North Carolina Teachers Association v. Asheboro City Board of Education Appendix to Appellant's Brief

    I n  t h e

Imtrfr Court of Appmh
F oe the F ourth Ciecijit 

No. % \ Z ?\ .

T he North Carolina Teachers A ssociation, 
a corporation,

Appellant,
-v.-

T he A sheboro City B oard of E ducation, 
a public body corporate,

Appellee.

A P PE A L  FROM  T H E  U N IT E D  STATES D ISTR IC T COURT FOE T H E  
M IDDLE D ISTR IC T OF N O R T H  C A R O LIN A

APPENDIX TO APPELLANT’S BRIEF

J. L eV onne Chambers
405% East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Conrad O. P earson
203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina 27702

Samuel Chess
622 East Washington Drive 
High Point, North Carolina

J ack Greenberg
J ames M. Nabrit, III 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellant



I N D E X

PAGE

Motion for Preliminary Injunction.....-.......................  7a

Consent Order Extending Time to Answer..............  8a

Answer and Motions of Defendant .............................. 9a

Response of Plaintiff....................................................  17a

Memorandum of October 19, 1965 .............................  21a

Consent Order of November 23, 1965 ...................... 22a

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint -....................  24a

Order on Initial Pre-Trial Conference ........... -........ - 27a

Interrogatories dated July 10, 1965 ......-.........-........  34a

Answer to Interrogatories ............................................ 37a

Interrogatories dated January 10, 1966 ......... —.........  77a

Answer to Interrogatories —............... .... — ..........-  78a

Interrogatories dated February 23, 1966 .................. 83a

Answer to Interrogatories ........ ...............................-  87a

Discovery Deposition of Guy B. Teachey..................  96a

Memorandum of May 9, 1966 .....................................  223a

Complaint ..................................... ......................... -........  l a



PAGE

Transcript of Hearing May 3, 1966  ................... —- 224a

Plaintiff’s Witness 
Guy B. Teachey—

Direct ........      230a
Cross ................      315a
Redirect ...............      355a

Transcript of Hearing May 4, 1966 ............ -................ 374a

Plaintiff’s Witness
E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—

Direct .......   375a
Cross ................................       403a

Motion to Intervene ..................................................   421a

Response to Motion to Intervene ............................. 425a

Stipulations ............ ...... .................. .......................... . 430a

Order Allowing Intervention ..................................   432a

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion 433a

Judgment .....     456a

Notice of Appeal........................      456a

Designation of Record on Appeal ......... ...... ............. 457a

ii



IN THE

United States itetrirt (tart
EOE T H E

Middle D istbict of North Carolina 

Greensboro D ivision 

Civil Action No. ------

T he North Carolina Teachers A ssociation, a corporation,

Plaintiff,
v.

T he A sheboeo City B oard of E ducation, 
a public body corporate,

Defendant.

Complaint

I

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 
Title 28, U. S. C. §1343(3) and §1343(4), this being a suit 
in equity authorized by law, Title 42 IT. S. C. §1983, to be 
commenced by any citizen of the United States or other 
person within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the dep­
rivation under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, 
custom or usage of a State of rights, privileges and im­
munities secured by the Constitution and the laws of the 
United States. The rights, privileges and immunities 
sought herein to be redressed are those secured by the 
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Consti­
tution of the United States.



2a

II
This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent 

injunction, enjoining the Asheboro City Board of Educa­
tion, its members and its Superintendent from continuing 
the policy, practice, custom and usage of discriminating 
against the plaintiff, its members and other Negro citizens 
of the City of Asheboro, North Carolina, because of race 
or color.

III

The plaintiff in this case is the North Carolina Teachers 
Association, a professional teachers association, organized 
as a private, nonprofit, membership corporation pursuant 
to the laws of the State of North Carolina. Plaintiff has 
a membership of approximately 12,500, most of whom are 
Negro teachers, teaching in the public schools of North 
Carolina, including the City of Asheboro Public School 
System. One of its objectives is to support the decisions 
of the United States Supreme Court on segregation in 
public education and to work for the assignment of students 
to classes and teachers and other professional personnel 
to professional duties within the public school systems 
without regard to race, and to work against discrimination 
in the selection of such professional personnel. Plaintiff 
is the medium by which its members express their views 
on issues affecting public education and their employment. 
By virtue of this group association individual members 
are enabled to express their views and to take action with 
respect to controversial issues relating to racial discrim­
ination. Plaintiff asserts here the right of its members 
teaching in the City of Asheboro School System not to 
be hired, assigned or dismissed on the basis of their race 
or color.

Complaint



3a

IV

The defendant in this case is the City of Asheboro 
Board of Education, a public body corporate, organized 
and existing under the laws of the State of North Caro­
lina. The defendant Board maintains and generally super­
vises the public schools of the City of Asheboro, North 
Carolina, making assignment of students, hiring, assigning 
and dismissing teachers and professional school personnel 
pursuant to the direction and authority contained in the 
State’s constitution and statutory provisions. As such, the 
Board is an arm of the State of North Carolina, enforcing 
and exercising State laws and policies.

V

Defendant, acting under color of authority vested in it 
by the laws of the State of North Carolina, has pursued 
and is presently pursuing a policy, practice, custom and 
usage of operating the public school system of the City 
of Asheboro, North Carolina, on a racially discriminatory 
basis, to w it:

A. Defendant has in the past initially assigned all Negro 
students to Negro schools, and all white students to white 
schools.

B. Defendant has made and is presently making as­
signments of principals, teachers and other professional 
personnel on the basis of race and color. Negro principals, 
teachers and other professional personnel are assigned 
to schools reserved for Negro students.

C. Effective with the beginning of the 1965-66 school 
year, defendant proposes to discontinue grades seven (7) 
through twelve (12) of the all-Negro school, Central High

Complaint



4a

School, transferring the Negro students, who reside within 
the City School District to the school formerly reserved 
for white students, and pursuant to its policy and practice 
of making racial assignments of teachers, defendant has 
dismissed all of its Negro teachers and professional per­
sonnel in the grades affected solely on the basis of their 
race. In addition, because of the prospective transfer of 
other Negro students to formerly all-white schools, defen­
dant has dismissed several of its Negro teachers in the 
elementary grades solely on the basis of their race. De­
fendant refuses to eliminate its racial policies regarding 
teachers and professional personnel and continues to hire, 
assign and dismiss such personnel solely on the basis of 
their race and color.

