively that I did.

Q. All right. Now, can you state how many Negro 
children would be attending the schools if you desegregated 
all your high schools next fall? A. No, I can’t.

Q. Do you have any approximate idea? A. No, sir. 
There is no way you could tell that, because there are 
no zones for them.

Q. Well, at least thus far you say you had no applica­
tions from Negroes to attend schools outside their zones? 
A. I ’ve had none that qualified. I ’ve had an application 
for a Negro child to attend a grade that was not yet

— 74—

desegregated. That to me does not apply.
Q. Then you have had some applications, then, from—at 

least one application. Who was that child, do you know? 
A. The Mapp child, the defendant in this case.

Q. Now, his child was zoned for a Negro school, is that 
right? A. Yes.

Q. And she made application to go to a white school? 
A. She made application to go to a school that had not 
yet been desegregated. As I recall, the application was to 
go either to Brainerd Junior High School or to Brainerd 
High School, neither of these schools were desegregated 
yet.

Q. What school is she attending? A. She’s at River­
side Junior High School and/or Riverside Senior High 
School, if I ’m not mistaken.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



50a

Q. Have you invariably denied and have denied the 
request of Negro children to go to—for any assignment 
which is outside the scope of this immediate plan? A. I 
would, yes. I’m obligated to do that by the policies of the 
board of education.

Q. You’re obligated to do that. The only authority that 
you have ever exercised under this 2-i has been toward 
segregation, hasn’t it? A. No, sir, I don’t think so.

Q. Well, what authority have you exercised under that 
2-i that has tended to eliminate segregation? A. I don’t

—7 5 -
recall any, because I don’t interpret 2-i to have any mean­
ing with regard to segregation or desegregation.

Q. But you have used it with the effect of retaining 
segregation? A. Only the second part of it on continuing 
school. The other part, I have not used it in that direction.

Q. Except the first year? A. Yes, sir. I didn’t inter­
pret it that I used it that way the first year.

Q. The first year you were just using racial minority 
transfers, is that right? A. No, sir, I was using the judg­
ment of what was good for this child, also.

Q. Sir? A. I was using my best judgment with regard 
to what might be good for a child, also.

Q. But your judgment, Dr. Carmichael, was that it was 
best for every white child zoned for a Negro school to leave 
that school and go to a white school? A. No, I don’t think 
my judgment was that.

Q. At least that was the result of your judgment, wasn’t 
it? A. Yes.

Q. When was Mr. Mapp’s child, when did he make ap­
plication for transfer? A. During the 1963-64 school year,

—76—
as I recall. I don’t think it was this school year.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



51a

Q. So that his child then will be in the eighth grade 
next year? A. I don’t know which grade his child is in.

Q. You don’t know what grade? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, you said she was in the seventh grade, didn’t 

you? A. No, sir, I didn’t.
Q. I thought you said she made application for a grade 

above the plan? A. She did.
Q. She made application for admission to the seventh 

grade? A. No, sir, not that 1 know of. I don’t recall. You 
can make application for a grade above the plan that isn’t 
the seventh grade. The eighth grade is above the plan. 
I don’t recall which grade she was in. As I recall, we had 
both a junior high school student and a senior high school 
student, but I do not know their grades.

Q. Let’s suppose that she is in the seventh grade— A. 
This year?

Q. —of course that will be desegregated— A. Next 
year.

—77—
Q. Next year? So that next year she will be in— A. 

The eighth grade, yes, sir.
Q. And then the eighth and ninth will be desegregated 

the following year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So the effect of your ruling will be that she will be re­

quired to attend a segregated school in the first two years 
of her junior high school education, but then the third year 
she may transfer to another school under your desegrega­
tion plan? A. 1 would like you to change it, it is not the 
effect of my ruling.

Q. Under the effect of the desegregation plan which has 
been approved by the Court. All right. Now, Dr. Car­
michael, would you explain to the Court how this disruption 
of this child’s junior high school education necessitated, if

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



52a

she desires to enjoy her constitutional rights, can be 
squared with your contention regarding leaving the child 
in the same school she has attended, and that that is the 
basis for mass transfer of all these white children out of 
Negro schools and vice versa? A. I think it is generally 
wise and sound for a child to continue through the school 
in which they are enrolled if at all possible. I think this gets 
more important as you move to the junior and senior high 
school levels, perhaps, than it is in elementary. It all de-

—78—
pends upon how that youngster’s program has shaped up, 
how many credits they have won and they have earned and 
this sort of thing. It’s an individual matter. In many in­
stances, if I were a parent I would probably leave the child 
through that school because a child gains certain recogni­
tion in a school that mean an awful lot to his education. 
But, again, it’s individual parents prerogative. There is a 
clean break between the junior high level and the senior 
high level and this is not involved because the child in all 
likelihood is going to change schools anyway. This is quite 
different, in my opinion, than changing between seventh 
and eighth grade or eighth grade and ninth grade. But, it 
is the prerogative of a parent.

Q. But there are and have been and continuing now large 
numbers of transfers being allowed on this basis that the 
child should remain in the same school. It is educationally 
sound to allow him to remain in the same school? A. Sir, 
I would not, and I don’t believe anyone would agree with 
you that there are large numbers and mass transfers being 
allowed. There is a reasonably small number, very small 
number.

Q. That is caused by the small number of white children 
in your Negro school zones, Dr. Carmichael? A. If I am

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



53a

not mistaken, there are probably more transfers allowed 
under that which are not based on race than are based on

—7 9 -
race. I have cited for you the 45 cases that are based on 
race which grew out of the Clara Carpenter—old Dickinson 
Junior High School case.

Q. Just this year, though, in one school, was it the Avon­
dale—East Fifth, where you had 80 whites, you first said 
105 and then you came down to 80, you had 80 whites who 
lived in that zone and that only 35 or 45 are actually attend­
ing there, you said the other 35 or 40 were transferred to 
Glenwood or some white school over here, some formerly 
white school, under this paragraph? A. Mr. Williams, of 
those 45, 31 of them are junior high school students and 
schools have not been desegregated at the junior high level 
yet, specifically, as is shown by the data, there are seven 
elementary children going to Glenwood and seven going to 
Avondale. That’s in the report.

Q. This is a desegregated school ,isn’t it? A. Which 
school ?

Q. East Fifth Street? A. Yes, it is.
Q. I thought you transferred all the Negro junior high 

school students out to Riverside? A. Yes.
Q. And you transferred all the white— A. Out to 

Hardy.
Q. Out to Hardy? A. And of this 45 that is being trans-

—80—
ferred out there, 31 of them are junior high, 14 are ele­
mentary.

Q. But as fast as the provisions of the plan reach them, 
they will also have available to them 2-i, because they have 
been treated just as you did East Fifth, they have been as­
signed to a white school? A. These that are in junior high

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



54a

would have that prerogative, the elementary ones close this 
year, because this is the end of the grade.

Q. It still works that way? A. It has the chance to work 
that way on 31 pupils presently enrolled in Hardy Junior 
High School. A third of those will graduate from the 
junior high this year and it would actually start applying 
to 18 to 20 students.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, what administrative factors would 
prevent the board of education from desegregating all the 
schools next September ! A. I would like to take consider­
able time to discuss this question. We, as I have already 
indicated, have begun the discussions, the attempts to ar­
range and talk with patrons in some junior high schools 
where there is tremendous and great concern with problems 
with regard to the desegregation of them next year. We en­
counter the same kind of feeling with regard to broader 
zones of students that we’ve encountered in the beginning 
of any school. This is the first instance for some children

— 81-

being in a desegregated school, in that their junior high 
schools will have Negroes in them, whereas their elemen­
tary schools may have had no Negro children in them. 
There are instances of this sort. The continuation of the 
Negro children into the junior high schools in terms of in­
structional programs is a little different from, a little more 
difficult, really, to make adjustments to the junior high 
school level even than it has been at the elementary level, 
and this has been exceedingly difficult, and we’ve spent 
tremendous time and money on it, in that junior high 
schools are more nearly departmentalized, secondary 
schools start holding to a fixed standard regardless of the 
ability of the children, and are almost inflexible in adjusting 
to it. So, we got, in the area of instruction, the area of

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



55a

counseling and guidance, the adjustment of instructional 
level to students in a proper way. We’ve got a tremendous 
problem in adjusting to children that go there. Beyond 
this, I think that our areas, our responsibilities are greatly 
increased in the area of guidance and counseling with chil­
dren, both races, about their performance and participa­
tion in the individual schools. This is our experience based 
upon what we have done the past three years, and based 
now upon rather careful studies of the kinds of problems 
we encounter, with regard to our teachers and students and 
the adjustment of instruction to them. I’m not talking 
about my projection, now, I’m talking about our actual

— 82-

experience with it and our survey and study of it by 
experts and consultants, which creates a problem differ­
ent from and greater than that which we had really an­
ticipated and that which we had—were prepared to work 
with. It is these kinds of things that consume my time, 
the time of the staff, to a high degree, and the kinds of 
things that I would represent in reaction to the question 
that you asked.

Q. The problems that you are talking about, the major 
problems that you are talking about center around the 
problem of adjustment, is that correct? A. Partially.

Q. Well, your Honor, one of these days I ’m going to get 
a superintendent to say “Wholly” when I ask him a ques­
tion like that. Tell me what problems other than these 
problems? A. Did you mean social adjustment?

Q. Well, that’s what you were talking about? A. No, it 
isn’t.

Q. With regard to school buildings, I think you said that 
none of the buildings are over-crowded? A. There would 
be no problem in terms of capacities of buildings.

Q. All right, with regard to school transportation, you

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



56a

have no problems, because if you accelerate you get rid of 
the problem of transporting these white junior high school 
children from the East Fifth Street area— A. This would

—83—
not affect that.

Q. Incidentally, you are transporting those children, 
aren’t you? A. Yes, we are.

Q. Free transportation? A. Yes, we are.
Q. How far do they travel? A. I t’s approximately four, 

four and a half miles over there.
Q. Now, the Negro junior high school children living in 

that same area have to go to Riverside? A. Yes, some of 
them.

Q. How far is Riverside? A. Approximately the same 
distance.

Q. Do you furnish them free transportation? A. No.
Q. Why do you have that differential? A. Because we 

didn’t close their school. We closed the school of the other 
group.

Q. I see. A. That was action taken in 1958-59.
Q. You closed the school for these white children which 

was in the same locality, and they therefore get free trans­
portation four and a half miles to the white school, but the 
Negro children for whom you eliminated the junior high—

—84—
A. That doesn’t apply, the department had nothing to do 
with it.

Q. Well, they were attending junior high school at East 
Fifth? A. Yes, but East Fifth Junior High is about three 
blocks from Riverside Junior High School, so that if you 
closed East Fifth Junior High you didn’t create a transpor­
tation problem, to go three blocks over to Riverside Junior 
High.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



57a

Q. But they actually are going about the same distance? 
A. No, they aren’t, they are within three blocks of the 
junior high school. I t’s the Negro children who live out 
near Hardy that are coming back to Riverside that are 
traveling this distance.

Q. Oh, I see. But they don’t get transportation? A. No, 
sir. They moved there by choice, the board of education did 
not have anything to do with that.

Q. Now, you have no problem of drawing zone lines be­
cause your zone lines are drawn because of residential 
factors? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And your transfer policies is going to be at a mini­
mum in terms of numbers, isn’t it? A. It would not be a 
minimum—

Q. It wouldn’t be unmanageable in terms of numbers, is 
it? A. I think it is.

—85—
Q. Why? A. I’ve tried to tell you.
Q. Well, I didn’t understand, you go on? A. All right, 

I’ll take one school situation in which the kind of thing you 
are talking about would mean approximately 300 Negro 
children. I have already spent three sessions with people in 
this particular community trying to make the adjustment to 
approximately a third that number. This group’s concern 
is not that there will or will not be desegregation, they are 
prepared for that. They are concerned about what happens 
to their community in terms of the number of white children 
they are going to lose. They are much more positive about 
wanting to maintain their community and keep it a strong 
community than are some desegregationists, but if they are 
going to lose 200 whites, gain 300 Negro, as this transpires 
rapidly and no time for adjustment is made in the school, 
this is a great concern of theirs, and it is a concern to me

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



58a

because it will determine in large measure the quality of 
this school. Beyond that, I have worked already with try­
ing to make staff adjustments to the teaching of Negro 
children. This has required endless time and expenditures 
of money, and we have been able to do it in a reasonable 
way, up to this point. We cannot do it on a major scale. 
These are difficult things to do, I ’ve got the reports here 
and the material from tapes with individual teachers to 
observations by consultants, by working with them myself

— 86—

personally and all of my staff, to account for the time that 
it has taken, and the kinds of things that have to be done in 
order to make the kind of adjustment we’ve made to this 
point, and the kind of adjustment that I thought ought to 
be made in such situations.

Q. Now, Dr. Carmichael, when you said the people in the 
community didn’t want the community to sustain the loss 
by virtue of the white people moving out of the community, 
you are referring to white people in the community! A. 
Yes, I am.

Q. Now, as a matter of fact, that is actually what has 
happened under—in the past three years under the gradual 
plan you have! A. It happened in this one—

Q. It happened in the Clara Carpenter area! A. That 
didn’t have any effect at Clara Carpenter. Clara Carpenter 
was changed before desegregation started.

Q. Well, this desegregation suit had been filed, hadn’t it! 
This suit was filed in 1960, wasn’t it! A. Yes.

Q. And it happened in the East Fifth Street area, did it 
not, sir! A. I can’t associate anything that has happened 
in the East Fifth Street area with what you are talking 
about.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



59a

Q. You’re saying that white people are not moving out
—87—

and have not moved out of the East Fifth Street area? 
A. They have been moving out over a long period of time 
but it has never been related or associated necessarily with 
desegregation.

Q. Let me see if I can, by getting some facts, demon­
strate this. In the Avondale School, how many white 
children did you have in that school? A. Approximately 
400.

Q. How many have you got there now? A. 28.
Q. Now, how many other areas do you have like that? 

A. No other.
Q. Well, you’ve got another school involved where some­

thing similar to that happened, have you? A. Nothing 
similar.

Q. What about Glenwood? A. Not similar.
Q. When this suit was tiled, how many white students 

did you have in Glenwood? A. About 168.
Q. How many do you have now? A. About 100.
Q. So, as a matter of fact, one would have to conclude 

that the gradual nature of your plan has not had much 
effect in helping this desire on the part of the white com-

— 88—

munity to keep the community intact? A. No, but the con­
ditions three years ago and four years ago and now are 
not the same.

Q. Well, did the number of white children at Glenwood 
and Avondale decrease between last year and this year? 
A. Slightly. Specifically at Avondale and slightly at Glen­
wood.

Q. And, as a matter of fact, a logical conclusion would

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



sjooqos ojiqAv oqj puajjB [ |i a  oija\  soo-iSo^q jo  sj.oqum u oqj 
oSiiBqo oj joodxo itOiC A\oq u itqdxo  noA pjnoAY ‘p o M •£)

•sjequinu
qBUis [BiipB.iS jo  oobj oqj ui jno  S uiaoui jo u  ‘s.ioquinu 
oS-iiq jo  oobj oq j ui jn o  paAoui ^ o q j s i ‘noX o j oquiu oj 
S u ia jj  put; ‘S u iqura  u i j  jb ijj ju io d  oq j jng£ -o.iojoq .iboX oqj 
e jo q j  0.IOUI puq o ^ i  y  — sajiqAY o.ioui p u q  n o i  ‘p o M '5

•j is  ‘o^j y  ^pajuSouSosap
noX ju q j sjooqos jbu i§ ijo  oqj jo  auo j 4usba\  ojBpuoA y (*) 
•ssjiqAV c g j  ‘soo.iSojq egg qjiAY pauodo  j i  ‘t9-£9* ‘-moiC Jsbj 
pauodo  jooqog o jupuoA y  oqj u aq,y\ -suibittim  m j\[ ‘.iBOiC ouo 
u i p o uodduq  j i  ‘s.ibo^  oo.iqj u i p o u o d d u q  jb ijj S u iq jau io s  
jo u  si j j  y  — ojBiibopB ub jou  si s.iBOiC oo.iqj ‘po^Y ‘5

‘OSBO OJBllbopB UB

— 68—

oabij oav q u iq j j (uoj> £ osiiBooq ji so jB .ijsuoraap  ji  q u iq j 
J,uop  j  ‘ojq y  — souoz aso q j jo jn o  oaoui oj popuoj oabij 
uo.ipjiqo ojtijai e q j jb ijj ‘jobijotui.ib q  u q  ‘jou ji saop  ‘ojb.ijs  
-uom op o j pu o j saop  j i  jb ijj jjb jo ssojp.iB Soj ‘qo^Y '()

•XjpidB.i oaboj oj ponuijuoo oabij i£oqj j>ub 
‘SuiuuiSaq oqj uio.ij Xji.iouiiu b ui ojoay uajpqqo ojiijai oq^ 
•uajppqo o.i.8 ojq jo sjaquinu oS.ibj qjpw jooqos r? jo  uoijB.mjBS 
jjtavs .moX jo ‘jo Aiouq ppioAv j  ojduiBxa jsoq oqj sbai siqq, 
•uuSoq uoijBSo.iSasop oqj oiuij oqj jb ‘sajiqm egj uBqj o.ioui 
jou o.ioAv a.ioqj jbijj uavoujj sbav ji o.ioijay iCjiunuiuioo b 
oJiii OIUIJ 0 110  jb uo.ippqo o.iSo^q ggg sba\  siq j, qBnpB.ig 
jopisuoo j(iqqn0 A\ x ‘aiBpuoAy .ioj jnoqB S uijjjbj o.ib n o i  
Suiqj jo puiq oqj juqj tiOi£ oj jno juiod pjnoAV j  ‘s iu B ip i^  
• m  'jou pjnoM x ‘-ns ‘ojq y  i ubo Xoqj sb jsbj sb jootps 

oaSajq oqj jo jno joS uo.ippqo ajiipu. ojiijai sjq.8 1.1 uioqj 
SuiiCoCuo uio.ij uo.ippqo oa§o^[ ouios daoq oj ouiij tioX oaiS 
°J s! ip si saop utqd jBiipB.iS oqj jbijav jbijj ‘siqj oq

sso.ij— SjuvpuoJjQ jo/ — p v ip im x v j  fiuusg

B09



61a

by waiting? How will time affect the number? A. \ don’t 
think it is a major issue, that is not of the greatest con­
cern to me, but I think it is appropriate for you to reason 
that you will have larger numbers in a case as severe as 
the one we are trying to discuss here. You will have 
larger numbers of Negro children remaining and staying 
as a part of that school indefinitely, as opposed to having 
larger numbers of them exit from the school immediately. 
This is your biggest problem in terms of even doing the

—9 0 -
kind of thing you are most interested in doing.

Q. Well, I am only interested in complete compliance 
with the constitutional requirements, Dr. Carmichael. Let 
me get off that subject for a moment. Your point about 
the fact of your having to have guidance counselors and 
the matter of adjustment, are you familiar with the Mem­
phis school system? A. Not very well.

Q. Well, that is more or less in the same kind, or at 
least in a similar kind of locality as this, is it not? That 
is in southwest Tennessee, next to Mississippi, this in 
southeastern Tennessee, next to Georgia and Alabama? 
A. There’s a lot of difference between Georgia and Mis­
sissippi and there is a lot of difference in east Tennessee 
and west Tennessee.

Q. All right. Were you aware that the Memphis school 
system has over 110,000 pupils in it? A. Yes, sir, I am. 
And I am aware that they have fewer Negro students in 
all-white schools than we have.

Q. Are you aware that the proportion of Negroes to the 
population in Memphis is greater than it is here— A. I 
don’t believe it is, what is it?

Q. I t’s about 40 or 45 per cent. A. Ours is 45.5.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—-Cross



62a

Q. Then it’s about the same. Did you know that the 
Memphis school system has been ordered to desegregate

- 9 1 -
all junior highs in ’65 and all high schools in ’66? A. I ’ve 
heard it, I didn’t remember exactly which steps were to be 
taken.

Q. You feel like the Chattanooga school system, which 
is about as third as big, takes more time for you to effect 
the necessary—employ the necessary guidance counselors 
and take the necessary administrative steps to desegregate? 
A. No, sir, Mr. Williams, that’s not the question. We 
can desegregate this school system as quickly as you can 
desegregate any school system. The real question is what 
you do when you desegregate. This school system can do 
anything that Memphis can, but nobody has chosen or has 
proven what the value and what the procedure will be in 
Memphis. This is something still unknown. We’re arguing 
in terms of what we want to do and what we think ought 
to be done, not in terms of what can be done.

Q. Are you familiar with the Knoxville school system? 
A. Yes, I am.

Q. Do you know it has desegregated all grades as of 
last September of last year? A. Yes, but in reading the 
reports from the hearing this week I was somewhat con­
cerned about what was really done up there. It’s still in 
the courts.