VI

Plaintiff and its members have made reasonable efforts 
to communicate their dissatisfaction with defendant’s ra­
cially discriminatory practices, but without effecting any 
change. Plaintiff and its members are irreparably injured 
by the acts of defendant complained of herein. The con­
tinued racially discriminatory practices of defendant in 
hiring, assigning and dismissing teachers and professional 
personnel violate the rights of plaintiff and its members 
secured to them by the Due Process and Equal Protection 
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States, and Title 42 U. S. C. §§1981, 1982 
and 1983.

The injury which plaintiff and its members suffer as a 
result of the actions of the defendant is and will continue 
to be irreparable until enjoined by this Court. Any other 
relief to which plaintiff and its members could be remitted 
would be attended by such uncertainties and delays as to

Complaint



5a

deny substantial relief, would involve a multiplicity of 
suits, cause further irreparable injury and occasion dam­
age, vexation and inconvenience to the plaintiff and its 
members.

W herefore, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court 
advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hear­
ing of the action according to law and, after such hearing, 
enter a preliminary and permanent decree, enjoining the 
defendant, its agents, employees and successors and all 
persons in active concert and participation with them 
from hiring, assigning and dismissing teachers and profes­
sional on the basis of race and color, from dismissing, 
releasing, refusing to hire or assign the Negro teachers 
and professional school personnel at Central High School 
on the basis of race or color, and from continuing any other 
practice, policy, custom or usage on the basis of race or 
color.

Plaintiff further prays that this Court retain juris­
diction of this cause pending full and complete compliance 
by the defendant with the order of the Court, that the 
Court will allow it its costs herein, reasonable counsel fees 
and grant such other, further and additional or alternative 
relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just.

Respectfully submitted,

Complaint

Conrad 0 . P earson

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

F loyd B. M cK issick

213% West Main Street 
Durham, North Carolina



6a

Complaint

J. L evon ne Chambers

405% East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Jack Greenberg 
Derrick A. B ell, J r.
James Nabrit, I I I

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiff



7a

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff, upon its complaint filed in this case, moves the 
Court for a preliminary injunction pending final hearing 
and determination of this case, enjoining the defendant, 
its agents, servants, employees, successors, and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from dis­
missing, refusing to hire or assign Negro teachers, now 
teaching at Central High School, on the basis of race or 
color and from hiring, assigning and dismissing teachers 
and professional personnel on the basis of race.

Plaintiff further prays that the Court will retain juris­
diction of this cause pending full and complete compliance 
by the defendant with the order of the Court, that the 
Court will allow it its costs herein, reasonable attorney 
fees, and grant such other, further, additional or alternative 
relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just.



8a

Consent Order

T his cause coming on to be heard and being heard be­
fore the undersigned Clerk of the United States District 
Court, and it appearing to the Court that counsel for the 
plaintiff has consented to an extension of time to answer 
for the defendant for twenty (20) days.

Now, thebeeobe, it is hereby obdebed that the defendant 
be and it is hereby granted an extension of time of twenty 
(20) days in which to answer or otherwise plead in this 
cause.



9a

T he Defendant, A nswebing the Complaint of the 
P laintiff, and R equesting T hat T his A nswer B e Used 
as an A ffidavit in Support of the Motions H erein A l­
leged and as Notice of Said Motions, for I ts Motions 
and A nswer A lleges :

First Defense

This action should be dismissed for that:
(a) The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted.

(b) Under the allegations of the Complaint Plaintiff 
would be entitled to no relief under any state or set of 
facts which could be proved in support of its claim or 
allegations.

(c) Under the allegations of the Complaint Plaintiff has 
no possible right to relief on any theory, under any dis­
cernible circumstances and there is an utter lack of law 
and alleged facts.

(d) For that the circumstances upon which Plaintiff at­
tempts to base its cause of action are governed by State 
law under the Federal Rules of Decision Statute (28 
USCA 1652) and, therefore, Defendant did not owe Plain­
tiff any statutory or other legal duty.

(e) The Complaint discloses that Defendant acted within 
the scope of its legal, lawful rights and pursuant to valid 
State Statutes and acts of the Defendant could not amount 
to a violation of any rights of the Plaintiff.

(f) Plaintiff has no legal, statutory or constitutional 
right to public employment and cannot be deprived of any 
rights related thereto.

Answer and Motions of Defendant



10a

(g) The Defendant lias never had any legal or contrac­
tual relationships with the Plaintiff and therefore the Plain­
tiff is not a proper party to maintain this action and there­
fore for a defect of Party Plaintiff this action should be 
dismissed.

Second Defense

That for the reasons set forth in the First Defense, the 
Defendant specifically moves that this alleged cause of ac­
tion be dismissed.

Third Defense

The Defendant adopts and realleges the matters and 
things set forth in the First Defense and further alleges 
that the contracts of the teachers for the benefit of whom 
this action is instituted had expired and terminated in ac­
cordance with valid statutory law of the State of North 
Carolina and therefore the Defendant moves the Court for 
judgment upon the pleadings in favor of the Defendant 
and to the end that Plaintiff’s alleged claim and cause of 
action be dismissed.

Fourth Defense

The Defendant, by its Attorneys of Record hereby move 
the Court to enter summary judgment for the Defendant, 
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 56(b) and (e) of 
the Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the plead­
ings, answer of the Defendant used as an affidavit, and 
other exhibits, show that the Defendant is entitled to judg­
ment as a matter of law. That Defendant will bring this 
motion on for hearing before the District Judge of the 
United States Court for the Middle District of North Caro­
lina at the Federal Courtroom in Greensboro, North

Answer and Motions of Defendant



11a

Carolina, or at such other place as this proceeding or action 
is set for hearing, or at such time as the Court may direct. 
The Defendant alleges in support of said motion for sum­
mary judgment the following:

(a) The Defendant adopts and realleges the matters set 
forth in the previous defense of this Answer.

(b) That there are no genuine issues of material facts 
existing which are determinative of any duty or right which 
the Defendant owes the Plaintiff, and as a matter of law 
Defendant is entitled to a summary judgment.

(c) That there are no genuine, relevant and material 
facts as to deprivation of any constitutional rights of the 
teachers in whose behalf the Plaintiff attempts to maintain 
this action for that the circumstances upon which Plaintiff 
attempts to base its alleged claim or cause of action are 
governed by State law and, the Defendant having acted 
within the scope of its legal rights according to State law 
and State Statutes, no cause of action inures to the Plain­
tiff in behalf of said teachers.