Q. Yes. A. And it was not as you represented here, 
as I recall.

—92—
(,). In other words you feel like they have not actually de­

segregated? A. I do not pass my feelings and judgment 
on somebody’s school system.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



63a

Q. Well, all right. Did you know the court had an order 
up there desegregating teachers'? A. No, sir, I didn’t.

Q. You didn’t know that! A. No, sir. May I comment 
just one moment on your question a moment ago? In re­
lation to administrative responsibilities, I think is the most 
significant thing I can say. I put it this way to you, Mr. 
Williams, and to this Court. T could spend whatever time 
my philosophy about education will lead me to spend in 
dealing with this. I can desegregate a school system in 
all 12 grades and spend less time with it than if we de­
segregate two grades. It all depends on what I try to do. 
If you want to desegregate a school system, and the super­
intendent just wants to keep everything hush-hush and 
advise the principals they don’t carry switchblade knives 
or something of this sort, keep it under cover as many 
of your communities have outside of the south, I can do 
this with a minimum amount of time and time for my 
staff, because we will not express much concern as to what 
happens to children. If, on the other hand, I am greatly 
concerned about what happens to children and I am de­
termined we treat children the way they ought to be

—93—
treated, and we give them the kind of understanding that 
we ought to give them, this could consume more time than 
I could get, a staff could get, and that you could possibly 
buy as a school system. Now, it’s just a matter of what 
you want the superintendent to do. If you want to do it 
all by directives and tell principals you do this and you 
do that, that’s one thing. If you want to use a process which 
uses intelligence in doing it, it’s another thing.

Q. Of course that is the way you bring about other 
administrative changes, isn’t it? A. Which?

Q. That you study a matter and you don’t take five or

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



64a

six years to study it, but you study it in a reasonable 
amount of time. Then you give a directive to your staff 
people and your supervisors and— A. I rarely give a 
directive, I rarely give one.

Q. How do you govern your school system? A. 1 govern 
a school system by a high degree of understanding and 
self-motivation on the part of people who have responsi­
bilities and a minimum amount of directives to people.

Q. But there are at least some guiding directives issued? 
A. Truely, we formulate policies and agreements under 
which we work.

Q. And it doesn’t take several years to get— A. You
—94—

would be surprised how many years it takes to just a 
simple thing of the approach toward retaining children. 
This has taken live to this point.

Q. What I’m saying it doesn’t take several years to get 
a directive out to your principals, A. It’s not the ques­
tion of the directive itself, it’s the question of the study 
given to that directive.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, are you acquainted with Dr. Harris, 
the superintendent over in Nashville? A. I have met him 
twice.

Q. Are you aware that the board over there has agreed 
to desegregate on the recommendation of the superin­
tendent, the superintendent has recommended to the board 
and they have accepted, that that plan will be accelerated 
and the entire high school system will be desegregated in 
September of 1966? A. I was not aware of that.

Q. And that they are already beginning faculty deseg­
regation over there? A. T was not aware of that.

Q. You didn’t discuss that with Dr. Harris? A. No, sir.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



65a

Q. Dr. Carmichael, you consider this desegregation so 
important, don’t you discuss it with other superintendents? 
A. Mr. Williams, I have spent all told approximately 30 
minutes with him. This is not time to open up the dis-

—95—
cuss ion of desegregation.

Q. But the upshot of it is that you just feel like actually 
it is just a matter of community acceptance you’re talking 
about, isn’t it? A. No, sir, it’s not a matter. That’s one 
aspect of it.

Q. Tell me what you mean about treating the children 
right and understanding the children’s feelings and all this 
sort of thing? A. Mr. Williams, we are in the process of 
spending $50,000 of federal funds which are provided under 
the Civil Rights Act to attempt to help one school of teach­
ers and other teachers brought in, 50 other teachers brought 
in, to understand how to deal with the problems occa­
sioned by desegregation, and this is specifically the way 
the language is written in the Civil Rights Act, to deal 
with the problems occasioned by desegregation. We suffi­
ciently described the problems in such a proposal to the 
U. S. Office of Education that such problems did exist to 
get that much money to study this sort of thing. It in­
volves the values of individual teachers, it involves their 
feelings about how the outside world looks at them and 
how their families consider them. We have taped inter­
views on all teachers who have been trying to cope with 
this problem. They do not understand Negro children, 
they cannot understand why Negro children must continue 
to miff and wrestle with each other, miff as they call, and 
on and on and on. They are concerned about their readi-

—96—
ness levels, their background levels to do the teaching.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



6Ga

These are kinds of things that take an indefinite amount 
of time and money to deal with. We are not going to solve 
it by continuing to ignore it. We can put the children in 
the school and we can put the teachers with them and 
ignore accomplishing these kinds of things, this takes less 
time. But you’ll be hearing from it five years, ten years 
and fifteen years, just as you are hearing from it across 
this nation now. This is the result of desegregating with­
out moving into the secondary stages of really effecting 
integration of children.

Q. May I ask you something, Dr. Carmichael. Assuming 
that you have some problem with regard to the feelings 
of white teachers and their inability to understand Negro 
children, why wouldn’t it help to resolve this problem if 
you assigned Negro teachers to white schools? A. It 
sounds like a beautiful solution, but let me explain it this 
wray. The first concern or the first willingness of teachers 
is yes, we’re willing to teach and we’ll adapt our teaching 
to Negro children. I’ve had that experience already, in 
which a whole staff, white staff, remained to teach the 
Negro children. Beginning with the second year, as will 
be borne out by school board members and the board of 
education, I made a strong effort to move Negro teachers 
into this staff to help with just this problem. That is a

—97—
greater resistance by far than the original one was. Now, 
lot me carry it a little bit further. Finally, however, out 
of a compromising situation I did make the assignment of 
two Negro teachers as I have explained to you already. 
I spent time with those teachers before the opening of 
school, saying that yon understand why we are assigning 
those people, we want to bo sure wo get the best possible

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



results from it, explaining that they are here to help you, 
they are to help you understand children, they are to 
help you understand parents, so on and so forth, empha­
sizing the importance of exchanging ideas with one an­
other. Less than two months ago I found a situation in 
which these people had been entirely unwilling to exchange 
ideas with one another. The question of whether or not 
you exchange honest ideas is more than just putting people 
together at a given school. They will hide their ideas, they 
will not exchange them, and it takes an awful lot of time 
and understanding to bring them out.

Q. You’re basing this conclusion on that special situa­
tion where you took two Negro teachers and put them into 
a special situation? A. Yes.

Q. lTou have not made any effort to assign teachers on 
an objective basis without regard to race or color, and 
just assign Negro teachers and say here is a teaching job 
over here, you haven’t done that? A. No, sir.

—98—
Q. Dr. Carmichael, will you look at that document that 

I have just handed you, can you identify that document or 
the contents of it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is that? A. I t’s an item that appeared in the 
morning paper as a result of Union 428, Mountain City 
Teachers Organization.

Q. That is a Negro professional teachers’ organization 
here? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does it represent all or most of the Negro teachers 
in the city of Chattanooga? A. I’m. not sure what the 
membership is.

Q. You say it probably represents— A. T wouldn’t say 
it probably does.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



68a

Q. Now, did you know that was a resolution that was 
actually passed by the Negro teachers? A. No, sir.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, will you permit that to be marked 
Exhibit A for identification to your testimony? You will 
identify that as an article that appeared in the paper? A. 
It appears to be the one that was in this morning’s paper. 

Q. AH right. May it please the Court, we’d like to
—99—

introduce that.

The Court: Exhibit #1.
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, I wanted to 

introduce this because I wanted to ask Dr. Car­
michael some questions about it, I intend actually 
to authenticate it later by an official of this associa­
tion.

The Court: All right.

A. I’m assuming it is the same article which I read in the 
paper this morning.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, this appears to be a statement on 
the part of Negro teachers that continued segregation of 
the teachers is not compatible with your expressed belief 
in quality education. Do you agree with that? A. I would 
not agree with the statement made there.

Q. In other words you believe you can further the cause 
of quality education by continuing to segregate teachers? 
A. I didn’t say that.

(,). Then you do agree that teacher segregation in as­
signments is to some extent inconsistent with the quality 
of education? A. It’s relative to the proposal that would 
be made by this particular article here. Segregated teacher

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



69a

/
staffs in my opinion would maintain a higher quality of 
education than the impact or the point that is made by this 
particular release.

Q. A higher quality of education for who? A. I
— 100—

wouldn’t doubt that it would be for all children in the 
system.

Q. Then do you have any explanation as to why—didn’t 
you introduce proof here upon a hearing in this case that 
Negro children in your schools had lower achievement— 
A. No, sir, I didn’t, I have never introduced—

Q. You never introduced any such proof? A. No, sir, T 
didn’t.

Q. You’re saying that the education is substantially the 
same? A. No, sir, I ’m not saying it is substantially the 
same, I ’m saying I have never introduced proof on it.

Q. Well, these Negro teachers say: “This continued prac­
tice of segregation can only result in low moral and a feel­
ing of insecurity of a large segment of teachers.” Do you 
disagree with that, Dr. Carmichael? A. I don’t know about 
that.

Q. Well, have you considered that problem? A. Yes, 
sir, I ’ve considered it.

Q. But notwithstanding that, you have decided to con­
tinue segregation? A. I think the attorney for the board 
of education made the most—

Q. All right. Wait a minute, you think what? A. I think 
the attorney for the board of education made the statement

— 101—

that is most appropriate in relation to that question.
Q. What’s that? A. About the board’s position with i-e- 

gard to desegregation of staff.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



70a

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross

Q. You mean the board takes the position that it is not 
going to do anything until somebody has convinced them 
that the Supreme Court has said— A. I ’m not referring 
to that.

Q. Now, these Negro teachers say “dissatisfied and in­
secure instructors do not beget quality education. It is the 
opposite.” Would you disagree with that, Dr. Carmichael'? 
A. No. I couldn’t disagree with the fact that dissatisfaction, 
so on.

Q. They say the continued hiring of white teachers to 
teach the extra classes brought about by the transfer of 
Negro pupils into the so-called white schools creates a sur­
plus of teachers in the heretofore Negro schools, it de­
creases the study body in certain schools and may well lead 
to the closing of the schools and the abolition of some teach­
ing positions. Is that actually a fact or likely to be a fact? 
A. No, it isn’t a fact and isn’t likely to be a fact.

Q. None of that is a fact? A. Read the first part—
Q. You are hiring white teachers to teach these extra

— 102-

classes, aren’t you? A. Yes, sir, but it is not creating a 
surplus of Negro teachers nor is there any likelihood that 
it would create conditions which would close Negro schools.

Q. You say the decrease in the student body of some of 
the schools, it is not going to lead to their closing? A. No, 
sir. For the record, Mr. Williams, since 1960-61 there has 
been an increase in the number of positions of Negro 
teachers of 88, and a decrease in white teachers of 25. Now, 
that is the record, for the five-year period.

Q. Already more than 30 white teachers have been hired 
because of a 900 or more Negro pupil—well, first, let me 
ask you. Is that true? A. It would be reasoned that if



71a

you were teaching 900 Negro children with white teachers, 
that it would take approximately 30 teachers.

Q. In other words the state board of education estab­
lishes a minimum number, at least a maximum number of 
pupils per teachers? A. Approximately 30, yes.

Q. They say “This has already cost the taxpayers money 
for surplus teachers in this system— A. No, sir, that is 
completely in error. There has been no teacher paid who 
has not been teaching. That is in complete error. That is 
an irresponsible thing for educators to put in items such as

—103—
this.

Q. You mean that there are no Negro teachers who are, 
because of the transfer of Negro students from Negro 
schools, teaching understaffed classes? A. No, sir.

Q. None in the city? A. No, sir. None have been dis­
missed, none are laid out for a year for any condition, and 
none are assigned to smaller classes or anything like this. 
In fact, we had to employ new teachers this year. Why 
would we do this when we were still employing new Negro 
teachers this year.

Q. You had a net gain in employment of Negro teachers? 
A. Yes, sir. We’ve had a net gain of 88 in the past five 
years, while the Negro student population increased only 
five per cent, this is an increase in the number of Negro 
teachers by 21 per cent.

The Court: Gentlemen, it’s about time for the 
noon recess, let’s see where we stand with regard to 
the hearing. We can continue this hearing until 
about three o’clock this afternoon, if that is satisfac­
tory with counsel, and if we cannot complete by that 
time we’ll have to set another date. What are the

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



72a

prospects of being able to complete by that time, do 
you think?

Mr. Williams: I’m nearly through, your Honor.
(Further discussion between Court and counsel)

—104-
A fternoon  S ession

B e n n y  C. C a rm ichael  re ca lled  

By Mr. Williams:
Q. Dr. Carmichael, we were on this matter of the Moun­

tain City Teachers’ press release. Have you read this press 
release in its entirety? A. I read it in the morning paper.

Q. In particular did you read that portion of it which dis­
cussed the pressure on the children of not having a teacher 
of their own color assigned to the school they were attend­
ing? A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did you agree that this could cause some frustrations 
in children, some emotional problems, psychological prob­
lems, which could affect their education? A. If pressures 
were created I would agree that it could affect it, but that 
doesn’t assume that the pressures are created.

Q. But there is more of a likelihood that the pressures 
might be created where you don’t have someone there of 
their own color? A. I don’t have any evidence of this and 
I have evidence of teachers being all white with a group of 
Negro children and having Negro teachers there, and I 
haven’t discovered or identified any change in this element.

Q. Would you or would you not consider these statements
—105—

that white teachers have made to you about their inability 
to understand certain propensities of Negro children as be-

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



73a

ing some evidence of possible pressures being created which 
might alfect the children’s education? A. Yes, there were 
pressures building up.

Q. I see. A. The point I would want to make, though, 
Mr. Williams, is that with the assignment of two Negro 
teachers there, these didn’t necessarily start dropping. It 
is more than just having the teachers there.

Q. Yes, sir, but you haven’t assigned Negro teachers to 
any schools on a general basis, you simply assigned two 
Negro teachers as sort of guidance counselors or helpers to 
white teachers or something at a single school, is that cor­
rect? A. Yes.

Q. These teachers actually have no regular teaching- 
duties? A. No regular teaching duties, they do have re­
sponsibilities for children, however, in certain activities of 
the school.

Q. To discipline them and that sort of thing? A. Yes.
Q. And is this in a school where the majority of the chil­

dren are Negroes? A. Yes, it is.
—106—

Q. And there are just a few whites? A. Yes.
Q. What school is this? A. This is Avondale.
Q. Avondale, where I believe you had 70 Negroes and 65 

whites, is that correct? A. What?
Q. You had 70 Negroes enrolled there and 65 whites? 

A. 650 Negroes and 28 whites.
Q. And 28 whites. While we are on that, I notice your 

report for this year does not include the figures regarding 
transfers broken down by race. Can you state the reason 
for that, Dr. Carmichael? A. No, sir. In this report I pre­
pared today and brought with me on transfers I pointed 
out that we did not make that report in it. We considered 
it to have reached the point of not being significant for that 
report at the first of the year.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



74a

Q. So we are now in a position of not being able to tell 
from your records what transfers are being made by race! 
A. No, sir, not by what I submitted to the Court this year.

Q. Well, do you keep any records on that at all? A. Yes, 
sir, we have the file on all of them.

Q. You could submit a report to the Court similar to the 
report that you have submitted in previous years? A. Yes,

—107—
I could.

Q. Regarding this? A. Yes, I could.
Q. Would it take a long period of time to do that? A. 

Not an unusually long period of time.
Q. Also, while I ’m on that subject of that, do you have 

any—did you keep records which would show the number 
of transfers which you granted on these other criteria, the 
purely objective criteria? A. Yes, sir, the information 
I ’ve given you shows the number granted on each item of 
the policy. For each year.

Q. Yes, and does that show whether the proportion of 
those transfers that were of a Negro child from a white 
school back to a Negro school, and of a white child back to 
a white school? From a Negro zone. A. It just shows the 
school zone in which he resides and the school to which he 
is permitted to go.

Q. In other words we would have to formulate that in­
formation from your— A. That’s right, you’d have to 
prove that it is getting from a Negro school back to a white. 
That is not involved in this case, Mr. Williams. I mean, it 
is not involved in the transfers.

Q. Well, would you furnish us a report for this year and 
furnish the Court a report for this year similar to that that

—108—
you furnished for previous years so that at least that infor-

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



75a

mation may be formulated from the report? A. I have the 
report here, Mr. Williams.

Q. You haven’t considered in granting these transfers 
on these other criteria how many of them actually resulted 
in the increase of segregation? A. No, sir, I haven’t.

Q. You haven’t utilized race at all in making those trans­
fers? A. No, sir.

Q. You already have a report for the ’64-65 school year 
that shows this information? A. I have given it to you 
already.

Q. You gave it to me? A. Yes, sir. In the information 
you requested I bring to court today, if you’ll look on the 
last page—

Q. Well, what I intend to do, as I might as well do it 
right now, is introduce these two documents. I ’ve looked 
them over and I ’d like to introduce them as the next two 
exhibits to your testimony. A. Teacher employment is the 
first one—

The Court: Exhibit # 2.

A. Transfers, #3. That showed in connection with this 
question, Mr. Williams, that we permitted transfers of 44 
children based on 2-A, 9 on 2-B, and down the line, TOO on

—109—
2-E and 114 on the i, and finally two on the j. And we have 
each individual pupil’s record there in the file to substanti­
ate any question you have about those.

Q. Now, Dr. Carmichael, you said you didn’t have any ad­
ditional copies of that here today, but will you furnish 
counsel for the plaintiff copies of those two exhibits so we 
may have them for our files? A. I t’s not a great deal of 
trouble. In fact one of my staff members has an additional 
copy which we will make available to you at the close of 
the hearing.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



76a

Q. Thank you. Now, carrying on with this report, and 
I’ll be through with it in a minute, Dr. Carmichael, the 
complexion, the racial complexion in Chattanooga has 
changed quite a bit in the past year or so, hasn’t it? A. Do 
you mean in terms of numbers—

Q. Desegregation of downtown hotels— A. It has con­
tinued toward a higher degree of desegregation, yes, sir.

Q. Well, as a matter of fact, aren’t all public facilities in 
the city of Chattanooga and Hamilton County now fully in­
tegrated and open to the public? A. I think so.

Q. And that includes parks, playgrounds, the library, the 
city hall and all other facilities? A. I think so.

— 110—

Q. Likewise, aren’t all commercial public accommoda­
tions, virtually all, open to the public now without regard to 
race or color? A. They’re supposed to be.

Q. Virtually everybody is complying with the Civil 
Rights Act in Hamilton County, that’s correct? A. Offi­
cially I think it is correct.

Q. Well, as a matter of practice you don’t know of any 
instances— A. No, sir.

Q. So that as a matter of fact—well, and as a matter of 
fact is there a college located here? A. The University of 
Chattanooga is located here.

Q. Hasn’t that institution fully desegregated? Didn’t I 
read somewhere that the University of Chattanooga was 
now open to all persons? A. I would rather have our at­
torney answer that. I think so.

Q. You’re not positive but you think so? A. I think they 
passed that beginning with next year, but he can advise you 
specifically.

Q. He said that’s right. All right. Are there any paro­
chial schools here? A. Yes, there are. There are three

— Ill-
private schools and four or five parochial schools.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



77a

Q. Have the parochial schools been desegregated? A. 
One has, Notre Dame.

Q. So that as a matter of fact in continuing partial deseg­
regation the city school system is lagging somewhat behind 
other facilities here in Chattanooga? A. No, sir. It’s the 
most advanced of any institution or operation that I know 
of in Chattanooga.

Q. You say it’s advanced? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Although the other facilities are open completely and 

the schools are segregated, you say the schools are ad­
vanced? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you explain that? A. In terms of the numbers 
that it is dealing with, in terms with the effort it has made 
to make it a condition. You were talking about your com­
plexion and that’s what I would base this on, that the com­
plexion of the desegregation of the school system is quite 
different from the complexion of the desegregation of many 
other facilities and institutions, and I’m not talking about 
color, I ’m talking about attitude.

Q. Still you are talking about attitudes, community atti­
tudes, are you not? A. I’m talking primarily about school 
officials, teacher attitudes—

— 112—

Q. You’re talking about attitudes of teachers and that 
sort of thing? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You don’t have any difficulty in finding and employing 
teachers, do you? A. Yes, I do.

Q. Ilow many applications of Negro teachers do you have 
on file at present? A. A large number.

Q. About how many? A. I would say 100 to 150.
Q. And how many applications of the white teachers do 

you have on hand? A. A smaller number, perhaps.
Q. You can’t approximate— A. I can’t approximate it 

because there is never a cut-off date. What you may have

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



78a

on file as an application may be a teacher who took another 
job last week and that sort of thing.

Q. How many vacancies did you fill this past year! A. 
We filled 86 replacements and 40 new positions for a total 
of 120.

Q. 120! A. Yes, sir.
—113—

Q. You had better than 200— A. I guess all told over 
the year of one sort and another that we had 200 applica­
tions. This is taking into consideration your total number 
of applications, out of 200 there might be only 100 that 
would fit the particular job that you have available and so 
on.

Q. And you are conducting in-service training programs 
for your teachers? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And have been doing that right along? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don’t feel like it is just going to take forever to 

get your teacher attitudes changed, do you? A. No, sir.
Q. You don’t feel, do you, Dr. Carmichael, that any sound 

educational benefits or values to the children should be de­
layed while you change attitudes on the part of the teachers, 
do you? A. No.

Q. Now, with regard to Mr. Mapp, the plaintiff, isn’t it 
true as a matter of fact that he applied for transfers for 
three of his children last year? A. May have been.

Q. Four, rather. Three who were in junior high school 
and one in high school ? A. It may have been.

—114—
Q. Did you know, Dr. Carmichael, that he asked trans­

portation for that high school child to attend Riverside, 
more than two miles from where he lived, while he lived 
right in the vicinity or less than a mile from Brainerd and 
his child could have walked to Brainerd High School? A.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



79a

He doesn’t live within walking distance of Brainerd High 
School nor within a mile of that high school.

Q. You don’t say he lives within a mile? A. No, sir.
Q. So that’s the reason you denied his transfer? A. No, 

sir, it wasn’t.
Q. You denied a transfer because that school wasn’t de­

segregated? A. Surely. I cannot under an existing policy 
of the board of education admit a child where the policy 
says you don’t admit him. The question was easy for me. 
I t’s not my prerogative to do these kinds of things.

Q. It was established on your advice, wasn’t it? A. No, 
sir.

Q. Was it established against your advice? A. No, sir. 
You’re talking about that sort of thing which is policy of 
the board of education. It is my responsibility to formulate 
the administrative regulations to implement that policy, 
but not to establish that sort of community policy. That’s

—115—
a board function.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, is it true that the enrollment out at 
Riverside High School is about 2,000 or more? A. It’s 
1,900, I think.

Q. And you list in a report that you filed in this court in 
1960, you listed the capacity of that school as being 1,630, 
didn’t you? A. I don’t recall.

Q. Well, is the capacity of it about 1,600? A. No, sir.
Q. What is the capacity of that school? A. I t’s a little 

better than 2,000.
Q. Well, has there been any change or addition— A. 

Yes, sir, there has, surely.
Q. When was that change or addition? A. It has been 

made since the beginning of the opening of it. For example, 
the high school contained a large armory for ROTC when

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



80a

Chattanooga High School was there. This armory was con­
verted into shops. This gives considerable more capacity 
to a building for space for instruction. Also, one large room 
which was always used for an auditorium was divided up 
into six classrooms during this past summer. I submitted 
a full report to Mr. Mapp and to one of your attorneys, Mr. 
Underwood, on the capacity of this building and the enroll­
ment of the children in it, and it is within the capacity of the

—116-
building by a pretty good number of children. And that is 
taken from the principals of that school.

Q. But this was all makeshift for the purpose of provid­
ing a segregated Negro high school? A. No, sir, it wasn’t.

Q. You hadn’t made a shop out of the armory for the 
white students? A. Didn’t need it.

Q. And when you had the white students you had an 
ROTC? A. Yes.

Q. Why did you remove that? A. Because the unit is 
attached to the school, it is an agreement dating many years 
back with the United States government that this is an 
ROTC unit for Chattanooga High School.

Q. So you had a situation where you had Negro pupils 
being required to come to an old white school, with the 
armory converted to a shop and the auditorium converted 
to six classrooms? A. Not an auditorium, no, sir.

Q. What was it? A. Study hall.
Q. Study hall? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that these Negro students now have no study hall?

—117—
A. Their program does not require a study hall.

Q. Negro students don’t require a study hall? A. Not 
in this particular school. There aren’t many high schools 
now that provide a study hall.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



81a

Q. But Chattanooga High School does? A. No, it 
doesn’t now. It doesn’t have a study hall in the new build­
ing.

Q. It doesn’t? A. No, six1.
Q. Why was the study hall in the old building? A. Be­

cause that was the pattern of four classes and two study 
halls in those days when that building was built and that 
school was operated. But that is not the pattern in many 
high schools now.

Q. You’re not using that in any high school? A. Don’t 
believe we are. We’re not at Howard, I ’m relatively sure.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, how many students does Orchard 
Knob have now? A. Orchard Knob? Between 900 and 
1,000, I believe.

Q. And you deny that that school is or ever has been over 
crowded, is that right? A. Yes, I deny that it has ever 
been over crowded.

Q. What is the pupil-teacher ratio there? A. One to 30, 
based on actual assignments. I would have to make an ex-

—118—
planation to you on this, too, Mr. Williams. You are at­
tempting to discuss or describe each school situation in 
terms of some fictitious standard for it. This particular 
school, as are I believe four other schools, is organized on 
the basis of using team teaching and using four teacher 
aides and a combination of large group, small group in­
struction. So that you get a different utilization of your 
building, you can employ fewer teachers. In this case this 
school elects to employ two less teachers than if you as­
signed them one per 30, and to put the money that would 
be spent on the salaries of those teachers into teachers 
aides. It greatly the enriches the staffing of the school, and 
this is the pattern used over several years with your 
schools, it’s used in your Nashville schools, for example.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



82a

Q. How many white schools in the city system in Chatta­
nooga have that? A. Just one.

Q. Which one is that? A. Dalewood Junior High 
School. Which is the newest school organized for white 
children. If you could, you would be organizing all of your 
schools in this direction.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, you mentioned—how many white chil­
dren are there, junior high white children, who are receiv­
ing this transportation from the East Fifth area? A. 31.

—119—
Q. How many Negro high school children are there out 

in the Hardy area, I believe you said, who are coming five 
miles in to Riverside? A. I don’t know how many there 
are.

Q. Approximately? A. I don’t know approximately. I 
do not know the areas that high school students come from 
in any part of this city.

Q. Do you know where the Second District Junior High 
School was? A. Yes.

Q. That was a Negro junior high school? A. Yes it was.
Q. It has been closed down? A. Yes, it was.
Q. When was it closed down? A. At the beginning of 

the 1962-63 school year.
Q. Where was that school located? A. It’s located just 

on the other side of the expressway in the west side area.
Q. That’s how far from Riverside? A. They don’t go to 

Riverside.
Q. Where do they go? A. They go to Howard.
Q. And how far are they from Howard? A. In the 

neighborhood of a mile.
— 120—

Q. Do they receive any transportation? A. No, they 
don’t.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



83a

Q. Dr. Carmichael, I have one final question. Reading 
to you from this Exhibit #1  which is a statement of the 
Negro teachers here, they say: “We feel that it is impos­
sible for teachers to teach democracy without practicing it 
in the classroom as well as in everyday living. Psychologi­
cally, children understand democracy when they experience 
it in action rather than through abstraction.” Would you 
agree with that? A. Yes, I would agree that the greatest 
influence on the development on concepts consistent with 
democracy are the opportunities to practice them, but it is 
my observation over the many years that there doesn’t seem 
to be higher degrees of attitudes of democracy where people 
are associated with both races as opposed to where they are 
not. And I would cite for you the attitudes and concepts of 
the late President Kennedy.

Q. So that what you are saying is that you disagree with 
the Supreme Court? A. I’m not saying that. I am trying 
to say, Mr. Williams, that to me the basic concepts we’re 
talking about for developing understanding of and attitudes 
toward democracy are deeper than just some surface rela­
tionships.

Q. Yes, but don’t you feel, assuming that to be true, that 
one must at least begin to experience a contact before one

- 121-

can even begin to get into the depth involved here? A. No, 
it is not necessary to experience the first surface associa­
tion before you get into the depth involvement.

Q. You feel, then, that democracy can be achieved 
through segregation of the races? A. No, not for the na­
tion as a whole, but I think attitudes of individuals toward 
democracy may or may not be developed just as well in 
one instance as another. Rut for the image of the nation or

Benny Carmichael—-for Defendants—Cross



84a

the community and so forth, no, you’ve got to overcome this 
problem.

Q. Didn’t you tell us a while ago that you were having 
trouble with your white teachers not understanding some 
of the actions and attitudes of the Negro children1? A. 
Yes.

Q. Don’t you feel, Dr. Carmichael, that this is an illustra­
tion of the lack of ability to understand and comprehend 
without contact? A. Yes, they had been denied the con­
tact.

Q. And don’t you feel that democracy does involve under­
standing of people of different ethnic backgrounds and cul­
ture? A. Yes, sir, but just an exposure or two will not help 
them understand it, in fact it drives them in the other direc­
tion unless you take the additional steps.

Q. I would agree, but you do have to have the exposure,
— 122—

too, that is an essential requisite, isn’t it? A. Not essen­
tial. I feel that I’ve had them, Mr. Williams, without the 
exposure.

Q. You say, then, that you can develop the necessary 
understanding of the other race without having any con­
tact with it at all? A. It’s possible.

Q. You’re saying that as a scientist, an educational sci­
entist? A. If you want me to, I will.

Q. Do you consider yourself a social scientist? A. No,
1 consider myself an educator.

Q. An educator? And as an educator you are stating 
that you feel one can acquire an experience, an educational 
experience, without the experience? A. No, sir. I ’m not 
saying that you acquire an educational experience in the 
case. Mr. Williams, 1 am saying that there are ways for 
me, and there have been ways for me, and there have been

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



85a

ways for other people, to develop basic values in life which 
give complete understanding to any human being regard­
less of his race. Race has never been a question to me, be­
cause you are an individual. My concepts were built around 
individuals, not whether or not they were white, Negro, or 
the other kinds of people that I ’ve come in contact with 
over my life. And that is more essential than just my

- 1 2 3 -
exposure to someone of a different race. That is far more 
valuable.

Q. Well, the other thing is, Dr. Caiunichael, that whatever 
understanding you have been able to develop has been 
developed through the standpoint of separation, has it not? 
A. By and large it has.

Q. Now, will you explain to the Court how you have 
experimentally verified that that is a valid understanding? 
A. 1 would explain it this way, Mr. Williams. That as I 
reached the level when I began my associations with people 
of a different race, because of the concepts and values that 
I bad with regard to people, I made the application to Negro 
people just the same without having previously tried them 
out. In other words, I developed the respect for the worth 
and dignity of the person, I assumed that the Negro was a 
person, and I moved on from there.

The Court: Gentlemen, aren’t we getting into an 
area of expressing personal viewpoints upon matters 
that are really unrelated?

Mr. Williams: I have no further questions.
Witness excused.
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, the plaintiffs 

call Mr. Patton.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Cross



8 6 a

Napolean B. Patton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

N apolean B. P atton having first been duly sworn, testi­
fies as follows:

— 124—

Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Will you state your name? A. My name is Napolean 

B. Patton.
Q. What is your age, sir! A. My age is 44.
Q. Where do you live! A. 1 live at 106 Halsey Street, 

Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Q. How long have you lived here! A. For 44 years.
Q. What is your occupation! A. Public school teacher. 
Q. By whom are you employed! A. The City Board of 

Education.
Q. And at what school! A. At the East Fifth Street 

School.
Q. You said the city board, you meant Chattanooga! A. 

The City of Chattanooga Board of Education.
Q. How long have you taught there! A. Sixteen years. 
Q. WTiat grade do you teach! A. Grade six.
Q. Now, are you an official of any teacher’s organization 

here in Chattanooga! A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is that organization! A. Mountain City Teach-

— 125—

ers’ Association.

Mr. Williams: I ’d like to have the witness handed 
Exhibit #1 to the testimony of the Superintendent.

Q. I ’ll hand you that press release and request you to 
identify it, if you can? Before that, my attention has been 
called to the fact that I overlooked something. What is your 
office in the Mountain City Teachers’ Association? A. 
President.



87a

Q. IIow long have you been president of that organiza­
tion? A. One year.

Q. Does that organization represent the majority of the 
Negro teachers in the city school system? A. Yes, it does.

Q. Now, I’ll request you to identify the document you 
have been handed. A. I do recognize this document.

Q. What is that? A. This is a statement or press re­
lease of a resolution that we drew up in the executive com­
mittee of the Mountain City Teachers’ Association and 
presented to the representatives and the officials for their 
approval.

Q. Does that resolution—was that resolution duly and 
properly adopted? A. It was.

Q. And does that resolution represent the thinking, the
—126-

general thinking, of Negro teachers here in the City of 
Chattanooga in your opinion? A. It does. Also it repre­
sents the thinking of some of the persons who do not belong, 
some of the teachers who do not belong to our organization.

Mr. Williams: Cross examine.

Cross Examination by Mr. Witt:
Q. Approximately how many members does you union 

have, Mr. Patton? A. Approximately 70 to 75 percent of 
the Negro teacher personnel.

Q. And how many would this be? A. Offhand, I cannot 
say, because our membership fluctuates from month to 
month.

Q. When was the meeting—when was this resolution 
adopted? A. April 6.

Q. What year? A. 1965.

Napolean B. Button—for Plaintiffs—Cross



88a

Q. What is your procedure for adopting such a resolu­
tion? A. The procedure for adopting such a resolution?

Q. Yes. A. We went about it in the manner that this 
was a discussion—various teachers and various people that

—127-
contact our office and contact us as individuals, and through 
this discussion the motion was offered that we take some 
position on desegregation of the schools by the various 
teachers.

Q. Where was this meeting of April 6 held? A. The 
meeting of April 6 was held at East Fifth Street School.

Q. How many members of the union were present? A. 
This particular meeting, I don’t have the figures with me, 
but this was an executive meeting of the executive body 
and the representatives from each school.

Q. How many members of the executive committee? A. 
How many members of the executive committee?

Q. Yes, sir. A. You mean that make up our entire—
Q. Yes, sir. A. Twenty-one make up our entire execu­

tive committee.
Q. Was this resolution presented to the membership in 

writing prior to its adoption by the executive committee?

Mr. Williams: I object to that, if your Honor 
please. He said it was duly and properly adopted— 

The Court: Over-rule the objection.

Q. Was the general membership advised of this resolu­
tion in writing prior to its adoption by your executive com­
mittee on April 6? A. I assumed that it was because we

—128-
have a committee that handles the publication of all docu­
ments.

Napolean B. Patton—for Plaintiffs—Cross



89a

Q. As president do you know whether this was done or 
not ? A. T assume that it was done.

Q. In other words you don’t know? A. In other words, 
I think it was.

Q. But can you state positively that it was done? A. 
No, I cannot.

Mr. Witt: No further questions.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Patton, are you positive that this press release 

was given wide publicity among the Negro people? Have 
you heard them discuss it? A. Yes, we have.

Q. In the period of nearly a month since it was passed? 
A. Yes, it was.

Q. You heard it discussed among your members? A. 
Yes.

Q. And among your non-members? A. And among non­
members.

Q. Have you heard one single adverse comment against 
this resolution by any Negro teacher in the whole town? 
A. Our office has not heard one dissenting comment.

Q. Have you received favorable comments? A. Quite a
—129-

bit of favorable comments.

Mr. Williams : That’s all.

Recross Examination by Mr. Witt:
Q. Can you explain, Mr. Patton, the delay in the publica­

tion of this resolution from April 6 until the morning of 
May 1, 1965? A. Explain the delay.

Napolean B. Patton—for Plaintiffs—Recross



90a

Q. Yes, sir. A. Of why it was not published in the news­
paper before now?

Q. Yes, sir. A. There was several reasons, I say sev­
eral, there was two main reasons. Number one, our office 
was undergoing a renovation. Number two, our secretary 
had been out of—

Q. Who decided to give it to the Chattanooga Times on 
April 30? A. This was adopted by the group executive 
committee.

Q. Who made the decision to the Chattanooga Times on 
April 30? A. The committee.

Q. The committee? A. Yes, the executive committee.
Q. The executive committee met yesterday? A. No, we 

met before yesterday.
—130—

Q. When was the decision made by the executive com­
mittee? A. The executive committee was made April 6.

Q. Oh, the executive committee made the decision April 
6 and decided to release this to the general public on April 
30? A. No, it was decided we would release this before 
time, but due to the office being renovated it was delayed.

Q. You heard Dr. Carmichael’s testimony with regard 
to factual statements set forth in this statement, did you 
not? You were in the courtroom, I believe? A. Yes.

Q. How do you explain the inaccuracies set forth in this 
press release? A. T don’t know of any inaccuracies in the 
press release.

Q. How did you secure the factual information or how 
did your committee secure the factual information as re­
flected in the press release?

Mr. Williams: That is objected to, the Superin­
tendent hasn’t denied a single thing in the—a single

Napolean B. Patton—for Plaintiffs—Recross



91a

fact stated in there except a matter of opinion, if 
your Honor please.

The Court: I think it would be more appropriate 
to call the witness’s attention to any specific state­
ment you wish to ask him about.

—131—
Q. The statement says: “Already more than 30 white 

teachers have been hired because of the 900 or more Negro 
pupils tied to so-called white schools.” This is in the be­
ginning sentence of the third paragraph. From where did 
you secure this information?

Mr. Williams: That is objected to, the Superin­
tendent has admitted . . .

Mr. Witt: No, he did not.
The Court: I’ll allow the witness to answer, if he 

knows.

Q. Your statement said: “Already more than 30 white 
teachers have been hired because of the 900 or more Negro 
pupils tied to the so-called Avliite schools.” Just where did 
you get this information from? A. From the newspaper. 
Teaching personnel in the city of Chattanooga is always 
published in the newspaper.

Q. The first sentence of the second paragraph states: 
“The continued hiring of white teachers to teach the extra 
classes brought about by transfer of Negro pupils into the 
so-called white schools creates a surplus of teachers in the 
heretofore Negro schools.” In what school is there a sur­
plus of Negro teachers? A. Wherever the Negro pupil 
has moved out from a predominantly Negro school to a 
white school-

Napolean B. Patton—for Plaintiffs—Recross



92a

Q. Name the school, please? A. That I cannot give you
—132—

the name of.
(*). You can name no school where there is a surplus of 

Negro teachers? A. 1 cannot name any school where there 
is a surplus of Negro teachers.

Q- I’in asking you that question? A. I’m speaking as a 
teacher and as a leader in the community rather than an 
administrator. These details will have to come from the 
administration.

Q. Your executive committee, you have testified, adopted 
this resolution. You are testifying there is a member of 
each school on this executive committee, that it was con­
sidered on April 6 and that it has been handed to the 
newspapers. You heard Dr. Carmichael testify that this 
particular part of this is irresponsible. Now, tell me, name 
a school, where there are surplus Negro teachers? One 
school? A. I said T could not give you a name.

Mr. Witt: No further questions.
Witness excused.
Mr. Williams: The plaintiff rests.
The Court: All right.

Dr. B e n n y  C armichael  reca lled .

Direct Examination by Mr. W itt:

Q. Dr. Carmichael, the Avondale School has been men-
—133—

tinned prior in today’s testimony. I direct your attention 
to the beginning of school, the few months prior to the 
opening of school in 19(13-64, the first time there was any

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



93a

degree of desegregation in Avondale School. What prep­
aration was made administratively by your staff for the 
desegregation of the Avondale School? A. The other 
schools of the school system which had been selected for 
the initial desegregation, of course, had been operating as 
desegregated schools during 1962-63. By the close or near­
ing the close of ’62-63 school year, as was known at the 
time we were planning the first desegregation, one of our 
greatest concerns was the beginning of desegregation of 
the Avondale School. We knew with the first desegrega­
tion of it that we were going to have a large number of 
Negro children enrolled. As I recall we estimated loO 
white and approximately 350 Negro children. I began in 
the spring of ’62-63 of the school year, which would have 
been April or May of 1963 talking with the Avondale 
faculty. 1 requested the faculty and principal, who were 
all white, to remain as a body in that school if at all pos­
sible. I gave as my reasoning that the teachers had taught 
in that school for many years—

Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, 1 object— 
frankly 1 don’t see the relevance of our going back 
into this long thing that we had in 1962 and ’63. 1 
submit that it is irrelevant for the Court to sit here

—134—
and listen to this Superintendent go over a long 
resume of what has done and what people he talked 
to back in 1962 and ’63 to effect desegregation back 
then. The question is what exists now, what the 
problems are now.

The Court: I don’t see the relevance of it but I’ll 
allow you to put it in the record.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



94a

Mr. W itt: Perhaps we should state the relevance 
ot it. I am attempting' to use a special situation 
that exists at the Avondale School to simplify the 
proof to indicate the kinds of administrative prob­
lems that Ur. Carmichael and his staff have had to 
address themselves to, so that the Court can be aware 
of the many factors in this problem that bear upon 
the quality of education in the classroom.

The Court: The problem confronting the Court, 
of course, is the situation that may or may not exist 
with reference to the junior high and high schools 
which are the remaining areas.

Mr. Witt: Well, what I purport to show to your 
Honor through the testimony of Dr. Carmichael, 
the kinds ol things that must be done with regard 
to the seventh grade, eighth grade and ninth grade, 
the kinds of things they have learned will work and 
will create the kind of atmosphere in which the first 
desegregation experience will be a good one, and 
this is the reason.

The Court: Pll allow you to continue.
—135—

Q. Dr. Carmichael, just what problems were—came to 
your attention during the first year of desegregation with 
regard to Avondale? A. By mid-year of the first year of 
desegregation of Avondale, which was ’63-64, while I had 
picked up certain questions from the principal from time 
to time as to the feelings of teachers, the first major one,
T would say, was the request by the principal of the Avon­
dale School that the total staff bo removed from that school 
for the following year and that the staff be made all Negro. 
That was during the Christmas holidays of that ’63-64 
school year. I did not attempt to convince the principal

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



95a

that it should be one or the other, I did at that meeting, 
which, as I say, is the first time I had taken time to discuss 
the question in detail, but at this time 1 held out to him 
that there were probably several considerations that ought 
to be given to the nature of the staff for the following year. 
His contention was that he and his staff were of the opin­
ion that they had been requested to remain that first year 
only for the purpose of making the transition, and that 
thereafter the staff would be made all Negro.