(d) That the teachers involved in this action were for­
merly employed by the Defendant to teach in the public 
schools administered by the Defendant under written, legal 
contracts which were entered into on a yearly basis as re­
lated to the school year and each of such contracts expired 
or terminated under the statutes and law’s of the State of 
North Carolina, there was no legal duty on the part of the 
Defendant Board of Education and its officers and agents 
to employ said teachers for another or prospective school 
year, and said teachers never had any right of employment 
or re-employment in the public schools of the Defendant; 
that under the Rules of Decision Statute enacted by the

Answer and Motions of Defendant



12a

Congress it is the duty of the Court to enforce the State 
law which governs the rights and duties of the parties.

(e) That the Defendant, the Asheboro City Board of 
Education, is an agent of the State and an instrumentality 
of government, as well as a body politic, and is, therefore, 
not subject to the provisions of T itle VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, and therefore the Defendant is immune 
from any action or proceeding such as this claim of the 
Plaintiff in behalf of said teachers; and the Defendant in 
these circumstances owes the Plaintiff and said teachers no 
duty and is therefore not liable to the Plaintiff or to said 
school teachers who are the real parties in interest in this 
action.

Fifth Defense

The Plaintiff having prayed for equitable relief has failed 
to show a failure on the part of the Defendant to perform 
a clear, legal duty so as to provide grounds for equitable 
relief and a valid basis for a proper decree in equity; that 
the teachers in whose behalf the Plaintiff attempts to main­
tain this action have no valid and enforceable right to pub­
lic employment, their contracts having been for a definite 
period of time and having expired, and said teachers are 
not entitled to any exceptional or superior prerogative and 
privileges because they happen to be members of the Negro 
race; that the rights and privileges as to employment or 
re-employment of said public school teachers are governed 
by the laws of the State of North Carolina and these laws 
have been observed and complied with by the Defendant; 
that the pupils in the schools of said teachers were assigned 
to other public schools in order to comply with T itle VI of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and there is therefore no 
equitable basis for the extraordinary relief of injunction or

Answer and Motions of Defendant



13a

otherwise; that the laws of the State of North Carolina 
govern and. control in this case under the Rules of Decision 
Statute and Plaintiff is not entitled to any form of equitable 
relief.

Sixth Defense

That the Defendant has a constitutional right to enter 
into contracts of employment with public school teachers, 
including the teachers herein affected and has a constitu­
tional right in its judgment and discretion to refuse to re­
employ these teachers or any other teachers in its public 
school system; that any attempt on the part of the Plain­
tiff to force or compel the Defendant to again enter into a 
new contract or to re-employ the teachers herein concerned 
is a violation of the constitutional rights of the Defendant, 
is a violation of due process clause of the Fifth Amend­
ment to the Federal Constitution; and is therefore in viola­
tion of the equal protection and due process clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment and further is in violation of the 
Law of the Land clause as set forth in Article I, Section 17, 
of the Constitution of North Carolina and further is an im­
pairment of the Defendant’s right to contract; that such 
constitutional infringement of the Defendant’s constitu­
tional rights and such deprivation of the Defendant’s privi­
leges and immunities are here alleged as a bar to the 
Plaintiff’s right to recover in this action.

Seventh Defense

T he Defendant Specifically A nswering the V arious 
P aragraphs of the Complaint F or I ts A nswer Alleges :

(1) Answering the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the 
Complaint, it is admitted that the Federal Statutes desig­

Answer and Motions of Defendant



14a

nated in said paragraph are set forth in the United States 
Code, but it is denied that they have any application to the 
Defendant or that any constitutional rights of the Plaintiff 
or the teachers which are the subject of this action have 
been violated or abridged or that any unconstitutional dis­
crimination has been enforced or administered by the De­
fendant; the allegations of Paragraph 1 are therefore un­
true and are denied.

(2) Answering the allegations of Paragraph 2, it is de­
nied that Plaintiff is entitled to any preliminary or per­
manent injunction or that the Defendant has discriminated 
against the Plaintiff or its members; the allegations of 
Paragraph 2 are untrue and are denied.

(3) Answering the allegations of Paragraph 3, it is ad­
mitted that the Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation having 
a professional membership of teachers and organized under 
the laws of this State; it is denied that the teachers involved 
in this action were dismissed on the basis of race or color or, 
in fact, that said teachers were dismissed at all; that, except 
as herein admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 3 are un­
true and are denied.

(4) Answering the allegations of Paragraph 4, it is ad­
mitted that the Asheboro Board of Education is a public 
body corporate organized and existing under the laws of 
the State of North Carolina; it is admitted that the Defend­
ant Board supervises and administers the public schools 
of the City of Asheboro according to the laws and Constitu­
tion of the State of North Carolina; that, except as herein 
admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 4 are untrue and 
are denied.

Answer and Motions of Defendant



15a

(5) Answering the allegations of Paragraph 5, the De­
fendant alleges that the action taken by it was done and 
performed in an effort to comply with T itle IV of the Civil 
Bights Act of 1964; it is denied that the Negro teachers in 
the grades affected were dismissed because of race or were 
in fact dismissed at all; the Defendant had not re-employed 
said teachers because their contracts had expired and the 
Defendant had no need for same; that failure to re-employ 
public school teachers because of transfers of students and 
consolidation of schools has happened all through the State 
for many years and has affected both white and Negro 
teachers; that, except as herein admitted, the allegations of 
Paragraph 5 are untrue and are therefore denied.

(6) The allegations of Paragraph 6 are untrue and are 
therefore denied.

W.HEREFORE, HAVING F uLLY ANSWERED PLAINTIFF^ COM­
PLAINT, the Defendant P rays T hat the Court H old, R ule, 
A djudge and Decree as F ollows :

(a) That this action be dismissed as to this Defendant.
(b) That the Court grant the motions of the Defendant 

to dismiss this action, for judgment on the pleadings and 
the motion that the Court enter a summary judgment in 
favor of the Defendant.

(c) That the Court hold that the Complaint does not 
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that the 
Court has no jurisdiction over the Defendant and the sub­
ject matter of this action.

(d) That Plaintiff has no legal capacity or status to main­
tain this action.

Answer and Motions of Defendant



16a

(e) That there is not sufficient equitable basis for the 
granting of a permanent injunction of a mandatory nature 
or of any other nature.

(f) That this verified answer be treated as an affidavit 
for the purpose of the motions alleged herein and in pass­
ing upon the injunctive relief demanded by the Plaintiff.

(g) That no costs or fees be awarded or charged against 
the Defendant and that the Defendant recover its costs to 
be taxed by the Clerk of this Court, and that the Defendant 
have such other and further relief as to the Court may seem 
proper and just.