Mr. Williams: I object to all this hearsay, if your 
Honor please.

The Court: Of course we have been receiving 
hearsay in connection with the motion and in con-

—136—
nection with the hear, I believe I will over-rule the 
objection.

Mr. Williams: I just wanted to call the Court’s 
attention to hearsay if not objected to as competent 
evidence.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Carmichael: I think you will find most of this 

verified, Mr. Williams, in the minutes of the board 
of education and in my correspondence. Soon after 
this meeting with the principal, I drew up in letter 
form, and on February 20, 1964, took it to the school, 
presented it to the total staff, as to my position. 
And I made the position, just to put it quickly, that 
I felt the staff—there were three alternatives with 
regard to staffing the school for the following year. 
It could be continued as an all-white staff, adding 
additional white teachers as they were needed for

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



96a

additional numbers of Negro pupils; that it could 
be switched to an all-Negro staff with the coming of 
the next year, or, that we could start introducing 
Negro teachers to that staff in order to move toward 
a transition or breaking this down. I gave my rea­
soning with regard to each plan and stated that I 
felt it would be unsound to make a complete shift 
in the staff to an all Negro, that we identified, and 
the teachers were analyzing, concerned about the 
kinds of problems they were facing, therefore one 
of our biggest jobs, as it will be pointed out, is for 
us to undertake to understand those problems and 
adapt our instructional methods to them. Therefore, 
I was of the opinion the best staffing could come

—137—
from the introduction of Negro teachers to the staff. 
1 pointed out that this was not something approved 
by the board of education, I sent copies of it to the 
board of education, however, and this was just 
going to be the reasoning that I was going to use 
on it.

Q. What was the date of that letter? A. That letter 
was February 20, 1964. 1 did this at that time for the 
primary purpose of getting this cleared for teachers be­
cause they were being asked if they wanted to make trans­
fers, just as they always are at this time of the year, and 
I was leaving for Brazil and felt obligated to get it done. 
Tins action of course I reported to the board of educa­
tion as T had by carbon copy, but in discussion with the 
board of education. This was followed up with a meeting 
of the total Avondale staff with the board of education 
in a conference meeting on April 30. There are minutes

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants■—Recalled—Direct



97a

here covering that meeting. The purpose here, again, was 
for the board to understand the concerns of this staff and 
to help them understand an appropriate decision for staff­
ing it for the following year. Quickly, I followed that meet­
ing up with another letter to Mr. Reese and his faculty 
on May 14, in which I tried to summarize where we were 
at that point, and the proposals that I would make with 
regard to the staff and the school for the following year, 
primary of which was the launching of a study involving 
the staff of that school in actually learning how to cope

—138—
with the problems rather than deserting the school and 
leaving them for someone else, and still tried to keep it 
clear to them what their prerogative should be with re­
gard to transferring from this school. I think that is as 
much as perhaps I should say about that. Going into 
budget session, we recommended a small amount to sup­
port a study there for testing purposes, for the additional 
Negro teachers to start this sort of thing. Then, as I have 
testified already, I met with them before school trying to 
develop a rapport within this staff that would make these 
people effective in the school. In the fall, actually prior 
to the opening of the school, an outline of a proposal had 
been developed to engage these teachers in a very depth 
study of teaching Negro children. We used Dr. Irwin 
Ketz of New York University as an observer and con­
sultant, and here is a seven-page report from him as to 
what his observations are at the school, and some indica­
tion of the kinds of things he felt needed to be done to 
cope with the problem, definitely stating that there is a 
problem. We used Dr. Gertrude Norr who is a director 
of education for the Anti-defamation League here on No­

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



9 8 a

vember 17, to state to her what we were trying to do, 
what ideas would she have. Finally, this was moved on 
to a formalized proposal which was approved by the 
United States Office of Education and a very specific pro­
gram has been initiated and we’ve been working on it 
since February—the program has been in existence since 
February 9. All of this designed to help these teachers

- 1 3 9 -
in dealing with the problems that they encounter. As a 
part of the study taped interviews were conducted with 
every teacher involved, getting their reactions, they kinds 
of things they find problems with, and I’m prepared to 
read statements from these interviews.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, let’s relate this to the seventh grade. 
How did you involve any junior high school teachers in 
this study? A. We have one junior high teacher, in some 
instances two, and we have Negro teachers from East 
Fifth where we have white children, who have been par­
ticipating in this, that we have even taken them to Avon­
dale for a week to observe and to get some experience with 
teaching. This is just one teacher from a junior high 
school, and from seventh grade, trying to help them get 
a preunderstanding of something that they were going to 
be dealing with. Your situation in dealing with this prob­
lem is th is: you cannot work effectively with teachers until 
they move into the situation and get an understanding of 
what they are actually dealing with. Now, we made as 
much preparation as anybody before the opening of school. 
You’ve got to get on into it far enough for teachers to 
identify their real problems, and this is when you take 
hold of it.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



99a

Q. What kinds of problems'? A. The teachers have 
cited and reviewed problems all the way from speech pat­
terns, from children not being able to control their be-

—140—
havior to participate in independent study, to having being 
dealt with in their discipline by their parents and other 
teachers in certain ways that make it exceedingly difficult 
for them to give them freedom, to relieve the tensions 
that they have, to their mental abilities, to their achieve­
ment levels, to their attention span. I ’ve named their 
language patterns. To their specific use of—here is : “She 
has also made some change in reading instruction and 
she finds the need to stress simple words such as is and 
are.”

Q. Do these problems have any impact upon the quality 
of education?

Mr. Williams: 1 object to that. I object to his 
answering a general question like that.

The Court: Well, sustained.

Q. What reason did you have for this expenditure of 
time and effort? A. Why did we do it? I t’s my frank 
opinion that the school would not have continued without 
considerable trouble and damage through this year if we 
had not given this school this kind of attention, this kind 
of assistance. You do face this kind of thing, and I have 
emphasized it in the reports to the Court each year. After 
desegregation began, I do not like to put an over-emphasis 
on help to that school, because your teachers feel you are 
looking over their shoulders, that you don’t trust them, 
that they can’t carry out desegregation instruction and

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



100a

- 1 4 1 -
plans, but when they really begin encountering problems 
you’d better help them, because I ’ve had teachers to talk 
about this problem and cry, not in terms of disliking Negro 
children or anything of that sort. I t’s quite the contrary. 
But, being concerned about their effectiveness in teaching’ 
them.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct

Mr. Williams: I object—he is now talking about 
what is in the minds of teachers and concluding 
that teachers are not prejudiced, and I might very 
well conclude that they are, based on my experience, 
if your Honor please, and I object to it.

A. One of our assumptions in the study is that they are 
prejudiced.

The Court: I believe I will over-rule the objection.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, have you or any member of your 
staff had any conferences with representatives of the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare? A. Yes. 

Q. With regard to the Avondale project? A. Yes.
Q. What individuals did you have conferences with or 

contacts with? A. Dr. Stanley Kruger in the U. S. Office 
of Education has been our primary contact person in dis­
cussing this and talking this. The first contact, however,

—142—
was with Commissioner Kepler when they were trying to 
formulate the provisions and the implementation of the 
section with the Civil Rights Act, in relation to these kinds 
of experiences. This is part of the reason this sort of 
thing was used in establishing the provision for technical



101a

systems under Section 403, Title 4, the the grants to boards 
of education, which your board of education has, under 405.

Q. What does Title 4 authorized! A. Title 4 is the dec­
laration that schools shall be desegregated and further 
provides the assistance to deal with the problems or cope 
with the problems occasioned by desegregation.

Q. Does it authorize the expenditure of several [sic] 
funds to effect this? A. Yes, it does.

Q. When did the school board make this application? A. 
Officially December 30.

Q. Were there other proposals submitted to H.E.W. on 
this line? A. Apparently there were some coming through, 
however, this was the first proposal approved in the United 
States under this section.

Q. What is the size of this particular study? A. The 
first phase of it will be concluded next Friday, that’s

- 1 4 3 -
training for 75 teachers in the school system. There is a 
second phase of it for 10 days this summer in which an­
other number of our teachers will be involved and we will 
invite teachers in from the outside, still using Avondale 
as a laboratory situation for this study.

Q. Would you describe the early steps in this study? 
A. Quickly the steps are these.

Q. Take your time if necessary. A. Of the teachers 
selected to participate in in, and they were selected ac­
cording to need, presently teaching desegregated classes 
or were going to be this fall. We used a sociologist as a 
consultant, and this was Dr. Gertrude Norr of the Anti­
defamation League, who came to the school system begin­
ning the week of February 15, and spent every day observ­
ing each of the teachers participating in the program,

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



102a

observing their classroom instruction, their reaction to 
children, childrens reaction to them, all of the practices of 
operating a school, and then met with them on three fol­
lowing Saturdays. She came back a week later each time 
and met with small groups.

Q. Were these elementary teachers! A. Elementary— 
50 of them were elementary and 25 were junior high. First 
it was all the teachers in Avondale, then 25 other ele­
mentary teachers from other schools, then 25 junior high 
teachers from schools that will be desegregated this fall.

Q. Did the junior high teachers actually teach! A.
—144—

Later, just about three weeks ago, we brought the junior 
high schools to Avondale for a weeks time, and they ob­
served for about two or three days and then the teachers 
at Avondale turned the teaching over to them and they 
visited in some other Negro schools, while the junior high 
teachers took over. But, Dr. Norr will come back next 
Wednesday, I think, for the final meeting with the group. 
The following week, after she was here, Dr. Larry Wrights- 
man, a social psychologist from George Peabody College 
came and went through the same pattern of observation 
and meeting with teachers and personal conferences with 
them. The whole object being to first identify the socio­
logical setting of children, analyze the home conditions, 
the cultural disadvantage and all this sort of thing you 
are dealing with it, secondly for the social psychologist to 
pick up and interpret this in terms of Avhat does this mean 
for personal behavior of children, and the influences upon 
learning. He went through the same pattern with the 
children, and, finally, during the following week which got 
down to the last of February and the first of March, some­

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



103a

where in there, Dr. Dorothy Johnson, from the Washing­
ton D. C. schools, where they had supposedly developed 
very adequate program of dealing with this, went through 
the same pattern with the children for the purpose of 
translating the sociological understandings, findings, the 
personal or psychological ones, into a curriculum and 
method of instructing children in a desegregated situation.

—145—
That, with the meetings which will be concluded this week, 
that’s the development of that phase of it to this time. This 
summer it will follow with a new group of teachers, the 
same kind of pattern, but it will be all day instead of— 
and will not have the classroom observations involved. 
We’re going to operate four classes in Avondale this sum­
mer for observation purposes by the teachers who will be 
in training.

Q. Where will these teachers come from? A. 75 of them 
approximately will come from our own schools, 25 of them 
will be invited from other school systems in the state. 
Memphis will be sending four, Nashville, I believe, will be 
sending four.

Q. Incidentally, did Knoxville avail itself of this Title 4 
funds? A. No, it did not.

Q. Did Memphis avail itself of this— A. No, it hasn’t.
Q. Did Nashville involve itself in this kind of training? 

A. No, it hasn’t.
Q. Why were the tapes with the individual teachers felt 

necessary? A. The nature of the study itself does ex­
actly what Mr. Williams was implying a minute ago. We 
assume that a great deal of our problems stem from the 
fact that we are prejudiced, that we have values which 
are prejudiced, and we were trying to nail this down in

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



104a

—146-
terms of wliat does a teacher feel and think with regard 
to this whole question at this time, so that as we move for 
a program such as this, that we can identify what changes 
have teachers been able to make with regard to dealing 
with her own prejudices with regard to this. Did what 
she think was a race-caused problem really not turn out 
to be that at all, but, rather, a cultural disadvantage prob­
lem and so on and so forth.

Q. What have you identified with regard to attitudes on 
teachers, as a result of this study? A. I think certainly 
fewer teachers feel that their problems stem from race 
as such. They assumed that it did in large measure, but 
it’s not a child’s race that is causing these particular prob­
lems.

Q. Did they have fears? A. Yes, they’ve had fears.
Q. Did these fears affect their classroom performance? 

A. Yes. They did not know what they felt toward Negro 
children. In fact, some of them still don’t. 1 think it is 
safe to say that our consultants have raised the question 
as to whether or not some teachers can ever adapt to that 
teaching situation. They even, in a meeting with our 
board of education, proposed the possibility of consider­
ing transfers. This is how difficult the problem becomes. 
This is not my word, in fact T object to doing it, I don’t

—147-
think the transfer should be made, but this grows out of 
really looking at teachers’ adaptation to children, the need.

Q. Do these attitudes restrict themselves to Negroes in 
white situations? Do these attitudes that you have iden­
tified restrict themselves to a situation where there is a 
white in a Negro situation, or does it have other applica­

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



105a

tions? A. Well, in this particular case we assume that 
it is because of the white-Negro situation.

Q. What about the term culturally disadvantaged1? A. 
1 can’t follow you in terms of relating it to the race ques­
tion.

Q. Do teachers have prejudices toward— A. Culturally 
disadvantaged children?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, they do.
Q. Whether they are white or Negro? A. Yes, we do.
Q. Do these prejudices interfere with their capacity to 

adjust to a new situation? A. Yes, they do.
Q. Do these prejudices affect the quality of their per­

formance? A. Yes, they do.
Q. Is there any evidence that these attitudes can be

—148—
changed? A. There is some accumulating. I do not have 
it specifically but it is reported that these kinds of atti­
tudes are being changed—

Mr. Williams: Your Honor, I object—
The Court: Sustain the objection.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, it was testified to, 1 believe, that the 
Memphis program of desegregation, I believe the junior 
highs next year and the senior highs the following years? 
A. Yes, that would be 7, 8 and 9, because their organiza­
tion is the same as ours, and 10, 11 and 12.

Q. How do you relate the knowledge you have gain in 
the Avondale project to this program? A. I wouldn’t 
restrict it to the Avondale project alone, I would restrict 
it to our total experience with this. I think it is regretable, 
and I think it is proper for me to say the Court made the 
decision in this case. I think it is regretable that it moved

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



1 0 6 a

toward junior high and senior high as a total group.
Q. Why? A. It violates something that I think we have 

proven quite well in Chattanooga about the desegregation 
of schools. That is, that the introduction of a limited num­
ber of children to a successful desegregation—in other 
words, you could have accomplished the same thing if this 
were their intention by moving into 7 only and 10 only, 
and then 8 and 9, 11 and 12, rather than the total group,

—149—
and I think there should be this kind of reasoning taking 
that sort of step, you see. So, I would have disagreed 
with that approach even if I were intending to achieve 
the same end or objective in the same period of time.

Q. Not just because you don’t like it? A. No—

Mr. Williams: l object to his leading this witness, 
your Honor.

Q. Is it educationally sound, in your opinion ? A. I don’t 
think it is as educationally sound.

Q. What difference do numbers make in a classroom? 
What differences does it make whether you have two Negro 
children or— A. It tends to push the teacher beyond the 
point that she can adjust to a need and problem that she 
has.

Q. Why? How? A. Because it is requiring more of 
her than she can give. She has got to build gradually 
toward what she can give and what she can adjust to, if 
she is going to teach adequately. This is true in every 
other consideration we make of a teacher. Everything. We 
don’t group children homogeneously when race is not in­
volved and load them on teachers all at one time. I don’t 
know why we can reason that we can do the same thing

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



107a

when it comes to race without giving the same considera­
tions.

—150—
Q. Do teachers prefer to teach white students? A. Yes, 

they do.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct

Mr. Williams: This is objected to, if your Honor 
please, whether teachers prefer to teach white stu­
dents is entirely irrelevant to any consideration in 
this case.

Mr. Witt: The whole purpose for us being in this 
courtroom today has to do with the quality of the 
education this community will get in the years ahead. 
What we are talking about, we are not playing a 
numbers game in the sense of so many Negroes here 
and so many white people there, we’re trying to do 
this in an intelligent way so that we have the first 
experience—

Mr. Williams: I hate to take up the time to make 
a responding speech, your Honor, but I would say 
that we are not here for the purpose of having a 
dissertation on quality of education and whether 
teachers prefer to teach white students. The Negro 
children in this city are entitled to have their con­
stitutional rights, the enjoyment of their constitu­
tional rights now, rather than have them in a 
deferred position, and that, your Honor, has no rele­
vance, whether she prefers to teach white children.

The Court: Well, state a question.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, based upon your experience, what 
happens to the children in a classroom that aie progressing



108a

— 151—
at the slowest rate? A. They are tended to be overlooked.

Q. What do you mean, overlooked?

Mr. Williams: I object to this, if your Honor 
please. It is highly incompetent and irrelevant. If 
this man were testifying as an expert on the basis 
of some study that he had individually made and 
published, that’s one thing. He is now just asking 
general questions about what happens with regard 
to some hypothetical situation—

Mr. W itt: Your Honor, this study is pursuant to 
an act of the United States Congress, authorizing 
the expenditure of federal funds for this particular 
kind of study to meet this particular kind of prob­
lem. It is the first one in the United States approved. 
I would like to go into in step by step. This goes 
to-—

The Court: Gentlemen, it is much easier, after 
these hearings are over, to sort out what is relevant 
and what is not relevant. It is rather difficult as we 
go along to anticipate where a considerable amount 
of the testimony is relevant—

Mr. Williams: It is true that this is a matter of 
determination by the Court, and the Court is learned 
in the law. On the other hand, the Court is a human 
being. I remember the Court in Nashville refused 
to allow himself to hear incompetent evidence. Who 
knows the effect of the accumulation—

—152—
The Court: If I exclude the evidence and they 

desire to put it in the record, they have the right to 
do so. I ’ve found on these non-jury hearings that

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



109a

the better part of wisdom is to be rather broad in 
allowing evidence to be put in, and then when you 
go to consider the evidence just disregard that por­
tion of it not proper to consider. I ’ve overruled the 
immediate objection, let’s move along.

Q. I hand you what purports to be a proposal for school 
board grants for programs on educational problems inci­
dent to school desegregation, submitted to the United 
States Commissioner of Education under the provisions of 
Title 4, Section 405, Public Law 88, 352 Civil Rights Act 
of 1964. Dr. Carmichael, was this proposal prepared under 
your direction? A. Yes, it was.

Q. Was it submitted to the Chattanooga board of educa­
tion? A. Yes, it was.

Q. Was it approved by the Chattanooga board of educa­
tion? A. Yes.

Q. Was it submitted to the Department of Health, Ed­
ucation and Welfare of the United States government? 
A. Yes.

Q. Was it approved by the Department of Health, Ed­
ucation and Welfare? A. Yes.

—153—
Q. Is it in operation? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Have you received the funds? A. Partially.
Q. Partially? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the section of the Civil Rights Act 

under which this was authorized? A. Section 405 of Title 
4, entitled Grants to Boards of Education.

Q. Do you recall the purpose for which these grants 
were made? A. The purpose is to provide grants to 
boards of education to conduct in-service education pro­
grams on problems occasioned by desegregation.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



110a

Q. Now, what remains to be done under this particular 
study! A. The evaluation, summary evaluation, and con­
clusions drawn with regard to changes that have been pro­
duced in teachers, on this first phase.

Q. On the first phase? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This will take place when? A. Following the end of 

the May 8 meeting, the actual preparation of the report 
will begin.

— 154—
Q. Who will prepare the report? A. It is the primary 

responsibility of Mr. William Smith, the director of the 
project.

Q. Is he an employee of the Chattanooga hoard of educa­
tion? A. Yes, he is.

Q. What will he done with this report once it is pre­
pared? A. It will be used to extend this kind of training 
and preparation of teachers on into the junior high level, 
and to accomplish the kinds of things in Avondale that 
are implied that should be accomplished, and some of that 
has already begun. We have already identified three 
specific kinds of things that must be done to carry on an 
adequate program in Avondale, and I ’d like to mention 
those, if I may. These are just conclusions drawn at this 
time—

Q. These are just temporary conclusions? A. These 
are temporary conclusions which our staff has begun.

Q. Are these your conclusions? A. My conclusions and 
those of the division of instruction of the Chattanooga 
school administrative staff. These are going to be the 
three kinds of things we develop in order to cope with 
the problem or to offer an adequate education program. 
I should like to mention them if you’ll let me.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



111a

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct

—155—
Q. Go ahead. A. One is the development of a cur­

riculum adequate to meet the needs of those children, 
particularly in pinning down the specific kinds of learning 
skills that we must pursue in order to provide an effective 
learning program for these youngsters. That gets quite 
detailed and involved.

Q. Can you illustrate that before you give your other 
two points? A. The best illustration that I would use 
would be the need to introduce a telephonic program for 
ear training for youngsters before they are introduced into 
first grade work, to use a specific in the area of curriculum.

Q. Can you think of a specific in terms of the seventh 
grade? A. No.

Q. What do you mean by telephonic? A. I t’s a device 
by which certain sounds are prerecorded in relation to 
letters and certain pictures, and children are just—it’s 
flashed on a screen and it is played from a record, and 
children hear and identify the particular object or symbol 
that goes with it. This comes directly out of the program 
of the specialized Amadone school of Washington D.C.

Q. Will this be limited to Negro schools? A. It won’t 
after we get it perfected and introduced. In fact, our 
major objective is to introduce it and perfect it in such

—156—
a way that we can then disseminate it to all schools, those 
which may remain predominately Negro and those which 
are white, and so on.

Q. Would this relate to Operation Headstart? A. Yes, 
it would.

Q. Will this relate to senior high? A. Eventually there 
must be an extension of it.



112a

Q. What is the second point? A. The establishment of 
an adequate classroom environment in the Avondale School 
per se. This is described in terms of the organization of 
material in the room, even going to the point of being 
sure we put lines on the chalk boards by which children 
write; that certain specified materials are in every room, 
such as maps and globes, as opposed to just a sundry 
listing of materials that may be in a room now; and then 
the area dealing with teacher attitude of types of ques­
tions that are asked, how they are asked, and so on. And 
the consultants give very specific guides on these kinds 
of things, in order to teach children effectively. May I 
go on to the third area?

Q. Yes. A. The third area is the development of an 
adequate school-parent program. This is identified in 
Detroit, it is identified in Pittsburgh, it’s identified in every 
area where they have undertaken this kind of thing. To

—157—
develop a type of program with parents so that you have 
their interest and their cooperation and their assistance 
in the total program. These are kinds of things that give 
rise to and are the basis for all of your major projects now 
in this area of dealing with the culturally disadvantaged, 
the Headstart programs, and so on. They come from the 
proof that these kinds of things are necessary if we are 
going to help children as they ought to be helped.

Q. How many teachers were involved in this first step? 
A. 75.

Q. How many of these were junior high? A. 25. See, 
you had 25 at Avondale, 25 elementary outside of Avon­
dale, and 25 junior high, the make-up of the group.

Q. Were these Negro teachers and white teachers? A. 
Negro teachers and white teachers. More whites than

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



113a

Negroes, more white teachers involved than white teachers.
Q. Now, what is the second step in this project? A. It 

depends on which phase you are talking about?
Q. What is the second phase? A. The second phase is 

a similar program conducted during the summer, in which 
the consultants returned to our school system and worked 
with a new group of teachers all day for 10 days. The 
teachers involved observed in Avondale and analyzed 
records of children and methods and procedures used

—158—
and so on.

Q. Will this idea be continued or discontinued at the 
end of the second phase? A. It will be continued and 
expanded. It will be continued upward lirst into junior 
high and particularly into Hardy Junior High, where 
these children will attend junior high school, and there is 
a fair commitment already on the part of the principal 
and this staff that it would like to pick up the kind of 
thing that Avondale is doing and be sure that it continues 
a similar program into the junior high school. Plans are 
being formulated to do this.

Q. You selected two Negro teachers to go to Avondale? 
A. Yes.

Q. Would you describe the process by which you selected 
these teachers?

Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, I object, 
on the ground that this is entirely irrelevant to any—

The Court: Gentlemen, could we not move on to 
the junior high and high school programs? Would 
that not be the area that we are concerned with here?

Mr. W itt: Your Honor, it is fairly clear the dif­
ferences between counsel for plaintiff and myself,

Benny Carmichael—-for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



114a

this school board and the plaintiff, it has to do with 
objectives. I ’m trying to identify for your Honor 
the kinds of considerations that are necessary in the 
opinion of this defendant and this board to make the

- 1 5 9 -
kinds of decisions with regard to people. Adminis­
trative decisions that result in the kind of an educa­
tion where the constitutional rights will have mean­
ing. I can illustrate with these two people, that 
they just didn’t pick two Negro teachers who had 
graduated from college and had the necessary 
courses in education. I ’m trying to get across for 
your information and guidance the kinds of prob­
lems that this superintendent must deal with if 
he is to direct this effort at, not the number gained, 
but the question of education.

The Court: It seems to me the relevant issues 
are the problems confronting the school board in 
the junior highs and senior highs. If you think you 
can make it relevant I ’ll allow you to proceed and 
we can determine whether it becomes relevant. As 
I understand now, you are relating the problems that 
have been confronted in the Avondale School, which 
school has now been desegregated?

Mr. Witt: As the best evidence, in face the only 
evidence, this superintendent and this school system 
has to guide them in planning for approaching un­
known territory, which is the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 
11th and 12th grades.

The Court: Well, so far there hasn’t been any 
thing in the record, has there, to show the problem 
of Avondale is the problem of a junior high or the 
problem of a high school?

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



115a

Mr. Witt: Perhaps I can make this connection.
—160—

Q. What problems would there be in desegregating an 
entire junior high school, 7th, 8th, 9th grade? A. I t’s a 
problem of amplifying each separate problem that you 
have when the number is smaller. By separate problems 
I mean such thing as learning level adjustment, boy-girl 
relationships, determination of how to handle extra-cur­
ricular activities, and this sort of thing.

Q. If you have a junior high school with five Negroes 
entering the 7th grade, is there any different between this 
situation and the situation where you have 200 Negroes 
entering the 7th grade? A. Tremendously.

Q. Detail me, please? A. The teachers will not feel that 
they have a potential—potentially problem spot, to put it 
in terms of explosiveness or just learning problems or 
boy-girl, white-Negro relationship adjustment and so on. 
In the case of the five, they will not have this feeling. 
In the case of the 200, it will be on the tips of their 
tongues and their thoughts at all times, and this is the 
difference in the thing we are dealing with.

Q. How do you know this? A. They talk with you 
about it, they stop you and talk with you.

—161—
Q. Who is they? A. The teachers who are exposed to 

this. The teachers from Avondale, immediately when this 
set in, would stand and talk with you by the hour about 
this incident and this incident and I ’m afraid this is going 
to happen, and so on. I ’m not saying these are things to 
be afraid of or worried about, and I ’m not afraid of them 
and worried about them. I am just saying that these are 
kinds of things that are on the minds of teachers and you 
have to help them get them off.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



116a

Q. Are you saying there is a difference between Avon­
dale and Glenwood! A. There is no difference between 
Avondale at this time last year and Glenwood at this 
time this year. The concerns of teachers at Glenwood 
are at the stage this year that Avondale’s were last year. 
And those are just sheer fear, frustration, and concern 
about the problem that they are working with.

Q. Does this result from numbers! A. Yes, in large 
measure it does, because it has reached the point that they 
cannot continue to teach as diverse group, or to carry as 
many who are having special learning problems, out of 
30 children, without some kind of help.

Q. Dr. Carmichael, when you identify teachers such as 
this, why don’t you just discharge them! A. First, they 
have tenure. Secondly, these are genuine good teachers, 
their concern is wholly with teaching children. I ’ve never

— 162—

had a concern in that regard. I respect them greatly for 
the concern they have. If they weren’t feeling this way 
about it, the problem would be much greater.

Q. Can you identify any other problem in connection 
with numbers! We’re asking this Court to justify the 
plan that we proposed before and has been approved, 
on the basis that what we have learned says that we should 
continue at this pace. This is the reason I ask you these 
questions. Is Sunnyside different from—in numbers, is 
Sunnyside different from Glenwood! A. Yes.

Q. How! A. The number is much smaller and the num­
ber per classroom with a given problem is less.

Q. If the number of pupils of another race in a classroom 
is small, this means that the problem in that classroom 
is small! A. If that race carries a preponderance of 
children with problems, yes. I t’s not the matter that it is 
a different race, it’s a matter that more children have

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



117a

problems of that group with which the teacher must be 
concerned.

Q. Does the number of the Negro pupils in a classroom 
increase or decrease the frustrations of the teacher? A. 
If they have individual problems which our groups have 
had it increases the frustrations of the individual teacher.

—163—
Q. What about the situation at Louis Sanderson, where 

you have two white pupils in a formerly all-Negro school? 
Any problem? A. Not that I know of. The problem is not 
even one of minority grouping in a classroom so far as I 
know. I t’s not a case of the children being afraid of one 
another or being hostile to one another. "We ve not had any 
problem with this, never had. It’s learning and behavior 
problems of individual children that I ’m talking about, that 
teachers are concerned with.

Q. Do you think you know things to do now that will 
affect the quality of education in junior high school when 
we desegregate? A. WTe know a few things to do. We’re 
going to take more of these children into junior high schools 
with a specific delineation of what their problems are and
what their learning levels are.

Q. Do you have an answer to all the problems? A. No.
I don’t even know all the problems.

Q. You don’t know all the problems? A. No.
Q. Does anybody? A. Not that I know of. And from 

the experience we had in trying to get help with this project, 
I don’t think many people do.

—164—
Q. Where did you go for help with this project? A. I 

went to Detroit, I went to the University of Florida, I went 
to Vanderbilt, I went to Peabody, I went to the University 
of North Carolina. I tried about 10 people.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled Direct



118a

Q. TV hat were you looking for? A. I was looking for 
a person that knew how to deal with this problem. How 
you really get in the classroom and teach a group of Negro 
children, adjust your methods and so on, so that they will 
fit. You will not find a person that I know of who is really 
comfortable in dealing with this question, to help teachers 
in a classroom.

Q. Do you have the manpower to meet these problems? 
A. No.

Q. Will the accelerated desegregation that the plaintiffs 
are asking for in their motion before this Court, will this 
increase your problems? A. Yes.

Q. How much? A. I don’t know how to estimate it. I 
would put it this way, to the point that I would not be 
inclined to try to work it out, in terms of really accommodat­
ing. I’d merely keep the lid on, so to speak.

Q. You mean the problem would be so big you—

Mr. Williams: I object to that—
Mr. W itt: Excuse me, I withdraw it.

—165—
The Court: Sustained.

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct

A. It’s the same thing I was referring to a minute ago. 
You’ll do what you can and you’ll judge what you do by 
what kinds of problems are you are dealing with. This is the 
only answer that I can really give to it. If 90 per cent of 
the problems are just keeping order, we’ll spend our time 
on that. If 90 per cent of the problems are in dealing with 
learning difficulties, we’ll spend our time on that.

Q. Can you describe briefly, based upon your experience, 
what you think will be the result, viewed as the school



119a

superintendent in Chattanooga, if the plaintiff’s request 
with regard to accelerated desegregation is approved? 
What would you expect? A. You mean in terms of num­
bers, instructional problems?

Q. The impact on the school system? Before you answer 
the question, I remind you, as school superintendent, that 
you have not recommended complete desegregation.

Mr. Williams: I object—
The Court: I ’ll allow him to answer the first ques­

tion, if the second was a question.

A. I will answer it in terms of the impact will be one of 
going beyond the point, in some instances, to where teachers 
could make the kinds of adjustments to the problem that 
I want them to make. Consequently, they will adapt meth­
ods and procedures to adjust—contain the situation, but

—166-
will not be inclined to move toward thoroughly under­
standing it and overcoming it, with their own adaptations. 
This is the best possible way that I could put it. Let me 
use this as an example, if you will permit it. I had a junior 
high school this year that is not even a junior high school 
that we talked about before, who in foreseeing desegrega­
tion said should we not stop this year, perhaps, our 9th 
grade outings, because desegregation is coming and 
shouldn’t we stop them. This was not the belief or feeling 
of the principal. I reasoned with them that if 1 were you 
I would wait, when desegregation occurs in the 7th grade 
your school will make a far better adjustment to it than 
you’d think. I would hope that you would not start using 
this sort of method to escape doing what ought to be done 
for children. I cite this to say I think you can continue

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Direct



120a

the kind of extra-curricular activities that are good for 
boys and girls, if you will be sensible about it, and if you 
give children time to adjust to it and parents time to ad­
just to it. On the other hand, I think to go at it otherwise, 
you may destroy some awfully important kinds of oppor­
tunities for boys and girls. I just don’t think that we are 
wise in moving this direction. I cannot say that, yes, you 
are going to take the 9tli grade to Lake Winnepasauka 
and swim. I mean, I can’t force them to do it and I don’t 
want to. If people don’t want to swim, they don’t swim, 
as far as I’m concerned. But I ’d wish they would continue

—167—
to go to Lake Winnepasauka and swim, because I think 
boys and girls need to do this. There is not a thing in 
the world wrong with doing it with both races. In fact, 
I don’t think boys and girls are going to conduct them­
selves well until they can do whatever boys and girls are 
supposed to do, in the presence of both races. But this 
takes time and adjustment and development for children 
to do it, as I see it operating in schools.

Mr. Witt: No further questions.

Cross Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Dr. Carmichael, regardless of race, you have ques­

tions involving cultural patterns, problems, educational 
problems involving cultural patterns? A. Yes, you do.

Q. This is just by way of comment, but are you familiar 
with Fisk University? A. Yes, I am.

Q. Are you aware that Fisk has a race relations depart­
ment and has had an institute there for years and years, 
and as a matter of fact this summer has been conducting

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Cross



121a

an institute where teachers are involved in desegregation? 
A. Yes.

Q. You did not, when you said you were at a loss and 
went to all these white universities up north and all over 
the country, it didn’t occur to you to contact someone at

— 168—

Fisk? A. Yes, sir, I know your people at Fisk. They 
don’t know how to do what I ’m talking about.

Q. I was just curious. A. Yes, sir.
#  *  *  *  *

Benny Carmichael—for Defendants—Recalled—Cross



122a

PRESS RELEASE

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1

The Mountain City Teachers Association is greatly con­
cerned with many of the existing conditions and practices 
with which our teachers are faced at this time. The failure 
of the School Board to integrate the teachers is not com­
putable with their often expressed belief in quality educa­
tion. This continued practice of segregation can only re­
sult in low morale and a feeling of insecurity of a large 
segment of teachers. Dissatisfied and insecure instructors 
do not beget quality education; it is the opposite.
The continued hiring of white teachers to teach the extra 
classes brought about by the transfer of Negro pupils into 
the so-called white schools creates a surplus of teachers 
in the here-to-fore Negro school. The decrease in the stu­
dent body of certain schools may well lead to the closing 
of the schools and the abolition of some teaching positions.
Already more than thirty white teachers have been hired 
because of the 900 or more Negro pupils tied to the so- 
called white schools. This failure to integrate has already 
cost the taxpayers money for surplus teachers in the sys­
tem. There is no reason why the integration of the facul­
ties of all the schools can not bo done smoothly and har­
moniously.

The children who are carrying the brunt of this great 
social revolution have a right to have some of their own 
teachers teach them. This certainly would alleviate some 
of the pressure and minimize some of the frustrations 
experienced by those children. This is certainly a deter­
rent to quality education. This condition could be remedied



123a

very easily and simply. Place at least one Negro and one 
white teacher in every racial school; balance the person­
nel in certain schools to meet the psychological needs and 
racial proportion of the student body.
The integration of the staff should be an essential phase 
of the desegregation program of our schools, instead, 
every conceivable reason that can be found is used to delay 
the inevitable; workshops to teach teachers to teach in 
desegregated schools; Negro counselors (glorified disci­
plinarians) assigned to schools with a large Negro pupil 
population.

— 2 —

Local #428 favors total integration of teachers and stu­
dents. We feel that it is impossible for teachers to teach 
democracy without practicing it in the classroom as well 
as in everyday living. Psychologically, children understand 
democracy when they experience it in action rather than 
through abstraction.
To integrate teachers in Chattanooga would not be setting 
a precedence in the South. Teachers are integrated in some 
cities in Kentucky, Oak Ridge and Cooksville, Tennessee; 
why not Chattanooga?
Our All American City has successfully integrated City 
Hall, downtown department stores, theatres, restaurants 
and other public and private facilities without ill-effect. 
Why has the school system not seen fit to keep pace with 
other facets of the community?
Since Negro and white teachers are working together in 
inservice training programs and other programs for the 
betterment of Chattanooga’s youth, we should have de­
veloped a relationship which would lend itself to the sue-

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1



124a

cessful integration of the faculties of Chattanooga Public 
Schools.

It is our belief that the Chattanooga Public Schools can not 
provide quality education for all of its pupils until the 
schools are thoroughly desegrated. We further believe 
that the maximum benefit of all the schools to all pupils 
will only come with complete integration.
We call upon all citizens, including teachers, and the Board 
of Education, to help take democracy off paper and put 
it into immediate practice.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1



125a

C hattanooga P ublic  S chools 
1161 West Fortieth Street 

Box 2013
Chattanooga 9, Tennessee 

April 30, 1965

Reports and Records on Teacher Employment, 
Assignments, and Discharges for 1960-61 through 
1964-65 in Chattanooga Public Schools as Required 
by Civil Subpoena, Civil Action File No. 3564, 
to Dr. Bennie Carmichael Dated April 28, 1965

These reports and records are submitted in compliance 
with the Civil Subpoena cited above. For purposes of 
clarification, the word “hired” used in the third line of 
the second paragraph of the letter requesting that the 
subpoena be issued is interpreted to mean “new teachers 
employed” ; inasmuch as the last sentence of the letter 
states that “In teacher information, show whether hired 
as replacements or otherwise.” The report is based upon 
this interpretation rather than the meaning which would 
include all teachers employed by the Chattanooga Board 
of Education each year whether new employees or tenure 
employees. The word “respective” used in the same third 
line of the second paragraph is interpreted to mean “the 
schools of the Chattanooga School System” ; whereas, 
“respective” used in two other places in the same sentence 
is interpreted to mean the individual schools to which 
teachers were assigned or from which they were discharged.

The report, beginning on the next page, shows new 
employees by school years, 1960-61 through 1964-65.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2



126a

Teachers for each year are shown separately by race and 
according to school to which they were assigned. Numbers 
of teachers discharged are shown by school, likewise, and 
the new assignments are recorded in terms of replace­
ments for resignations, retirements, or transfers, and for 
new positions created as a result of increased enrollments 
or other requirements for a new position.

This report is based upon the official minutes of all 
school board meetings in which teachers were approved by 
the Chattanooga Board of Education from 1960-61 to the 
present date, school directories for 1959-60 and 1960-61, 
and annual reports to the Board of Education showing 
personnel assigned to schools as of the tenth day of school 
for the 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, and 1964-65 school years, 
verifying the employment of teachers by individual schools. 
These records are in the courtroom for substantiation of 
the summary report.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  B e n ja m in  E. C armichael, 
Benjamin E. Carmichael 
Superintendent

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

BEC :rl



127a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1960-61
White Teachers

S ch oo l

N u m b e r  N u m b er  . . , , ,
N e w  T ea ch ers  A s s ig n e d  F o r

T e a ch ers  D is- R ep la ce - N e w  
E m p lo y e d  ch a rg ed  m e a t  P o s it io n s

P o s it io n  C h an ge  

G ain  Loss

B ra in e rd  H ig h 5 5 26
C h a tta n o o g a  H ig h 8 8 8
K irk m a n 4 3 1 1
B ra in e rd  J u n io r 3 3
E a s t  L ak e  J u n io r 4 4 5
E a s t  S id e  J u n io r 5 5
H a rd y  J u n io r 5 5 2
E lb e r t  L o n g  J u n io r 1 1 2
L oo k o u t J u n io r 4 4
N o rth  C lia tta . J u n io r 7 5 2 2
P a r k  P la c e  J u n io r 10
A v o n d ale  E le m e n ta ry 1 1 4
H e n ry  L . B a rg e r  E lem . 2 2
0 .  R u sse ll B ro w n  E lem . 1
C e d a r H ill  E lem . 1
C lif to n  H ills  E lem . 2 2 2
E a s t  C h a tta n o o g a  E lem . 4 3 1 1
E a s t  L a k e  E lem . 1 1 1
E a s td a le  E le m e n ta ry 2 2 1
M ary  A n n  G a rb e r  E lem . 2
H em lock  E le m e n ta ry 1
H ig h la n d  P a r k  E lem . 3 3 1
E lb e r t  L o n g  E lem . 1
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  E lem . 1
O a k  G rove  E le m e n ta ry 1 1 1
K id g ed ale  E le m e n ta ry 5 3 2 2

S t. E lm o  E le m e n ta ry 1 1 1
S u n n y s id e  E le m e n ta ry 1 1 1
W o o d m o re  E le m e n ta ry 2 2 1
C e n tra l E le m e n ta ry 8
L oo k o u t E le m e n ta ry 1
Je ffe rso n  S t. E lem . 8
C la ra  C a rp e n te r  E lem . 14

N et R e su lt 71 53 18 44 66
Loss — 22



128a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1960-61
Negro Teachers

S ch oo l

N u m b er N u m b er A s s ig n e d  F o r
N e w  T e a ch ers  ------- - --------------

T e a ch ers  D is -  R ep la ce - N ew  
E m p lo y ed  ch a rg ed  m en t P o s it io n s