Answer and Motions of Defendant

F erree, A nderson", Bell & Ogburn 

By / s /  H ugh R. A nderson

Attorneys for Defendant 
Asheboro, North Carolina



17a

Comes now the plaintiff, by its undersigned attorneys, 
and, in response to the several motions of defendant, shows 
the Court as follows:

I

This action was initally filed by corporate plaintiff on 
June 8, 1965, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunc­
tion against the racially discriminatory practices of defen­
dant in dismissing and refusing to hire members of cor­
porate plaintiff in the public schools under defendant’s 
jurisdiction. Along with its complaint and motion for pre­
liminary injunction, plaintiff filed a brief in support of its 
motion. Defendant has filed an answer, moving

(1) to dismiss the action

(a) for failure to state a claim for relief; and con­
tending

(b) and (c) that plaintiff would be entitled to no 
relief;

(d) that defendant owes plaintiff no legal duty under 
28 IT. S. C. §1652;

(e) that defendant acted within its legal rights;

(f) that plaintiff has no legal, statutory or contrac­
tual right to public employment;

(g) that defendant has had no legal or contractual 
relation with plaintiff and that plaintiff is not 
a proper party to maintain the action;

(2) to dismiss the action because the contracts for teach­
ers were only for one year which expired;

Response



18a

(3) for summary judgment on the pleadings, affidavits 
and exhibits, realleging the matters set forth in (1) 
and (2) above and alleging that defendant, being 
an agent of the State, was not subject to the provi­
sions of Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

(4) To dismiss the action because defendant has a consti­
tutional right to enter into contracts for employment 
with public school teachers and that the action here 
would violate defendant’s right of due process under 
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States as an impairment of defendant’s right 
to enter into contracts.

II

To all said motions of defendant, plaintiff says and al­
leges :

(1) That the First Defense of defendant is denied;
(2) That the Second Defense of defendant, realleging the 

allegations of the First Defense, is denied;

(3) That the Third Defense of defendant is denied;
(4) That the Fourth Defense of defendant is denied;

(5) That the Fifth Defense of defendant is denied;

(6) That the Sixth Defense of defendant is denied.

F urther A nswering and R esponding to the M otions of 
Defendant, P laintiff Says and A lleges:

I

That by this action, plaintiff seeks an injunction against 
defendant’s use of race and color in employing and assign-

Response



19a

mg teachers and school personnel in the Asheboro City 
School System, Such practices by defendant are clearly 
violative of the rights of Negro teachers and school person­
nel, members of corporate plaintiff. See Alston v. School 
Board of City of Norfolk, 112 F.2d 992 (4th Cir. 1940);
Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County, ------
F. Supp. ------ (Civil No. 64-C-73-R, W. D. Va., June 3,
1965).

XI
That while the contracts of employment between defen­

dant and Negro teachers and school personnel ran for one 
year, defendant followed a practice of automatically renew­
ing such contracts upon indications by employees of a desire 
to remain in the system; that members of plaintiff corpora­
tion indicated a desire to remain in the system but defen­
dant refused to renew their contracts on the basis of race 
and color in violation of their rights under the due process 
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States. See Franklin v. 
County School Board of Giles County, supra.

I l l

Plaintiff has alleged, and defendant denied, that defen­
dant has refused to rehire members of corporate plaintiff 
on the basis of race and color and has employed and as­
signed other teachers and school personnel on the basis 
of race. There are thus genuine, relevant and material facts 
in dispute and no basis for summary judgment. Rule 56, 
FRCP; Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure 
§§1232.2, 1234 (1958).

Response



20a

IY
Plaintiff is a proper party to seek the relief prayed for 

in its complaint and motion for preliminary injunction. 
Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County, supra; 
Alston v. School Board of City of Norfolk, supra; Pierce v. 
Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510; NAACP v. Alabama, 357
U. S. 449; Swann v. Charlotte-MecHenburg Board of Edu­
cation%, ------ F. Supp. ------  (Civil No. 1974, W. D. N. C.,
July 14, 1965).

W herefoee, plaintiff prays that the motions of defendant 
be denied and that plaintiff be granted relief as prayed in 
its complaint and motion for preliminary injunction.

Response



21a

Memorandum of October 19, 1965

This matter was scheduled for Initial Pre-Trial Con­
ference in the United States Courtroom, Post Office Build­
ing, Greensboro, North Carolina, on Wednesday, Octo­
ber 13, 1965. There was no attorney present for either of 
the parties to the action.

The Court was advised that Mr. Hugh Anderson, counsel 
for the defendant, was ill and confined in the hospital; 
that counsel for the plaintiff had consented, subject to 
Court approval, that the case he continued and not heard 
on this date.

By reason of the illness of Mr. Anderson, the Pre-Trial 
Conference scheduled for this date is continued until a 
later date to be set by the Clerk and notice given to the 
parties.

I, Graham Erlacher, Official Reporter of the United 
States District Court for the Middle District of North 
Carolina, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true 
transcript from my notes of the entries made in the above- 
entitled Case No. C-102-G-65 before and by Judge Eugene
A. Gordon, on October 13, 1965, in Greensboro, North Caro­
lina, and I do hereby further certify that a copy of this 
transcript was mailed to each of the below-named attorneys 
on October 19, 1965.



22a

Consent Order of November 23, 1965

I k the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOB THE

Middle Distbict of North Carolina 

Greensboro Division 

Civil Action C-102-G-65

North Carolina Teachers A ssociation, 
a corporation,

Plaintiff,
vs

T he A sheboro City B oard of E ducation, 
a public body corporate,

Defendant.

Consent Order

T his Cause coming on to be heard and being heard before 
the undersigned Judge of the United States District Court, 
and it appearing to the Court that counsel for the plaintiff 
has consented to an extension of time for the hearing of 
the initial pre-trial conference, for the defendants, for a 
time to be set by the Clerk of the United States District 
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Now, T herefore, it is hereby Ordered that the defen­
dants be and they are hereby granted an extension of time 
for the hearing of the initial pre-trial conference, said time



23a

Consent Order of November 23, 1965

to be set by the office of the Clerk of the United States 
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

E ugene A . Gordon
Judge of the United States District Court

Consented and A gree to :

J. Levonne Chambers
J. Levonne Chambers, Of Counsel for Plaintiff

F erree, A nderson, B ell & Ogburn

By J ohn N. Ogburn, J r.
John N. Ogburn, Jr., Attorneys for Defendant



24a

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Come now the plaintiff by its undersigned attorneys and 
respectfully move the Court for leave to amend its com­
plaint, heretofore filed in the above subject cause, by adding 
the following paragraph to the prayer for relief immedi­
ately following the first paragraph thereof;

That all teachers found by the Court to be denied employ­
ment in violation of their rights under the Due Process and 
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 
be reinstated as teachers in the School System in the same 
or comparable position.