P o s it io n

G ain

C h an ge

Loss

H o w a rd  H ig h 13 7 6 6

H o w a rd  J u n io r 6 6 7

O rc h a rd  K n o b  J u n io r 5 5 7

E a s t  F i f th  S t. J u n io r 2 1 1 1

P a r k  P la c e  J u n io r 1 1 12

S econd  D is tr ic t  J u n io r 3 2 1 1

C h arle s  A . B ell E lem . 2 2 22

C h a tta n o o g a  A ve. E lem . 3

W . J .  D a v e n p o r t E lem . 4 4 9

C alv in  D o n a ld so n  E lem . 1 1 4

E a s t  F i f th  S t. E lem . 6 6 3

Ja m e s  A . H e n ry  E lem . 2

H o w a rd  E le m e n ta ry 1 1 3

O rc h a rd  K n o b  E lem . 11

L ou ie  S an d e rso n  E lem . 2 2 2

J o s e p h  E . S m ith  E lem . 2 2

S p e a rs  A v en u e  E lem . 2 2

F r a n k  H . T ro t te r  E lem . 6 6

W e st M a in  S t. E lem . 1 1 10

C la ra  C a rp e n te r  E lem . 4 4 14

F t .  C h ea th am  E le m e n ta ry 1 1

N e t R esu lt 62 32 30 79 38
G ain +  41

School Y e a r  1961-62
W h i t e  T e a c h e r s

B ra in e rd  H ig h 11 11 1

C h a tta n o o g a  H ig h 2 2 7

K irk m a n 5 5 10

B ra in e rd  J u n io r 1 1 1

D alew ood J u n io r 2 2 15

E a s t  L ak e  J u n io r 3 3 1

E a s t S ide  J u n io r 3 3 1



129a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1961-62
White Teachers

S ch oo l

N u m b er  N u m b er A s s i  ed  F o r
N e w  T ea ch ers  ------- ---------------

T e a ch ers  D is -  R ep la ce - N e w  
E m p lo y ed  ch a rg ed  m en t P o s it io n s

P o s it io n  C h an ge  

G a in  Loss

H a rd y  J u n io r 5 4 1 1

E lb e r t  L o n g  J u n io r 1

L ookou t J u n io r 1 1

N o rth  C h a tta . J u n io r 5 4 1 1

A v o n d ale  E le m e n ta ry 7

H e n ry  L . B a rg e r  E lem . 2 1 1 1

G. liu s se ll B ro w n  E lem . 3 2 1 1

C e d a r H il l  E lem . 1 1 8

C lif to n  H ills  E lem . 1 1 1

E a s t  C h a tta . E lem . 2 2 2

E a s t  L ak e  E lem . 3 3 4

E a s td a le  E lem . 2 2

M a ry  A n n  G a rb e r  E lem . 1 1 2

G lenw ood E lem . 1 1

H em lo ck  E lem . 2 2

H ig h la n d  P a r k  E lem . 1 1 1

M iss io n a ry  R id g e  E lem . 1 1 1

N o rm al P a r k  E lem . 3 3

R id g ed a le  E lem . 4 4 4

S t. E lm o  E lem . 1

S u n n y s id e  E lem . 1

W o o d m o re  E le m e n ta ry 3 3

L oo k o u t E le m e n ta ry 5

N et R e su lt 68 57 11 27 51
L oss — 24

N e g r o  T e a c h e r s

H o w a rd  H ig h 8 7 1 1

H o w a rd  J u n io r 6 4 2 2

O rc h a rd  K n o b  J u n io r 3 3 5

P a r k  P la c e  J u n io r 2 1 1 1

C h arle s  A . B ell E lem . 3 2 1 1

C h a tta n o o g a  A ve. E lem . 3



130a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1961-62
Negro Teachers

School

N u m b er
N ew

Teachers
Employed

N u m ber
T ea ch ers

D is­
ch a rg ed

A s s ig n e d  For
R ep lace- N e w  

m ent Positions

P o s it io n  C h an ge  

G ain  L o ss

W . J .  D a v e n p o rt E lem . 3 3 7
C a lv in  D o n a ld so n  E lem . 3 3
E a s t  F i f th  S t. E lem . 2 2
Ja m e s  A . H e n ry  E lem . 3 1 2 2
H o w a rd  E lem . 6 6 11
O rc h a rd  K n o b  E lem . 8 8 18
L o u ie  S a n d e rso n  E lem . 1 1 1
F r a n k  H . T ro tte r 5 5 2
W e s t M a in  S t. E lem . 11
C la ra  C a rp e n te r  E lem . 1 1 3

N et R esu lt 54 1 32 22 43 24
G ain +  19

School Y e a r  1962-63
W h i t e  T e a c h e r s

B ra in e rd  H ig h 16 5 11 11
C h a tta n o o g a  H ig h 2 2 3
K irk m a n 6 2 4 4
B ra in e rd  J u n io r 1 1 1
D ale  w ood J u n io r 9 3 6 6
E a s t  L ak e  J u n io r 2 2 1
E a s t  S id e  J u n io r 1 1 2

H a r d y  J u n io r 4
E lb e r t  L o n g  J u n io r i
L o o k o u t J u n io r 6 6 2
N o rth  C h a tta . J u n io r 2 2 3
H e n ry  L . B a rg e r  E lem . 2 2
A v o n d a le  E le m e n ta ry 3
G. R u sse ll B row n  E lem . 4 4 2
C e d a r H ill E lem . 1 1
C lif to n  H ills  E lem . 5 5 2
E a s t  C h a tta . E lem . 3 3
E a s t  L ak e  E lem . 4 4 1



131a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1962-63
White Teachers

S ch oo l

N u m b e r  N u m b er  A s s ig n e d  F or
New Teachers ------ - ------------

T e a ch ers  Dis* R ep lace- N ew  
E m p lo y ed  ch a rg ed  m en t P o s it io n s

P osition  Change 

Gain Loss

E a s td a le  E lem . i

M a ry  A n n  G a rb e r  E lem . 2 2 i

G lenw ood E le m e n ta ry 1 1 1

H em lo ck  E le m e n ta ry 1 1

H ig h la n d  P a r k  E le m e n ta ry 1 1 1

E lb e r t  L o n g  E lem . 2 1 1 1

M iss io n a ry  R id g e  E lem . i

N o rm a l P a r k  E lem . 2 2 i

O ak G rove E lem . 1 1

R id g ed a le  E lem . 8 8 i

S t. E lm o  E le m e n ta ry 1 1

S u n n y sid e  E lem . 1 1

W o o d m o re  E lem . 1 1

N et R e su lt 89 61 24 24 26
L oss —  2

N e g r o  T e a c h e r s

H o w a rd  H ig h 1 2 4 8 8

A lto n  P a r k  J u n io r 5 5 3 3

H o w a rd  J u n io r 4 4 6

O rc h a rd  K n o b  J u n io r 4 4 5

E a s t  F i f th  S tr e e t  J r . 4

S econd  D is t r ic t  J r . 19

C h a rle s  A . B ell E lem . 2 2

C h a tta n o o g a  A ve. E lem . 2 2 1

W . J .  D a v e n p o r t E lem . 2 2 1

C alv in  D o n a ld so n  E lem . 3 3

Ja m e s  A . H e n ry  E lem . 2 2 4

H o w a rd  E le m e n ta ry 2 2 i i

O rc h a rd  K n o b  E lem . 4 2 2 2

L ou ie  S a n d e rso n  E le m e n ta ry 2

Jo s e p h  E . S m ith  E lem . 2 2 i

S p e a rs  A v en u e  E lem . 2 1 1 i



132a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1962-63
Negro Teachers

S ch oo l

N u m b er  N u m b e r  . . , „
N ew  T e a ch ers  A s s ig n e d  F o r

T ea ch ers  D is -  R ep la ce - N ew  
E m p lo y ed  ch a rg ed  m en t P o s it io n s

P o s it io n  C h an ge  

G ain  Loss

F r a n k  H . T ro tte r  E lem . 3 3
F t .  C h ea th am  E lem . 1 1 1
C la ra  C a rp e n te r  E lem . 1

N e t R e su lt 50 28 22 61 39
G ain +  22

School Y e a r  1963-64
W h i t e  T e a c h e r s

B ra in e rd  H ig h 10 6 4 4
C h a tta n o o g a  H ig h 7 4 3 3
K irk m a n 3 2 1 1
B ra in e rd  J u n io r 1
D alew ood  J u n io r 4 4 1
E a s t  L a k e  J u n io r 5 5 1
E a s t  S id e  J u n io r 5 5 2
H a r d y  J u n io r 2 2 2
E lb e r t  L o n g  J u n io r 2 2 1
L o o k o u t J u n io r 5 5 1
N o rth  C h a tta . J r . 1 1 2
A v o n d a le  E le m e n ta ry 7 2 5 5

H e n ry  L . B a rg e r  E lem . 4 4 1
G. R u sse ll B ro w n  E lem . J 1 2
C e d a r  H ill  E lem . 1
C lif to n  H ills  E lem . 3 2 1 1
E a s t  C h a tta . E lem . 1 1 2
E a s t  L ak e  E lem . 5 4 1 1
E a s td a le  E lem . 2 1 1 1
M a ry  A n n  G a rb e r  E lem . 1 1 1
H em lo ck  E lem . 1
H ig h la n d  P a r k  E lem . 3 3 2
E lb e r t  L o n g  E lem . 3 3 2
M iss io n a ry  R id g e 1 1
N o rm a l P a r k  E lem . 1 1



133a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1963-64
White Teachers

S ch oo l

N um ber
New

T ea ch ers
E m p lo y ed

N u m b er
T ea ch ers

D is­
ch a rg ed

A s s ig n e d  F o r

R ep la ce- N e w  
m ea t P o s it io n s

P o s it io n  C h an ge  

G ain  Loss

O ak G rove E lem . 2 1 1 1

R id g ed a le  E lem . 8 7 1 1

•St. E lm o  E lem . 2 2

S u n n y s id e  E lem . 3 3

W o o d m o re  E lem . 1

.Yet R esu lt 91 71 20 22 20
G ain +  2

N e g r o  T e a c h e r s

H o w ard  H ig h 3 3 22

R iv ers id e  H ig h 4 4 40

A lto n  P a r k  J u n io r 5 5 1

H o w a rd  J u n io r 7 7

O rc h a rd  K n o b  J u n io r 1 1 1

R iv ers id e  J u n io r 7 7 34

E a s t F i f th  S t. J u n io r 15

P a r k  P la c e  J u n io r 13

C h arle s  A . B ell E lem . 2 2 1

C h a tta n o o g a  A ve. E lem . 1

W . J .  D a v e n p o r t E lem . 1

C alv in  D o n a ld so n  E lem . 1 1 1

E a s t F i f th  S t. E lem . 5

Ja m e s  A . H e n ry  E lem . 2

H o w a rd  E lem . 1 1

O rch a rd  K n o b  E lem . 3 3 1

J o s e p h  E . S m ith  E lem . 1 1 1

F r a n k  H . T ro tte r  E lem . 1

F t . C h ea th am  E lem . 2

C la ra  C a rp e n te r  E lem . 18

Y et R e su lt 35 24 11 81 7 9
G ain +  2



134a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1964-65
White Teachers

N um ber
New

N um ber
Teachers A ssigned F o r P osition  Change

School
Teachers Dis- Replace- New
Employed charged m ent Positions Gain Loss

B ra in e rd  H ig h 6 4 2 2
C h a tta n o o g a  H ig h 10 6 4 4
K irk m a n 6 3 3 3
B ra in e rd  J u n io r 1 1
D alew ood J u n io r 4 4
E a s t  L ak e  J u n io r 5 5
E a s t  S id e  J u n io r 5 4 1 1
H a r d y  J u n io r 4 4 3
E lb e r t  L o n g  J u n io r 4 3 1 1
L o o k o u t J u n io r 2 2
N o rth  C h a tta . J u n io r 1 1
A v o n d a le  E le m e n ta ry 5 5 6
H e n ry  L. B a rg e r  E lem . 4 3 1 1
G. R u sse ll B ro w n  E lem . 2 2
C e d a r H ill E lem . 2 2
C lif to n  H ills  E lem . 4 4
E a s t  C h a tta . E lem . 3 3
E a s t  L ak e  E lem . 4 4
M a ry  A n n  G a rb e r  E lem . 
E a s td a le  E lem .

4 3 1 1
1

H ig h la n d  P a r k  E lem . 1 1 1
E lb e r t  L o n g  E lem . 5 3 2 2
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  E lem . 1 1
N o rm a l P a r k 1 1
R id g e d a le  E lem . 6 3 3 3
S t. E lm o  E lem . 2 2
S u n n y s id e  E lem . 3 2 1 1

N e t R e su lt 95 70 25 26 5
G ain +  21



Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2

School Year 1964-65
Negro Teachers

School

N u m b e r  N u m b er . , ™
N e w  T ea ch ers  A s s ,g n e d  F o r  

T e a ch ers  D is -  R ep lace- N e w  
E m p lo y e d  ch a rg ed  m en t P o s it io n s

P o s it io n  C h an ge  

G ain  Loss

H o w a rd  S e n io r  H ig h 8 2 6 6

R iv ers id e  S e n io r  H ig h 3 3 7

A lto n  P a r k  J u n io r 4 3 1 1

H o w a rd  J u n io r 3 33 1

O rc h a rd  K n o b  J u n io r 4 2 2 2

R iv e rs id e  J u n io r 4 3 1 i

A v o n d a le  E le m e n ta ry 2

C h arle s  A . B ell E lem . 1

C h a tta n o o g a  A ve. E lem . 4

W . J .  D a v e n p o r t E lem . 1

C alv in  D o n a ld so n  E lem . 1 1
E a s t  F i f th  S t. E lem . 7

Ja m e s  A . H e n r y  E lem . 1

H o w a rd  E le m e n ta ry 2

O rc h a rd  K n o b  E lem . 2 2 3

P in e y  W o o d s E lem . 2 2 13

J o s e p h  E . S m ith  E lem . 2

F r a n k  H . T ro t te r  E lem . 3

F t .  C h ea th am  E lem . 3

Y et R e su lt 31 16 15 32 28
G ain +  4



136a

C hattanooga P ublic  S chools 
1161 West Fortieth Street 

Box 2013
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409

April 30, 1965

Summary Report and Record of Transfers of Students 
Out of Zone in Chattanooga Public Schools for the

Years 1961-62 through 1964-65
In compliance with the Civil Subpoena, Civil Action File 

No. 3564, to Dr. Bennie Carmichael, dated April 28, 1965, 
the following reports and records are submitted. Transfers 
between school zones (permission to attend school out of 
zone) are permitted in Chattanooga Public Schools under 
the policies of the Chattanooga Board of Education adopted 
August 12, 1964, and shown on the attached sheet.

For the year 1961-62, a summary report has been pre­
pared of the number of students transferred according to 
the policy of the Board of Education regulating the trans­
fers. The summary report is included with the tile of the 
individual student assignments to schools out of zone.

In the report of 1962-63 to the District Court on progress 
in desegregation, a listing was made of all children in 
grades 1-3 permitted to transfer between schools desegre­
gated at the beginning of the 1962-63 school year. In addi­
tion, a summary report of all other students permitted to 
transfer, accompanied by the individual records of the 
students, is submitted to substantiate the report.

In 1963-64, the report to the District Court listed all 
transfers between schools which were desegregated for

P l a i n t i f f s ’ E x h i b i t  3



137a

grades 1-4. A copy of this report is included. An additional 
report accompanied by the records substantiating the re­
port is prepared on transfers between all other schools.

The report for 1964-65 did not carry the listing of stu­
dents permitted to transfer between zones. A summary 
report has been prepared on all transfers for the 1964-65 
school year, and all individual student records are submit­
ted to substantiate the report.

The above reports cover grades 1-9. Since there are no 
school zones established for senior high schools, grades 
10-12, there is no question of transfer between these schools.

Respectfully submitted,

B e n ja m in  E. C armichael, 
Benjamin E. Carmichael

Superintendent

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

BEC :rl



Admitting Pupils Who Have Parents or Guardians 
Residing Within the City Limits of Chattanooga

To the extent of reasonable building capacity, pupils whose parents or guardians 
reside within the city limits of Chattanooga are admitted as follows:

1. Pupils whose parents or guardians reside within the particular zone of the 
school concerned. Such pupils, of course, are admitted as soon as their 
residence is checked.

2. "Permit" pupils whose circumstances fit the situations listed below are 
temporarily admitted by permit from the Superintendent upon written request 
by the parents. These written requests must include the parents' names, 
address, pupil's name, also the name, address and relationship of the people 
with whom the child resides (if pupil lives outside parents' home give the 
reason that parents are requesting this special permission) and the name of 
the school the pupil will attend if permit is granted.

a. Children or adopted children, or other minors living in the home of school 
personnel.

b. Children placed in established nurseries for before- and after-school care 
may attend the school in which zone the nursery is located. (Example:
Pro Re Bona, Miss Mag, etc.)

c. Children placed in private or church nurseries for before- and after-school
care may attend the school in which zone the nursery is located. (Suit­
ability of such nursery is properly determined.)

d. Children from homes broken by separation or divorce. (Where questions
arise as to custody of the child, the parent in whose home the child
resides must obtain a statement from the court regarding custodianship.)

e. Children of working mothers whose child is placed in the home of a 
relative for before- and after-school care.

f. Handicapped children who may have a particular circumstance qualifying 
them for assignment to a school outside their zone.

g. Children from homes in which serious illness or hospitalization of the 
mother or guardian prohibits adequate child-care.

h. Situations requiring working mothers to take children to places of 
business for before- and after-school care.

i. (1) Pupils in rare cases are assigned by the Superintendent of Schools
for reasons of adjustment after thorough investigation and study by 
and on the recommendation of the Visiting Teacher Service.

(2) The Board, insofar as conditions and capacity of buildings would 
permit, has always permitted students to continue enrollment in a 
school by choice when a zone change was made that would move a 
student to a different school.

j. Children whose parents have purchased or are building a home in a given 
school zone. (Such children are admitted to the new school only after the 
parents place on file a letter from architect and/or contractor establishing 
the fact that the home will be ready for occupancy within a brief and 
specified period.)



REQUEST FOR CHILD TO ENROLL OUT OF ZONE

Chattanooga Public Schools

THIS PART OF REQUEST TO BE COMPLETED BY PARENT OR GUARDIAN______

Name of Child__________________________________________________ _

Home Address______________________________________________________

School Zoned To____________________________________________ __

School You Wish Child To Attend_____________________________

School Attended Last Year___________________________________

Grade Last Year___________________ Grade This Year

Full Name of: Father___________________________ _

Mother______________________________

Guar dian____________________________

Date

THIS PART OF REQUEST TO BE COMPLETED BY PRINCIPAL______________

SPECIFY BOARD POLICY UNDER WHICH APPROVAL TO ATTEND SCHOOL IS RECOMMENDED

2. a. ______  d. ______  g .  ______  i. (1) _____
b. ______  e. ______  h. ______  (2) _____
c • ______  f • ___ j •

COMMENTS SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL UNDER POLICY i. (1) or (2)

RECOMMENDATION ON REQUEST: Yes______  No

Principal____________________________  School______________________ Date_

THIS PART OF REQUEST TO BE COMPLETED BY SUPERINTENDENT

APPROVED: YeSj_____  No

Superintendent_____________________________________ Date__________________



140a

C hattanooga P ublic  S chools 
1161 West Fortieth Street 

Box 2013
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409

April 29, 1965

S ummary of N umbers of T ransfers Granted S tudents 
in  C hattanooga P ublic  S chools, Grades 1-9 

for 1961-62 by B oard P olicy R easons

Board Policy Item Number of Students

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

2 a. 56
b. 38
c. 0
d. 11

e. 119
f. 93

8- 4
h. 9
i. 126

j- 0

Total 456



141a

C hattanooga P ublic S chools 
1161 West Fortieth Street 

Box 2013
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409

April 29, 1965

S ummary of N umbers of T ransfers Granted S tudents 
in  C hattanooga P ublic S chools, Grades 1-9 

for 1962-63 by B oard P olicy R easons

Board Policy Item Number of Students

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

2 a. 28

b. 4

c. 4

d. 0

e. 24

f. 7

g- 2

h. 1

i. 129

j- 3

Total 202



142a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

S tu d e n t T ra n s fe rs  G ra n te d  in  1962-63 F o r  
P u p ils  in  G rad es 1-3 In v o lv in g  Schools 

S e lected  F o r  D eseg reg a tio n

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o lic y  2.a.

Appendix A
Page 1

S tu d e n t School

N o. N am e R ace Z oned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

1 . C h arle s  Goode, J r . N O rch a rd  K n o b E a s t  F if th
2. E s th e r  L. W h ite N O rch a rd  K n o b E a s t  F if th
3. V e n e tia  R . J a r r e t t N O rc h a rd  K n o b Ja m e s  A . H e n ry
4. M ichael S. H e a rd N O rc h a rd  K n o b C h arles  A . B ell
5. J a m e s  R . H e n ry W G lenw ood S u n n y sid e
6. J o h n  A . H e n ry W G lenw ood S u n n y sid e
7. D av id  H . H a y n e s w G lenw ood R id g ed a le
8. A n g e la  R . P a r k w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
9. F ra n c is  X . P a rk w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

10. M ichael D av is w G lenw ood G. R u sse ll B row n
11. P a tr ic ia  D av is w G lenw ood G. R u sse ll B row n
12. B ecky  D av is w G lenw ood G. R ussell B row n
13. S u sa n  D av is w G lenw ood G. R ussell B row n
14. M elin d a  W a lk e r N E a s t  F if th H o w a rd
15. F ra n c ia  R . H o llo w ay N C. D onaldson O rch a rd  K n o b
16. V ick ie  C. W h ite N C la ra  C a rp e n te r E a s t F if th
17. N o rm an  E . W illiam s W H e n ry  L. B a rg e r E a s t  C h a tta n o o g a
18. R e n a ta  L. T y le r N F . H . T ro tte r O rch a rd  K n o b
19. K ah n  M . T y le r 

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.b.