25a

Counsel for each of the parties in the above-entitled ac­
tion, pursuant to notice, appeared on the llt,h day of 
February, 1966, for an initial pre-trial conference. Julius 
L. Chambers, Esquire, appeared as counsel for the plain­
tiff, and Hugh R. Anderson, Esquire, and Hal H. Walker, 
Esquire, appeared as counsel for the defendant.

After conferring with counsel for the parties, the fol­
lowing order is entered on initial pre-trial conference:

(1) It is Ordered that each of the parties commence 
forthwith the processes of appropriate discovery, and that 
same be completed on or before the 12th day of March, 
1966. In this connection, it was observed that discovery had 
already been initiated by the parties.

(2) It is further Ordered that if a party does not com­
plete the processes of discovery on or before the aforesaid 
date, such party shall be precluded from thereafter attempt­
ing discovery, unless by leave of court first granted upon 
a showing of good cause as to why the processes of discov­
ery were not completed within the time above specified.

(3) It is suggested that counsel for each of the parties 
meet and confer within ten days from the date of this 
order in a good faith effort to (1) stipulate as many factual 
issues as possible, (2) discuss and agree upon discovery 
schedules, and (3) consider other matters that might tend 
to conserve time, reduce expenses, and expedite the eventual 
trial of the factual and legal issues in dispute.

(4) The parties advise that it is not contemplated that 
any third-party complaint or impleading petition will be 
filed.

Order on Initial Pre-Trial Conference



26a

(5) It is stipulated that the party defendant has been 
properly served with process.

(6) It is stipulated and agreed that the Court has juris­
diction of the parties and of the subject matter.

(7) It is stipulated and agreed that the parties to the 
action have been correctly designated.

(8) It is stipulated and agreed that there is no question 
concerning misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.

(9) It is stipulated that there is no necessity for the 
appointment of a fiduciary to represent any party to the 
action.

(10) The Court has ruled on all pending motions.

(11) A  trial by jury has not been demanded within the 
time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
it is Ordered that the case be placed on the non-jury docket.

(12) To the extent presently known, the parties esti­
mated that the trial would consume approximately one day.

(13) The parties were advised that it was anticipated 
that the Final Pre-Trial Conference would be held in ap­
proximately the month of April, 1966, and that the case 
would be calendared for trial on or about May, 1966.

E ugene A. Gordon 
United States District Judge

Order on Initial Pre-Trial Conference



27a

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 22, a final pre-trial 
conference was held in the above-entitled cause on the 1st 
day of April, 1966.

J. LeVonne Chambers appeared as counsel for plaintiff. 
Hal H. Walker and Hugh R. Anderson of the law firm of 
Walker, Anderson, Bell & Ogburn appeared as counsel for 
defendant.

1. It is stipulated that all parties are properly before 
the Court, and that the Court has jurisdiction over the 
parties and the subject matter.

2. It is stipulated that all parties have been correctly 
designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or non­
joinder of the parties.

3. Plaintiff’s contentions are:
That prior to and since the Brown decision the de­

fendant Board has followed a policy of hiring and as­
signing teachers and school personnel on a racial basis; 
that Negro teachers and professional school personnel 
through the 1964-65 school year were employed and 
assigned to the all-Negro Central High School, and 
white teachers and professional school personnel to 
the all-white schools; that in attempting to comply with 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the defendant 
Board adopted a plan providing for the closing of the 
high school grades (grades 9-12) at the all-Negro Cen­
tral High School and the return of county Negro stu­
dents to county schools; that the defendant accordingly 
discontinued the former teaching positions in the high

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference



28a

school grades and reduced the teacher allotment in 
other grades of the all-Negro school, that pursuant to 
defendant’s policy and practice of hiring and assign­
ing teachers on a racial basis, defendant dismissed and 
refused to rehire nine Negro teachers in the all-Negro 
Central High School without according these teachers 
due process and equal protection of the laws as secured 
to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States.

4. Defendant’s contentions are :
A. That there are no genuine, relevant or material 

facts as to the deprivation of any constitutional rights 
of the teachers in whose behalf the plaintiff attempts 
to maintain this action for that the circumstances upon 
which plaintiff attempts to base its alleged claim are 
governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina, 
and the defendant has acted within the scope of its 
legal rights according to the laws of the State of North 
Carolina in such cases made and provided.

B. That the teachers involved in this action were 
formerly employed by the defendant School Board to 
teach in the public schools administered by the defend­
ant under valid written contracts which were entered 
into on a yearly basis as related to the school year in­
volved, 1964-65, and that each of said contracts expired 
or terminated under the statutes and laws of the State 
of North Carolina, and that there was no legal duty on 
the part of the defendant, Board of Education, and its 
officers or agents to employ said teachers for another 
school year, and further that said teachers did not have

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference



29a

any legal right of employment or re-employment in the 
public schools of the defendant.

C. That plaintiff does not state a claim in law or 
fact upon which the relief sought can be granted, and 
further that plaintiff has failed to show wherein equita­
ble relief should be granted to plaintiff and plaintiff 
has failed to show a default or failure on the part of the 
defendant to perform a legal duty such as would pro­
vide grounds for equitable relief and a proper decree 
in equity.

D. That the defendant, being a public body corporate 
organized and existing under the laws of the State 
of North Carolina, has, during the time set forth in 
the complaint, complied with the requirements of the 
law in supervising and administering the public schools 
of the City of Asheboro according to the laws and Con­
stitution of the State of North Carolina, and that any 
contractual relation that had existed between any 
teachers and this defendant had terminated and ex­
pired and any such teachers were not entitled to em­
ployment by the defendant School Board.

5. Plaintiff’s exhibits to be offered at trial:

A. Answers to interrogatories, dated July 23, 1965.
B. Deposition and attached exhibits of Guy B. 

Teachey.
C. Deposition of T. Henry Bedding.

D. Answers to interrogatories, dated January 20, 
1966.

E. Answers to interrogatories, dated March 5, 1966.

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference



30a

6. It is stipulated and agreed that defendant’s counsel 
have been furnished a copy of each exhibit identified by 
plaintiff.

7. It is stipulated and agreed that each of the exhibits 
may be received in evidence without further identification 
or proof.

8. Defendant’s exhibits to be offered at trial:
A. Depositions and answers to interrogatories in this 

proceeding.

9. It is stipulated and agreed that plaintiff’s counsel has 
been furnished a copy of each exhibit identified by the 
defendant.

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference

10. It is stipulated and agreed that each of the exhibits 
identified by the defendant is genuine and, if relevant and 
material, may be received in evidence without further iden­
tification or proof.

11. List of names and addresses of all known witnesses 
that plaintiff may offer at trial, together with a brief state­
ment of what counsel propose 
of each witness:

Names and addresses

A. E. Edmund Reutter, Jr. 
Professor of Education 
Columbia University 
New York, New York

to establish by the testimony

Statement of facts to be 
established

General policies regarding 
hiring and assigning school 
personnel including person­
nel in the Asheboro City 
School System. The dis-



31a

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference

Names and addresses

B. Guy B. Teachey 
Superintendent 
Asheboro City Schools 
Asheboro, North Carolina

C. T. Henry Redding 
Chairman
Asheboro City Board of 

Education
Asheboro, North Carolina

D. Pearline L. Palmer 
Charlotte, North Carolin

Statement of facts to be 
established

criminatory affect of appli­
cation of criteria and pro­
cedure employed by the 
Asheboro City School Board.
Procedure followed in hir­
ing and assigning of teach­
ers and school personnel in 
the Asheboro City School 
System, including Negro 
teachers not rehired for the 
1965-66 school year.

Policies and procedures fol­
lowed by the Asheboro City 
School Board in hiring, as­
signing and dismissing
teachers and school person­
nel.
Qualifications as teacher in 
public schools.

12. List of names and addresses of all known witnesses 
that defendant may offer at trial, together with a brief 
statement of what counsel propose to establish by the 
testimony of each witness:

Statement of facts to be 
Names and addresses established

A. Guy B. Teachey Practices and policies con-
Superintendent eerning the defendant School



32a

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference

Names and addresses

Asheboro City Schools 
Asheboro, North Carolina

B. Jefferson R. Snipes 
Morganton City Schools 
Morganton,

North Carolina

Statement of facts to fee 
established

Board relating to employ­
ment of teachers and school 
personnel.
(To be offered as adverse 
witness)
Qualifications of individual 
teachers and personnel at 
Central High School during 
the 1964-65 school year.

13. There are no pending or impending motions, and 
neither party desires further amendments to the pleadings.

14. Additional consideration has been given to a separa­
tion of triable issues, and counsel for all parties are of 
the opinion that a separation of the issues in this par­
ticular would not be feasible.

15. Plaintiff contends that the contested issues to be 
tried by the Court are as follows:

A. Whether the School Board’s practice in hiring, assign­
ing and dismissing teachers and school personnel vio­
lates the rights of plaintiff and members of plaintiff 
association guaranteed to them by the due process and 
equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States.

B. Whether the School Board in dismissing and refus­
ing to rehire Negro teachers formerly teaching in the 
Central High School deprived them of their rights to



33a

due process and equal protection of the laws as guar­
anteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti­
tution of the United States.

16. Defendant contends that if any issue arises from 
the pleadings, or the evidence, the sole question involved 
is whether the School Board has violated the constitu­
tional rights of any teachers employed by the defendant 
School Board during the school year 1964-65.

17. Counsel for the parties announced that all witnesses 
are available, and the case in all respects is ready for trial. 
The probable length of trial is estimated to be one and 
one-half days.

18. Counsel for the parties represent to the Court that 
in advance of the preparation of this order, there was a 
full and frank discussion of settlement possibilities as re­
quired by Local Rule 22(k), and that prospects for settle­
ment appear to be remote. Counsel for plaintiff will im­
mediately notify the Clerk in the event of a material 
change in settlement prospects.

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference



34a

To: Hugh R. Anderson, Esq.
Ferre, Anderson, Bell & Ogburn
Law Building
Asheboro, North Carolina

Plaintiffs request that the defendant, the Asheboro City 
Board of Education, answer under oath in accordance writh 
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the fol­
lowing interrogatories:

1. Please list for each public school in the Asheboro
School District for the 1965-66 school year:
(a) Grades served in each school;

(b) Number of Negro pupils assigned to each school 
as of the most recent date for which figures are 
available;

(c) Number of white pupils in attendance at each 
school as of the most recent date for which figures 
are available;

(d) The planned pupil capacity of each school;

(e) Average class size for each school;
(f) Number of Negro teachers and other administra­

tive or professional personnel employed at each 
school during the 1964-65 school year;

(g) Number of Negro teachers and other administra­
tive or professional personnel employed at each 
school for the 1965-66 school (most recent avail­
able figures);

(h) Number of white teachers and other administra­
tive or professional personnel employed at each 
school during the 1964-65 school year;

Interrogatories, dated July 10, 1965



35a

(i) Number of white teachers and other administra­
tive or professional personnel employed at each 
school for the 1965-66 school year.

2. List the course offerings or curriculum for each school 
during the 1964-65 school year.

3. List the course offerings or curriculum planned for 
each school during the 1965-66 school year.

4. Please list for each school in the Asheboro School 
District for the 1964-65 school year:

(a) The name, educational training, and years of ex­
perience of each teacher and administrative or 
professional personnel;

(b) The course or courses taught by each teacher

5. Please state for each school in the Asheboro School 
District for the 1965-66 school year:

(a) The name of each teacher administrative and 
professional personnel whose contract was re­
newed for the 1965-66 school year;

(b) The name, educational training, years of experi­
ence, and course or courses to be taught by each 
teacher, administrative or professional personnel, 
who was employed for the first time by the Board 
for the 1965-66 school year;

(c) The reason or reasons for not renewing the con­
tract of each teacher, administrative or profes­
sional personnel who was employed by the School 
Board during the 1964-65 school year and not 
during the 1965-66 school year;

Interrogatories, dated July 10, 1965



36a

6. State the number and position of each teacher ad­
ministrative or professional vacancy, if any, to be 
filled by the Board for the 1965-66 school year.

7. State whether the Board has adopted a policy or 
resolution providing for employment and assignment 
of all teachers, principals and professional personnel 
on a nonracial basis.

P lease take notice that a copy o f such answers must be 
served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15) days after 
service.

This the 10th day of July, 1965.