N F . H . T ro tte r O rc h a rd  K n o b

20. G io v an n a  R . H e a rd N S u n n y sid e E a s t  F if th
21. J a m e s  A . H o rn W W oodm ore A vondale
22. K a th y  E . H o rn W W  oodm ore A v o n d ale
23. D eb o rah  P a y n e  

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.c.

N G lenw ood E a s t  F if th

P ag e
24. M ichael D ozier N G lenw ood O rc h a rd  K n o b

25. M a rsh a  A n n  G rim es N C la ra  C a rp e n te r O rc h a rd  K n o b

26. B ev erly  A n n  W ood N C la ra  C a rp e n te r O rc h a rd  K n o b



143a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

Transfers Under Policy 2.d.
Appendix A

S tu d e n t School

No. N am e R ace Z oned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

None

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.e. 

27. J a m e s  D au g h e rty W S u n n y sid e B a rg e r

28. J o e l K . W illiam s W S u n n y sid e A vondale

29. D oyle  K . W illiam s W S u n n y sid e A vondale

30. G eo rg ean n a  Jo h n so n N O rch a rd  K n o b H o w a rd

31. B essie B . R ice N O rc h a rd  K n o b H o w a rd

32. D an ie l J .  W in d h am , J r . N O rch a rd  K n o b H o w a rd

33. P h y llis  D. B ak er N O rch a rd  K n o b Jo s e p h  E . S m ith

34. S a ra h  D . F le tc h e r N O rch a rd  K n o b J o s e p h  E . S m ith

35. E rn a  R ogers W N o rm a l P a rk G. R ussell B ro w n

36. I r i s  S tu b b s N G lenw ood O rc h a rd  K n o b

37. K a re n  S tu b b s N G lenw ood O rc h a rd  K n o b

39. L e ro y  C la rk N G lenw ood C la ra  C a rp e n te r

40. P h y ll is  A n n  L am b N G lenw ood O rc h a rd  K n o b

41. S h ir le y  L . L am b N G lenw ood O rc h a rd  K n o b

42. W illie  A rm o u r N C la ra  C a rp e n te r J a m e s  A . H e n ry

43. F re d a  A rm o u r N C la ra  C a rp e n te r J a m e s  A . H e n ry

44. P a tr ic ia  A rm o u r N C la ra  C a rp e n te r J a m e s  A . H e n ry

45. J o h n n ie  A rm o u r N C la ra  C a rp e n te r J a m e s  A . H e n ry

46. J a m e s  S cruggs N C la ra  C a rp e n te r J a m e s  A . H e n ry

47. D e b ra  S cru g g s N C la ra  C a rp e n te r
P a g e  3

Ja m e s  A . H e n ry

48. E liz a b e th  D. S h o u p W H e n ry  L. B a rg e r E a s t  L ak e  E le m e n ta ry

49. J a c q u a lin e  P a tto n N O rch a rd  K n o b C h a tta n o o g a  A venue

50. D e b ra  E . E llis N F . H . T ro tte r C h arles  A. B ell

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.f. 

51. C lau d e  T roxell W S t. E lm o G. R ussell B ro w n

52. V e rn o n  C ooper w N o rm a l P a r k G. R u sse ll B ro w n

53. G era ld in e  D u rh am w N o rm a l P a r k G. R ussell B row n

54. L a r r y  D u rh am w N o rm al P a r k G. R u sse ll B row n

55. V irg in ia  R . G reene w S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary  R idge



144a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.f.

S tu d e n t

(c o n t’d .)

No. N am e R ace

56. G eorge R . M o rg an W
57. M erle  N . C am p W
58. N ad in e  G. C am p W
59. M a ry  C. T roxell W
60. C laren ce  T ro x ell W

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.g. 

61. K a th y  L. G a rre n W
62. M ichael P e r r y N

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.h.

63. T h e lm a  J .  H ay es

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.i.

64. A lb e rt E . H a rd e n W
65. E liz a b e th  J .  S to n e N
66. J a n e t  P . G riffith W

67. K a ra n  M ero n ey W
68. Ja m e s  D oyle  D av is w
69. A u d re y  L . P a rk e r w
70. L in d a  S m id t w
71. T im o th y  C. R o b inson N
72. A n n ie  M ae H ill w
73. W a n d a  S ue H ill w
74. W illiam  T. C a r te r w
75. A lene  G riffin w
76. W illiam  R . H a ll w
77. A lfre d  S. T u rn e r N

78. Ja m e s  L . B ell N
79. L in d a  M. H a le w
80. P a u l E v a tt w
81. J o h n  T . E rick so n , J r . w
82. L a u ra  E . WTa lk e r w
83. L isa  G. F ra m m w

A p p e n d ix

School

Z oned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
E a s t F if th G lenw ood
E a s t  F if th G lenw ood
S t. E lm o G. R usse ll B row n
S t. E lm o G. R usse ll B row n

C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
C la ra  C a rp e n te r O rch a rd  K n o b

O rc h a rd  K n o b Jo se p h  E . S m ith

C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
N o rm a l P a r k E a s t F if th
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

P ag e
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
C la ra  C a rp e n te r O rch a rd  K n o b
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
E a s t  F if th G lenw ood
E a s td a le O rch a rd  K n o b
E a s td a le O rch a rd  K n o b
C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
L ou ie  S an d e rso n S t. E lm o
L ouie S an d erso n S t. E lm o
L ou ie  S an d e rso n S t. E lm o
S u n n y sid e M iss io n a ry  R idge



145a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

Transfers Under Policy 2.i. (cont’d.)
Appendix A

S tu d e n t School

No. N am e R ace Z oned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

84. R o b e rt W . B ow den, J r . W S u n n y sid e M iss io n a ry R idge
85. K a r la  G. G o th ard W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R idge
86. G us K a lan z is W S u n n y sid e M issio n ary R id g e
87. D o n  R eeves W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

88. B ru ce  G ordon W S u n n y sid e M iss io n a ry R idge

89. G lenn  K irk W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

90. C ra ig  S chm idt W S u n n y sid e M iss io n a ry R id g e  
P a g e  5

91. J o e  T hom pson W S u n n y sid e M issio n ary R idge

92. B e th  R . B a ra s W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

93. P r a n k  B ullock W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

94. J e a n n e  E sch W S u n n y sid e M issio n ary R id g e

95. T om  R . E yssen W S u n n y sid e M issio n ary R id g e
96. R ach e l E p s te in W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

97. D a n a  D oyal W S u n n y sid e M issio n ary R id g e

98. M ichael B rody W S u n n y sid e M issio n ary R id g e

99. V ic to r  R ose W S u n n y sid e M iss io n a ry R id g e

100. S am  G riffin W S u n n y sid e M iss io n a ry R id g e

101. S u sa n  G illey W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

102. D av id  E rm e r W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

103. C onnie  E llis W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

104. J a m e s  W . D avis W S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary R id g e

105. C y n th ia  B rody W S u n n y sid e M iss io n a ry R id g e

106. M arcu s  B urrow s W W oodm ore M iss io n ary R id g e

107. A lv in  L . W a lk e r, J r . W L ouie  S an d erso n S t. E lm o

108. V ick ie  D . H o llo w ay W Louie S an d erso n S t. E lm o

109. P a tr ic ia  D. M iller W Louie S an d erso n S t. E lm o

110. C o n n ie  G reen W L ouie S an d erso n S t. E lm o

111. M ercer R . Cagle w Louie S an d erso n S t. E lm o
112. C lyde E . C h an d ler w L ouie S an d erso n S t. E lm o

113. T e r ry  W ay n e  C h an d le r w Louie S an d erso n S t. E lm o

114. R ay m o n d  L. C h an d le r w L ouie  S a n d e rso n S t. E lm o

115. Jo y c e  A n n  E lm o re w L ouie  S an d erso n S t. E lm o



146a

S tu d e n t

N o. N am e

116. M a ry  L o u  W a te rs
117. D eb o rah  E . C ochren
118. T eresa  A . E ric k so n
119. F re d d ie  N . Jo n e s
120. C aro lin e  B ry m e r
121. C h arles  B ry m er, J r .
122. Jo h n n y  E . P r u i t t
123. I r a  W . D av is
124. G eorge K ig h t, J r .
125. G lo ria  F re e m a n
126. E h o n d a  J e a n  B ell
127. E d w a rd  E . K itt le
128. B re n d a  C a rte r
129. J im m y  W o n g
130. R ic h a rd  A . Jo h n so n
131. R o sem ary  C hau
132. P a u l  C hau
133. J o a n  L y n n  P e e rs le y
134. M ichael W . R ic h a rd s
135. C h a rle s  L . C ra b tre e
136. T w an n a  R . A d am s
137. J a n e t  S m id t
138. R o b e rt H. W ilso n
139. M a rsh a ll G. W ilson

140. K a ty  L. H e n d e rso n
141. D eb ro a  L . B oggs
142. K e n n e th  W a tk in s

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o lic y  2 .j.
143. D u an e  L. C a rv e r

Transfers Under Policy 2.i.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

School

Appendix A
(cont’d.) Page 6

R ace Zoned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  to

W L ouie  S an d e rso n S t. E lm o

W L ouie  S an d e rso n S t. E lm o
W L ouie  S a n d e rso n S t. E lm o

W L ouie  S a n d e rso n S t. E lm o
W M issio n ary  R id g e S u n n y sid e
W M issio n ary  R idge S u n n y sid e

W E a s t F if th G lenw ood
N G lenw ood C la ra  C a rp e n te r

N E a s td a le O rc h a rd  K n o b

N E a s td a le E a s t  F if th
N E a s td a le O rc h a rd  K n o b
W E a s t  F if th G lenw ood

W C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r A vondale

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
Pi

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood

w C la ra  C a rp e n te r G lenw ood
N G lenw ood C la ra  C a rp e n te r

w S u n n y sid e W oodm ore



147a

C hattanooga P ublic  S chools 
1161 West Fortieth Street 

Box 2013
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409

April 29, 1965

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

S ummary  of N umbers of T ransfers Granted  S tudents 
in  C hattanooga P ublic  S chools, Grades 1-9 

for 1963-64 by B oard P olicy R easons

Board Policy Item Number of Students

2 a. 
b.

49
10

c. 2

d. 0

e. 89

f. 23

g-
h.

4
13

i . 156
3

Total 349



148a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

S tu d e n t T ra n s fe rs  G ra n te d  in  1963-64 F o r  
P u p ils  in  G rad es 1-4 In v o lv in g  Schools 

S e lec ted  F o r  D eseg reg a tio n

Appendix A
Page 1

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.a.

S tu d e n t

N o. N am e R ace

1. Y nez W a rd  N
2. Ja c q u e lin e  J o n e s  N
3. T om as Jo n e s  N
4. Y an essa  J a c k s o n  N
5. F ra n c e s  H o llo w ay  N
6. A n th o n y  C ru tc h e r  N
7. S am u el C ru tc h e r  N
8. R ic h a rd  G reg o ry  W
9. J o h n  S p ru ce , J r .  N

10. V en e tia  J a r r e t t  N
11. W a rn ie  Shaw , J r .  N
12. H a r r ie t  W h it te n  N
13. E s th e r  W h ite  N
14. W a lte r  H u r t ,  J r .  N
15. D a rre l l H a r la n d  N
16. H e rm a n  G rie r , J r .  N
17. V ic to r ia  G oode N
18. C h a rle s  G oode N
19. K im  C ov in g to n  N
20. G rad y  C o v ing ton , J r .  N
21. N o rm an  W illiam s  W
22. V ick i G riffith  W

23. G era ld  S m ith  N
24. D o n n ie  R o b e rts  N
25. M a ry  H e n tz  W
26. R ebecca D av is  W
27. M ichael D av is W
28. P a tr ic ia  D avis W
29. L eo n a rd  T ig n e r  N

School

Zoned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

S u n n y sid e O rch a rd  K n o b
A vondale O rc h a rd  K n o b
A vondale O rch a rd  K n o b
C. D onaldson O rch a rd  K n o b
C. D on ald so n O rch a rd  K n o b
O rc h a rd  K n o b H o w a rd
O rc h a rd  K n o b H o w ard
W oodm ore H ig h la n d  P a r k
O rch a rd  K n o b Ja m e s  A . H e n ry
O rc h a rd  K n o b Ja m e s  A . H e n ry
O rc h a rd  K n o b G lenw ood
O rch a rd  K n o b E a s t  F if th  S tre e t
O rc h a rd  K n o b E a s t  F if th  S tre e t
A v o n d ale E a s t F i f th  S tre e t
O rch a rd  K n o b E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
E a s td a le E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
F . H . T ro tte r E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
F . H . T ro tte r E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
R id g ed ale E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
R id g ed a le E a s t  F if th  S tre e t
H e n ry  L . B a rg e r E a s t  C h a ttan o o g a
E lb e r t  L ong E a s t  C h a ttan o o g a

E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
P ag e

C. D o n a ld so n
O rc h a rd  K n o b C. D on ald so n
G lenw ood C lif to n  H ills
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t G. R . B row n
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t G. R . B ro w n
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t G. R . B row n
W . J .  D a v e n p o rt C. A . Bell



149a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

Transfers Under Policy 2.a. (con’t.)
Appendix A

S tu d e n t

N o. N am e

30. D av id  M oore
31. M ichael H e a rd
32. B o n ita  C otton
33. D en ise  Cole
34. J e f fe ry  G argle
35. R ic h a rd  W est, J r .

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o lic y  2.b.

36. R a y  H ill
37. R ic h a rd  R ogers
38. J a n e t  R ogers
39. S teve R ogers
40. M ike R oach
41. M a rk  G rissom
42. A u re lia  R ich a rd s
43. R a lp h  P a tto n
44. A lf re d  Jo n e s
45. A n d re a  D a llas

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.c.

46. K a th y  H u b b a rd

47. B illy  S m ith , J r .

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o lic y  2.e.

48. Jo s e p h  K now les, J r .
49. C ra ig  I r b y
50. C ra ig  A b b o tt
51. A n g e la  L a ttim o re
52. L a r ry  W a tk in s
53. J o h n  W rig h t
54. D av id  S h ro p sh ire
55. P a tr ic ia  T ow nsend
56. C o ra  Sales
57. H e ro n a  R obinson

R ace Zoned t o :

N F . H . T ro tte r

N O rch a rd  K n o b

N A vondale
N F . H . T ro tte r

N A vondale
W S u n n y sid e

N A vondale

W H em lock

W H em lock
w H em lock

w G arb e r

w S u n n y sid e
N O rch a rd  K n o b
N S u n n y sid e

N J .  E . S m ith
N A vondale

N G lenw ood

W R id g ed a le

W S u n n y sid e

w B a rg e r

w M issio n a ry  R id g e

N O rc h a rd  K n o b

N A vondale
N A v o n d ale

N E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
N A v o n d ale

N A vondale

N A v o n d ale

T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

C. A . Bell 
C. A . Bell 
C. A . Bell 
C. A . Bell 
C. A . B ell 
H . L . B a rg e r

H o w a rd  
H ig h la n d  P a r k  
H ig h la n d  P a r k  
H ig h la n d  P a r k  
H ig h la n d  P a r k  
H ig h la n d  P a r k  
J .  A . H e n ry  
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t 
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t 
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t

O rc h a rd  K n o b
P a g e  3

H em lock

W oodm ore 
W oodm ore 
W  oodm ore 
J .  E . S m ith  
O rc h a rd  K n o b  
O rc h a rd  K n o b  
O rc h a rd  K n o b  
O rc h a rd  K n o b  
O rc h a rd  K n o b  
O rc h a rd  K n o b

School



150a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

Transfers Under Policy 2.e. (con’t.)
Appendix A

S tu d e n t

No. N am e

58. W allace  R o b erso n , J r .
59. B a rb a ra  R ice
60. Ja c q u e lin e  P o r te r
61. L in d a  M uckle
62. W illiam  M osely
63. Iv a  L a n ie r
64. J e ro m e  L a n ie r
65. W illia m  Jo h n so n
66. H a r r i s  T oney
67. C alv in  T oney
68. T e re sa  T oney
69. G reg o ry  T oney

70. M a ry  G o tt
71. J u l iu s  P o s te r
72. G a ry  F o s te r
73. A n th o n y  C a r te r
74. P a tr ic k  C a r te r
75. S y lv es te r P ry o r
76. Z eddie P r y o r
77. J u ly  W ilso n
78. P h il lip  W illiam s
79. P a u la  M cA m is
80. D ebborh  M cA m is
81. K e n n e th  B illings
82. C ecil B illin g s
83. M a rg a re t A sh fo rd
84. D en n is  W allace
85. D eb o rah  W allace
86. R ay m o n d  R o g ers
87. S o n ia  F in le y
88. C onn ie  C aldw ell
89. A v e ry  D illa rd
90. A n th o n y  D illa rd
91. J u d i th  J e n k in s

R ace Z oned t o :

N S u n n y sid e

N A vondale
N A v o n d ale
N E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
N A vondale
N A v o n d ale
N A v o n d ale
N W. J .  D a v e n p o rt
N A v o n d ale
N A vondale
N A v o n d ale
N A vondale

N A v o n d ale
N A v o n d ale
N A v o n d ale
N A vondale
N A vondale
N A v o n d ale
N A vondale
W C lifto n  H ills
W H em lock
w G. R . B row n
w G. R . B row n
N F t.  C h ea th am
N F t.  C h eath am

N L ouie S an d e rso n
W G. R . B row n
W G. R . B row n
w E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
N S u n n y sid e
w E a s t L ak e
N E a s t  L ak e
N E a s t L ake
W A vondale

T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b

P a g e  4
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O rch a rd  K n o b  
O ak  G rove 
O ak G rove 
O ak G rove 
O ak G rove 
O ak  G rove 
O ak  G rove 
O ak  G rove 
N o rm al P a r k  
N o rm al P a r k  
N o rm al P a r k  
H o w a rd  
H em lock  
F t .  C h eath am  
F t .  C heatham  
E a s td a le

School



I
151a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r P o licy  2.e. (co n ’t.)

S tu d e n t

N o. N am e R ace

92. S u san  T ru sley W

93. R a n d a ll T rusley W

94. D ian e  Jack so n W

95. C a rl R . D au g h trey , J r . W

96. W illiam  Bell N

97. R h o n d a  Lea L ay n e W

98. Ja n ic e  E . T oney N

99. G reg o ry  L. T oney N
100. G ail R . C aldw ell N

T ra n s fe rs  U n d er P o licy  2.f. 

101. P a m e la  S to k e r W
102. M ike S to k er W

103. V irg in ia  R . G reene w
104. L e ro y  P ay n e N

105. M a ry  K . L ittle w
106. M ack  D . M illigan N

107. D av id  J .  M illigan N

108. B a rb a ra  W ilk in s W

109. R u sse ll D . W ilh o ite W

110. V ic to r ia  D. Lee w
111. B e tty  S. D ixon w
112. G a ry  W . C ulver w
113. S teve  R . B ack w

T ra n s fe rs  U n d er P o licy  2.g. 

114. R o n n ie  H en d ley N

T ra n s fe rs  U n d er P o licy  2.h. 