Interrogatories, dated July 10, 1965



Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teaehey, Super­
intendent, Asheboro City Schools and Ex Officio 

Secretary, Asheboro City Board of Education

The answers to the interrogatories appearing below 
were given by Mr. Guy B. Teaehey, Superintendent, Ashe­
boro City Schools and Ex Officio Secretary, Asheboro City 
Board of Education, and appear as follows:

1. Question :

Please list for each public school in the Asheboro School 
District for the 1965-66 school year :

a. Grades served in each school;

b. Number of Negro pupils assigned to each school as 
of the most recent date for which figures are avail­
able;

c. Number of white pupils in attendance at each school 
as of the most recent date for which figures are avail­
able;

d. The planned pupil capacity of each school;
e. Average class size for each school;

f. Number of Negro teachers and other administrative 
or professional personnel employed at each school 
during the 1964-65 school year;

g. Number of Negro teachers and other administrative 
or professional personnel employed at each school 
for the 1965-66 school (most recent available figures);

h. Number of white teachers and other administrative 
or professional personnel employed at each school 
during the 1964-65 school year;



38a

i. Number of white teachers and other administrative 
or professional personnel employed at each school 
for the 1965-66 school year.

1. A nswer :

The answer to Question 1, a. through i., together with 
the answers to Questions 2 and 3, are shown on the at­
tached Schedule “A ”, which is incorporated herein by refer­
ence.

2. Question :

List the course offerings or curriculum for each school 
during the 1964-65 school year.

2. A nswer :

The answer to Question 2 is shown on the attached 
Schedule “A ” .

3. Question :

List the course offerings or curriculum planned for each 
school during the 1965-66 school year.

3. A nswer :

The answer to Question 3 is shown on the attached 
Schedule “A ” .

4. Question :

Please list for each school in the Asheboro School Dis­
trict for the 1964-65 school year:

a. The name, educational training, and years of experi­
ence of each teacher and administrative or profes­
sional personnel;

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



39a

b. The course or courses taught by each teacher

4, A nswer :

The answer to Question 4 is shown on the attached 
Schedule “B”, which is incorporated herein by reference 
and which is a Directory of the personnel of the Asheboro 
City Schools for the year 1964-65. The teachers, adminis­
trative ; and professional personnel are shown in Column 2. 
Column 1 shows the educational training with Master’s 
degree being signified by an M ; Bachelor’s degree by a B ; 
an A certificate by an A ; Graduate Class by a G; Adminis­
trator’s certificate by the abbreviation Adm.; and Advanced 
Administrator’s certificate by the abbreviation Adv. Adm. 
The classes taught by the respective teachers are also 
shown in Column 2.

5. Question :

Please state for each school in the Asheboro School Dis­
trict for the 1965-66 school year:

a. The name of each teacher administrative and profes­
sional personnel whose contract was renewed for the 
1965-66 school year;

b. The name, educational training, years of experience, 
and course or courses to be taught by each teacher, 
administrative or professional personnel, who was em­
ployed for the first time by the Board for the 1965-66 
school year;

c. The reason or reasons for not renewing the contract 
of each teacher, administrative or professional per­
sonnel who wras employed by the School Board during 
the 1964-65 school year and not during the 1965-66 
school year;

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



40a

5 . A nswer :

The teachers whose contracts were renewed for the 1965- 
66 school year are indicated in the attached Schedule “B” 
therein Column 3 by an X. The name, educational train­
ing, years of experience, and course or courses to be taught 
by teachers for the first time for 1965-66 are shown on 
the attached Schedule C, which is incorporated herein by 
reference. The reasons for not renewing the contracts of 
the respective teachers are shown on the attached Schedule 
B within Column 4. The following code of abbreviation 
indicates the reason:

Resigned indicated by a capital R, resignation requested, 
indicated by the abbreviation R-R, resigned for pregnancy 
indicated by R-P, retired, age indicated by abbreviation 
Ret, principal’s recommendation indicated by PR, offer of 
contract by Board refused by teacher indicated by OR, no 
vacancy in teacher’s field, by capital NY.

6. Question :

State the number and position of each teacher adminis­
trative or professional vacancy, if any, to be filled by the 
Board for the 1965-66 school year.

6. A nswer :

The following positions remain to be filled by the Ashe- 
boro City Board of Education for the 1965-66 school year.

4 Primary grade teachers
1 Elementary grade teacher
1 Secondary reading instructor

2 Mathematics teachers

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



41a

1 Administrative Assistant 
1 Carpentry instructor, vocational

7. Question :

State whether the Board has adopted a policy or resolu­
tion providing for employment and assignment of all 
teachers, principals and professional personnel on a non- 
racial basis.

7. A nsweb :

Yes, the Asheboro City Board of Education has adopted 
a policy by resolution for employment and assignment of 
all teachers and professional personnel on a non discrimina­
tory basis.

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey

/ s /  G u y  B. T eachey  
Guy B. Teachey
Superintendent, Asheboro City Schools 
Ex Officio Secretary, Asheboro City Board 
of Education



Schedule “A”

(See Opposite)



Asheboro City Schools 
Asheboro, N. 0.
-My 17, 1965

School 1 - 1 

Asheboro High

.Grades
3565-66

10-12

b.Negro 
Pupils

72 ^

c.White 
Pupils

> r n lv U
921

d.Pupil 
Capacity

1000

e.Av.Class 
Size

25

I .Negro 
Teachers 
196U-65

g,Negro 
Teachers 
1965-66

1

h. White 
Teachers 
196U-65

1*0

i .  White 
Teachers 
1965-66

1*0

2.1961*-1965 3 
Curriculum

1 . College Prep.
2 . Business Ed.
3 . General(¥oc.)

.1965-1966
Curriculum

1 . College Prep.
2 . Business Ed.
3 .  General(Voc.)

Asheboro Junior High 8-9 89 735 850 27 - 1 30 32 2nd-3rd yrs, 
Junior High

2rd-3rd yrs. 
Junior High

Balfour 1-6 6 1*07 1*20 29 l(p t) 16 15 Complete
Elementary

Complete
Elementary

Central 1-6 237 35 285 28 21* 11 l(p t) i 1. Complete Elem.
2. College Prep.
3 . Business Ed.
1*. General

Complete
Elementary

F e y e tte v ille  Street 7 31* 391 1*30 30 - - 15 16 1st year 
Junior High

1st year 
Junior High

Lindley Park 1-6 U 10*0 1*75 28 - . 18 17 Complete
Elementary

Complete
Elementary

L o flin , Donna Lee 1-6 - 500 525 28 - - 19 19 Complete
ELementary

Complete
Elementary

McCrary, Charles VI. 1-6 32 518 575 29 - - 21 21 Complete
Elementary

Complete
Elementary

Teachey, Guy B. 1-6 - 527 550 28 - - 20 21 Complete
Elementary

Complete
Elementary



43a



44a

A mended P lan fob Compliance 
with

T itle YI op the Civil R ights A ct op 1964
ADOPTED B Y

T he A shebobo City R oabd of E ducation 
A shebobo City S chool A dministrative U nit 

A shebobo, North Carolina
ON

J une , 1965

The Asheboro City Board of Education hereby records 
its intent to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 and adopts the amended plan described below, 
including policies and procedures, which will govern school 
organization and pupil and staff assignment in the Ashe­
boro City School Administrative Unit. All previous plans 
are hereby amended in thenr entirety and superseded 
hereby.