115. H a ro ld  L . K en d rick w
116. T helm a J .  H a y e s N

117. C y n th ia  D u n n ig an N

118. L ily  D u n n ig an N

119. G race A . Y oung N

120. F ra n c is  C. Y oung N

A p p e n d ix

School

Z oned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

A vondale E a s t  C h a tta n o o g a

A vondale E a s t  C h a tta n o o g a
P ag e

A vondale E a s t  C h a ttan o o g a

A vondale E a s t  C h a ttan o o g a

F . H . T ro tte r C. D o n a ld so n

N o rm al P a r k G. R u sse ll B row n

C. D on ald so n C. A . B ell

C. D onaldson C. A . B ell

C. D onaldson C. A . Bell

E a s td a le S u n n y sid e

E a s td a le S u n n y sid e

S u n n y sid e M iss io n ary  R idge

Jo s e p h  E . S m ith E a s t  F i f th

A vondale E a s td a le

C. A . Bell C. D o n a ld so n

C. A . B ell C. D o n a ld so n

E a s t F if th A v o n d ale
E a s t  C h a tta n o o g a A vondale
E a s t F i f th A v o n d ale
E a s t  F i f th A v o n d ale
E a s t C h a ttan o o g a A vondale

E a s t  F if th A vondale

E a s t  F i f th O rch a rd  K n o b
P a g e

S t. E lm o S u n n y sid e

O rch a rd  K n o b Jo s e p h  E . S m ith

E a s td a le O rc h a rd  K n o b

E a s td a le O rc h a rd  K n o b

M iss io n ary  R id g e H o w ard

M issio n ary  R id g e H o w a rd



152a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

Transfers Under Policy 2.i.
Appendix A

S tu d e n t

N o. N am e

121. M a rg re t A . S ch m itt
122. F re d  I. C la rk , J r .
123. A n n e  L eN o ir
124. G eorge B. L eN o ir
125. D o n n a  L. Snow
126. J e n n ie  Leslie
127. B o n n ie  D ian e  E ste s
128. I r i s  F a y e  C a rth o rn
129. E lizab e th  J e a n  S to n e
130. J u d y  G ail C ross
131. R ay m o n d  L. C h an d le r
132. T e r ry  W a y n e  C h an d le r
133. F re d d ie  Jo n e s
134. R u th  Jo h n so n  C agle
135. M ercer R ey n o ld s C agle
136. D ale  B enson
137. G ail B enson
138. B en  H ill W e b s te r  I I I

139. J o e  T h o m p so n
140. V ic to r  R ose
141. C ra ig  S ch m id t, J r .
142. D o n a ld  R eeves
143. G lenn  K irk
144. A r th u r  K am in e , S r.
145. G us K a la n z is
146. S am  G riffin
147. K a r la  G o th a rd
148. B ru ce  G ordon
149. S u san  G illey
150. R h o n d a  F ra m m
151. T om  E y ssen
152. E v a  E sch

R ace Z oned t o :

W E a s td a le

W H em lock
W R id g ed ale
W R id g ed ale

W H ig h la n d  P a r k
N F . H . T ro tte r

W S u n n y sid e
N C h a tta n o o g a  A ve.
N N o rm al P a r k

W E a s t  F i f th
W L ouie  S an d e rso n

w L ouie S an d e rso n

w L ouie  S an d e rso n

w L ouie S an d e rso n

w L o u ie  S an d e rso n

w L ouie  S a n d e rso n
w L ouie S an d e rso n

w S u n n y sid e

w S u n n y sid e

w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e

w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e
w S u n n y sid e

T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

W oodm ore
O ak G rove
M issio n ary  R idge
M iss io n a ry  R idge
H em lock
C. D onaldson
H e n ry  L. B a rg e r
H o w a rd
E a s t F if th
A v o n d ale
S t. E lm o
S t. E lm o
S t. E lm o
S t. E lm o
S t. E lm o
S t. E lm o
S t. E lm o
M issio n a ry  R idge

P a g e  7
M iss io n a ry  R idge  
M iss io n a ry  R idge  
M iss io n a ry  R idge 
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R idge  
M iss io n a ry  R idge  
M iss io n ary  R idge

School



153a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

T ra n s fe rs  U n d er P o licy  2.i. (co n ’t.)  

S tu d e n t

No. N am e R ace

Appendix A

School

Z oned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

153. D av id  E rn ie r
154. R ach e l E p s te in
155. C onnie  E llis
156. F r a n k  B ullock, J r .
157. B e th  B a ra s
158. A la n  B ro d y
159. C y n th ia  B rody
160. E liz a b e th  D av is
161. C a th e rin e  D oyal
162. R o y  Sum m ey

163. L in d a  F ro s t
164. E d d ie  B ea rd
165. J im m ie  W ong
166. L a  V eal W ebb
167. P a u le t te  S m ith
168. R o y  W atso n
169. V irg il W a tso n
170. W illiam  W atso n
171. J a n e t  S m id t
172. L in d a  S m id t
173. J o h n  S m ith
174. N o v ita  S m ith
175. Jo y ce  H u g g in s
176. P a u la  L a n ie r
177. M ichael R ich a rd s
178. L in d a  H a le
179. K a th y  G aren
180. J e r r y  D onaldson
181. V icc i Cox
182. G a ry  C ohen
1S3. D o n a ld  Rowe
184. S a n d ra  Rowe

W S u n n y sid e
W S u n n y sid e

W S u n n y sid e

W H . L. B a rg e r
W S u n n y sid e
W H . L . B a rg e r
W H . L . B a rg e r

W S u n n y sid e
W S u n n y sid e

W H o w a rd

W W . J .  D a v e n p o rt
W W . J .  D a v e n p o rt
W E a s t F i f th  S tre e t

W E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t

W E a s t F i f th  S tre e t

W Ja m e s  A . H e n ry

W Ja m e s  A . H e n ry

w Ja m e s  A . H en ry '

w E a s t F i f th  S tre e t

w E a s t F i f th  S tre e t

w E a s t F i f th  S tre e t
w A vondale

w E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t

w E a s t F if th  S tre e t

w E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t

w E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t
w E a s t F i f th  S tre e t

w A vondale

w E a s t F i f th  S tre e t
w E a s t F i f th  S tre e t
N E a s t L ak e
N E a s t L ak e

M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R idge  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R idge  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
M iss io n a ry  R id g e  
H em lo ck

P a g e  8
H em lock
H em lock
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
G lenw ood
F o r t  C h ea th am
F o r t  C h eath am



154a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r  P o licy  2.i. (co n ’t.)

S tu d e n t

No. N am e R ace

185. K a th y  H ow ell W
186. Ja c k ie  W ells W

187. H a r r y  T h u rm a n W
188. F r a n k  S p a n g le r , J r . W
189. J e r r y  S helby W
190. R o b e rt R o b e rts W

191. J e r r y  R o b e rts W

192. M ary  Q u arles W

193. A rv ie  G reene, J r . W

194. R ick ey  G ann W

195. D a n n y  G an n W
196. D eb ra  F a rm e r W
197. R ay m o n d  Shelley W

198. D eb ra  P o lsk y W

199. J o h n  H o lla n d , I I I W

200. C h arlen e  Lee W

201. D eb ra  Lee W

202. P e g g y  H a n d W

203. Ja m e s  G reen W
204. D ebb ie  G a llah an W
205. F re d r ic k  F e rg u so n W
206. R ic h a rd  B each W

207. D av id  C ross W
208. P a tr ic ia  B a rk le y W

T ra n s fe rs  U n d e r  P o lic y  2 .j.

209. G ro v er R a n n , J r . W

A p p e n d ix

School

Z oned t o : T ra n s fe r re d  t o :

C lif to n  H ills C ed a r H ill

S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n
P ag e

S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n
S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n

S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n
S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n
S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n
S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n

S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n
S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B ro w n
S p e a rs  A venue G. R . Browrn
S p e a rs  A venue G. R . B row n
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t A v o n d ale
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t A v o n d ale
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t A vondale
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t A vondale
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t A vondale
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t A vondale
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t A vondale
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t A v o n d ale
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t A vondale
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t A v o n d ale
E a s t F i f th  S tre e t A vondale
E a s t  F i f th  S tre e t A vondale

A vondale E a s t C h a tta n o o g a



I 155a

C hattanooga P ublic S chools 
1161 West Fortieth Street 

Box 2013
Chattanooga, Tennessee ^409

April 29, 1965

S ummary of N umbers of T ransfers G ranted S tudents 
in  C hattanooga P ublic S chools, Grades 1-9 

for 1964-65 by B oard P olicy R easons

Board Policy Item Number of Students

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

2 a. 44

b. 9

c. 14

d. 3

e. 100

f. 4

g- 0

h. 18

i. 114

i 2

Total 308
/



156a

(Filed August 5, 1965)

[caption om itted]

An order was entered in this case upon April 20, 1962, 
requiring that the Board of Education of the City of Chat­
tanooga and the Superintendent of Schools proceed to a 
complete desegregation of public schools of the City of 
Chattanooga, Tennessee, such desegregation to be accom­
plished within a period of not more than eight years. The 
plan of desegregation as approved by the Court, together 
with the reasons behind it, are fully set forth in the 
former opinion of the Court. Mapp v. Board of Education 
of the City of Chattanooga, 203 F.Supp. 843 (1962).

Under the plan adopted, all elementary schools were to 
be desegregated within not more than three years, be­
ginning in September of 1962, with the first three grades 
in 16 selected schools to be desegregated the first year, 
with the first four grades in all elementary schools to be 
desegregated by September of 1963, and with all grades 
of all elementary schools to be desegregated by September 
of 1964. Thereupon all junior high schools were to be de­
segregated within not more than two additional years, with 
the seventh grade in all schools to be desegregated by 
September of 1965 and with the remaining grades in all 
junior high schools to be desegregated by September of 
1966. Following the desegregation of all junior high schools, 
the first year in all high schools were to be desegregated 
by September 1967 and all remaining grades in all high 
schools were to be desegregated by September 1968. The 
Chattanooga Technical Institute was to be desegregated 
by September 1969. The foregoing plan of desegregation 
was approved upon appeal with the exception of technical

Opinion of Wilson, D . J .

i



157a

and vocational courses, and the case was remanded for 
further proceedings with respect to them. Mapp v. Board 
of Education of the City of Chattanooga, 319 F.2d 571 
(1963). After a further hearing, an order was entered 
upon November 26, 1963, desegregating the Chattanooga 
Technical Institute as of December 9, 1963, and a further 
order was entered December 31, 1963, desegregating all 
vocational and technical courses, including those offered 
at Kirkman Technical High School, effective as of Sep­
tember 1964. In each of the foregoing orders jurisdiction 
was retained by the Court until full accomplishment of 
desegregation as provided in the respective orders.

The case is now before the Court upon the motion of 
the plaintiff seeking an acceleration of the foregoing plan 
and other relief. A hearing was held upon the motion 
upon May 1, 1965, and the parties have since filed briefs 
in support of their respective positions.

The initial issue confronting the Court is whether the 
plan for gradual desegregation heretofore approved by 
the Court accords the plaintiffs their Constitutional rights 
with “all deliberate speed” in view of past progress and 
present circumstances. It appears that the defendants 
have now accomplished desegregation in all grades in all 
elementary schools. Under the plan as approved by the 
former orders of the Court, the seventh grade in all junior 
high schools would be desegregated in September 1965, 
with all remaining junior and senior high school grades 
to be desegregated in three additional annual steps. The 
plaintiffs, by their motion, seek to have the Court acceler­
ate this plan by ordering desegregation of all remaining 
grades in September of 1965.

It appears from the annual progress reports filed by 
the defendants in accordance with the orders of the Court

Opinion of Wilson, D.J.



158a

that the desegregation thus far accomplished has been 
accomplished after careful planning and effective admin­
istration, with no unanticipated or unusual problems having 
been encountered. It further appears from the evidence 
received at the hearing upon May 1, 1965, that considerable 
planning and groundwork had been performed by the de­
fendants for the preparation of the desegregation of the 
seventh grade in all junior high schools at the commence­
ment of school in September 1965. Included within this 
planning and preparation was a comprehensive training 
program conducted at Avondale School during the first 
half of this year for the preparation and training of 
teachers in the problems to be encountered in the deseg­
regation of the remaining grades, and in particular in the 
desegregation of the junior high school grades. It thus 
appears to the Court that the School Board and Superin­
tendent have thus far acted in good faith to accomplish 
desegregation in accordance with the requirements of the 
orders of the Court. However, the former orders of the 
Court specifically provided that the plan therein set forth 
should be considered only as the minimum requirements to 
assure the plaintiffs of all the protection and enjoyment of 
their Constitutional rights with “all deliberate speed”. The 
defendants appear to have taken no steps upon their own 
to accelerate the minimum plan of desegregation ordered 
by the Court. While it appears to the Court that the ob­
vious and careful planning and preparation for desegrega­
tion of the seventh grade in all junior high schools should 
not be disrupted by the acceleration of the desegregation 
plan heretofore approved for September 1965, the problems 
presented in desegregation of the remaining grades in sub­
sequent years do not justify an additional three years’ de­
lay in according the plaintiffs their full Constitutional

Opinion of Wilson, D.J.



159a

rights. After review of the two Brown v. Board of Educa­
tion decisions (347 U. S. 483 and 349 U. S. 294), this Court 
stated in its former opinion in this case:

“It is apparent that the plaintiffs have a Constitutional 
right not to be excluded from any public school class­
room in Chattanooga, Tennessee, solely because of 
their race. This is a present and immediate right, and 
of equal importance to other rights secured to them 
and all other citizens under the Constitution. Any de­
lay in extending to them their rights in this regard 
must be justified only by the most impelling and cogent 
reasons. The defendants have the burden of showing 
the necessity or appropriateness of any further delay 
than has already occurred.”

Under the minimum plan heretofore approved, all re­
maining grades in all junior high schools would in any event 
be desegregated in September of 1966. With regard to the 
high schools, the defendants have testified that no zoning 
will be required upon desegregation of the high schools, but 
that all students will be admitted at any high school upon a 
city-wide basis. All students may therefore elect the high 
school which they will attend. The problems presented in 
the desegregation of the high schools are obviously not the 
same as the problems presented in the desegregation of ele­
mentary and junior high schools. Moreover, the experience 
thus far acquired, as well as the experience to be acquired 
with the desegregation of the seventh grade, should permit 
an acceleration in September 1966 of the desegregation of 
the remaining grades. It has now been ten years since the 
final decision in the Broivn v. Board of Education case, 
supra. The same equitable considerations as have justified

Opinion of Wilson, D.J.



1 6 0 a

the delay in according the plaintiffs their Constitutional 
rights with reference to elementary and junior high schools 
would not apply with respect to the desegregation of the 
high schools.

The Court accordingly concludes that, while no change 
should be made with regard to the desegregation to be ac­
complished in September 1965, the plan of desegregation 
heretofore ordered should be modified so as to require de­
segregation of all remaining grades in September 1966.

While each case must be judged in the light of its par­
ticular circumstances, it is not inappropriate to note that 
desegregation will have been accomplished and completed 
on or before September 1966 in the Knoxville, Nashville, 
and Memphis school systems, as well as in many other cities 
and counties in Tennessee, where the problems are not al­
together dissimilar from those presented in this case.

The next issue confronting the Court upon the present 
motion is whether the regulations permitting transfers of 
students have been so used by the defendants as to impede 
or defeat desegregation as heretofore ordered by the Court, 
and thus violate the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights. It is 
not contended that the transfer plan is itself invalid or 
based upon race, but rather that in the exercise of the dis­
cretion permitted under paragraph (2) (i) of the plan, race 
was in fact the controlling consideration. The Court is of 
the opinion, however, that the record does not support the 
plaintiffs in this contention. The Superintendent of 
Schools testified that all transfers permitted had as their 
principal justification factors other than race. No evidence 
to the contrary was introduced, the plaintiffs relying only 
upon statistical data as to transfers. In the opinion of the 
Court this was not sufficient to refute the defendants’ evi­
dence.

Opinion of Wilson, D.J.



Opinion of Wilson, D.J.

Finally, an issue is presented by the plaintiffs’ motion as 
to whether the plaintiffs are entitled under the Constitution 
and the facts of this case to an order requiring the desegre­
gation of teaching, supervisory, and other professional per­
sonnel in the Chattanooga School System. The guideline 
for determining whether the plaintiffs are entitled to this 
relief is set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals 
upon a former appeal of this case (Mapp v. Board of Educa­
tion of the City of Chattanooga, 319 F. 2d 571 at 576) as 
follows:

“We agree that the teachers, principals and others are 
not within the class represented by plaintiffs and that 
plaintiffs cannot assert or ask protection of some Con­
stitutional rights of teachers and others, not parties to 
the cause. We, however, read the attack upon the as­
signment of teachers by race not as seeking to protect 
rights of such teachers, but as a claim that continued 
assigning of teaching personnel on a racial basis im­
pairs the students’ rights to an education free from any 
consideration of race. * * *

“ . . . We think it appropriate that the stricken allega­
tions of the complaint, insofar as they relate to the as­
signment of teachers and principals, should be restored 
to the pleading and that decision of the legal question 
presented await developments in the progress of the 
plan approved. Nothing we have said need call for any 
present taking of testimony on the subject of teacher 
and principal assignment. Within his discretion, the 
District Judge may determine when, if at all, it becomes 
necessary to give consideration to the question under 
discussion. AVe affirm, however, the order granting the 
motion to strike, to the extent that it applies to allega­



162a

tions relating to the hiring and assignment of school 
personnel other than teachers and principals.”

The largely discretionary nature of the plaintiffs’ right 
to assert a claim for desegregation of principals and teach­
ers is supported by other authority. Augustus v. Board of 
Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, 306 F. 2d 
862 (C. C. A. 5, 1962); Board of Public Instruction of Duval 
County, Florida v. Braxton, 326 F. 2d 616 (C. C. A. 5, 1964); 
Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, Virginia, 345 F. 2d 
310 (C. C. A. 4, 1965).

The evidence reflects that while the defendants have fol­
lowed a policy of segregation in the assignment of princi­
pals and teachers, steps have been taken toward modifica­
tion of this policy. It appears that since 1961 the number 
of Negro teachers within the school system has increased by 
88, while the number of white teachers has decreased by 25. 
It appears that since the initial order in this case, four 
Negroes have been employed upon the administrative staff, 
where formerly there were none. It appears that during the 
past year two Negro teachers have been assigned to a school 
formerly staffed only by white teachers. Finally, it appears 
that the desegregation of students in accordance with the 
plan herein approved will itself contribute to partially re­
solve the issue of teacher and principal assignments. Ac­
cordingly, it is the opinion of the Court that the defendants 
should be allowed additional time to resolve this issue and 
that no order with respect thereto should enter at this time. 
This decision of the Court will be without prejudice to the 
right of the plaintiffs to reassert the issue after a reason­
able time and after further progress under the desegrega­
tion plans heretofore and herein approved and is made

Opinion of Wilson, D.J.



163a

without prejudice to the right of the School Board to under­
take on its own initiative a modification of its policies or 
practices with respect to teacher and principal assignments. 
The defendants will include in the annual report to be filed 
in accordance with the previous orders in this case a report 
with regard to any changes in its policies or practices with 
reference to assignment of teachers and principals by race.

All remaining issues in the plaintiffs’ motion, to the extent 
that they may not have been heretofore sustained or denied 
in this opinion, or to the extent that they were not with­
drawn upon the hearing, will be denied as not being sup­
ported by the record in this cause.

An order will enter accordingly.

Opinion of Wilson, D.J.

F rank  W . W ilson 
United States District Judge



164a

(Filed August 11, 1965)

[ caption  om itted]

This cause was heard the 1st day of May, 1965 before the 
Honorable Frank W. Wilson, United States District Judge, 
sitting without intervention of a jury, upon the motion for 
further relief filed by the plaintiffs, the desegregation 
progress reports filed by the defendants pursuant to prior 
order of the Court, the evidence introduced by the parties 
in open Court, arguments of counsel in open Court, briefs 
filed by counsel for the respective parties, and the entire 
record, from all of which the Court finds and holds that the 
plaintiffs are entitled to certain relief upon some of the is­
sues, but that the relief sought by plaintiffs should be de­
nied on other issues, as hereinafter provided, and as more 
fully stated in the Opinion filed by the Court on 5 August 
1965, which is hereby made a part of the record and is 
adopted as the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law 
made by the Court upon said motion for further relief.

I t is , therefore , ordered, adjudged , decreed and e n jo in e d  
by the Court as follows:

1. With reference to the application for acceleration of 
desegregation, no change will be made with regard to the 
desegregation to be accomplished in September, 1965, but 
the plan of desegregation heretofore ordered in this case is 
modified so as to require desegregation of all remaining 
grades in the school system of the City of Chattanooga, 
Tennessee in September, 1966.

2. With respect to the issue of whether the regulations 
permitting transfers of students have been solely used by 
the defendants as to impede or defeat desegregation as 
heretofore ordered by the Court, and thus violate the plain­

Order of Wilson, D . J .



165a

tiffs constitutional rights, the Court is of the opinion that 
the record does not support the plaintiffs in this contention, 
and their application for further relief is therefore denied 
as to this issue.

3. With respect to the issue of desegregation of teaching, 
supervisory, and other professional personnel in the Chat­
tanooga school system, the Court is of the opinion that the 
defendants should be allowed additional time to resolve this 
issue and consequently no order with respect thereto will 
enter at this time. However, this decision of the Court is 
without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to reassert 
the issue after a reasonable time and after further progress 
under the desegregation plans heretofore and herein ap­
proved, and is made without prejudice to the right of the 
school board to undertake on its own initiative a modifica­
tion of its policies or practices with respect to teacher and 
principal assignments. The defendants will include in the 
annual report to be filed in accordance with the previous 
orders in this case a report with regard to any changes in 
its policies or practices with reference to assignment of 
teachers and principals by race.

4. All remaining issues in the plaintiffs’ motion for fur­
ther relief, to the extent that they may not have been here­
tofore sustained or denied in this order, or to the extent 
that they were not withdrawn upon the hearing, are denied 
as not being supported by the record in this case.

5. Jurisdiction of the case is retained by the Court pend­
ing full implementation of desegregation in the City of 
Chattanooga school system, and either party may apply.

/ s /  F rank  W . W ilson

United States District Judge
(Certificate of Service Omitted.)

Order of Wilson, D.J.



166a

Notice of Appeal
(Filed September 7, 1965)

[caption omitted]

Notice is hereby given that the plaintiffs, James Jona­
than Mapp and Deborah L’Tanya Mapp, by next friend, 
James R. Mapp, and James R. Mapp, hereby appeal to the 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the 
judgment entered in this action on the 11th day of August, 
1965.

Z. A lexander L ooby and 
A von N. W illiam s , Jr.
327 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
W illiam  T. U nderwood, J r .
431 E. Ninth Street 
Chattanooga, Tennessee
J ack Greenberg 
D errick  A. B ell , J r.
10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019
By /s /  A von N. W illiam s , J r.

Avon N. Williams, Jr.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

(Certificate of Service Omitted.)