I. General Policy

(A) The race, color, or national origin of pupils 
shall not be a factor in the assignment to a 
particular school or class within a school of 
teachers, administrators, or other employees 
who serve pupils.

(B) Steps shall also be taken toward the elimina­
tion of segregation of teaching and staff per­
sonnel in the schools resulting from prior 
assignments based on race, color, or national 
origin.

(C) No discrimination based on race, color or 
or national origin with respect to services,

Schedule “A ”



45a

facilities, activities, and programs sponsored 
by or affiliated with the schools of this sys ­
tem shall be practiced at any time.

(D) Transportation by bus or other means, when 
furnished, shall be provided in a single system 
without discrimination based on race, color, or 
national origin.

(E) Steps will be taken through staff meetings, 
class discussions, parent-teacher meetings, and 
press releases to prepare pupils, teachers, 
staff personnel, and the community for the 
changes which will be involved in desegregat­
ing the school system.

(F) The entire text of this plan will be published 
conspicuously in a newspaper having general 
circulation in the school administrative unit 
once a week for three successive weeks, and 
notice shall be given to parents and guardians 
by mail at the time pupil assignments are 
made in sufficient time to enable them to under­
stand and take advantage of their rights to 
initial assignment, reassignment or transfer 
for the next school year. Copies of such notice 
shall be furnished the Office of Education, 
U. S. Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare.

II. Policy Governing Assignment of Pupils to Schools

(A) Elementary Schools, grades 1-6

1. Each pupil in grades 1-6 will be assigned, 
initially and/or otherwise, to the school 
designated to serve the geographic attend­

Schedule “A ”



46a

ance zone in which he resides, said zone 
lines having been drawn to follow the 
natural boundaries or perimeters of a com­
pact area surrounding the school.

2. A request for reassignment or transfer of 
any pupil to a school outside the zone of 
residence made by parent or guardian 
within 15 days of the date on which assign­
ment notice is mailed will automatically 
be approved without regard to race, color, 
or national origin within the capacity of 
the classroom facilities of the school as 
determined by standards of the Southern 
Association of Colleges and Schools on a 
first, second, third, etc. choice basis. In 
the event that such capacity would be ex­
ceeded if all requests for transfer to a par­
ticular school were granted, priority will 
be given to those applying for transfer to 
that school who reside closest to the school, 
without regard to race, color or national 
origin. In addition, consideration will be 
given to requests for reassignment and 
transfer submitted after 15 days of the 
date on which assignment notice is mailed 
and this will be done without regard to 
race, color or national origin, but the ap­
proval thereof will not be automatic.

3. At the beginning of any school year after 
(but not including) the 1965-1966 school 
year, any pupil who in the previous school 
year attended a school outside his zone of 
residence shall have the right to transfer

Schedule “A ”



Schedule “A ”

and attend the school in Ms zone of resi­
dence.

(B) Secondary Schools, grades 7-12

1. Each pupil in grades 7-12 will be assigned, 
initially and/or otherwise, to a single 
school designated to serve unit-wide the 
grade in which he is placed without regard 
to race, color, or national origin.

2. Request for reassignment or transfer of 
any pupil in grades 7-12 can in no circum­
stances be approved.

(C) Pupils to Be Assigned

1. Assignment to Asheboro Schools will be 
made only to pupils who reside within the 
Asheboro School Administrative Unit, and 
pupils who do not reside within the Unit 
will not be permitted to attend schools 
within the school district.

2. Assignment or reassignment of pupils who 
live within the Asheboro City Administra­
tive Unit will in no event be made to 
schools in another school administrative 
unit.

(D) Notice of Assignment

1. Notice of assignment of all pupils eligible 
for assignment and who are enrolled in a 
school of the system at the end of any 
school term will be made by mail to parents



48a

or guardians with report cards within the 
week following the close of school.

2. Notice of original assignment shall be made 
by mail to parents or guardians of all ap­
plicants eligible for original assignment on 
or before July 15 of each year. Notice of 
assignment of pupils whose applications 
are received after July 15 will in each case 
be made by mail or by direct personal 
delivery at the Office of the Superintendent 
or school immediately upon receipt of ap­
plication.

III. Background Actions, Policies, and Interpretations

(A) On February 11, 1965, the Board took actions
to:
1. Discontinue secondary grades (7-12) at 

Central High School and operate Central 
School as an elementary school effective at 
the end of the 1964-1965 term.

2. Discontinue the assignment of any pupil 
to an Asheboro school if said pupil is not 
a resident of the Asheboro school adminis­
trative unit.

3. Establish geographic zones as attendance 
areas for each of six elementary schools.

4. Authorize approval of requests for change 
of assignment made on behalf of any pupil 
in grades 1-6 only.

(B) Under policy adopted as shown above, 80 ele­
mentary and 65 secondary pupils who in

Schedule “A ”



49a

former years would have been assigned to 
Central High School have been or will be as­
signed to the Randolph County Schools for 
next term. These transfers and the applica­
tion of a single teacher allotment formula to 
the Asheboro school system will reduce the 
number of teaching positions in the Asheboro 
system by at least five, probably six.

(C) Under a single assignment policy at the sec­
ondary level all pupils in grades 7-12, without 
regard to race, color, or national origin, will 
attend the same schools in the Asheboro school 
unit.

IV. Other Procedures for Administering Pupil Assign­
ment Policy

(A) All policy described herein is fully in effect as 
of date of adoption of this plan and/or earlier 
date(s), and is intended to achieve complete 
desegregation of the school system by the be­
ginning of the 1965-1966 school term.

(B) A single brief form, “Request for Change of 
Pupil Assignment” , will be required for trans­
fer or reassignment of pupils in grades 1-6. 
Forms may be secured from the Office of the 
Superintendent in person or by mail. Requests 
will be approved as set forth above if pre­
sented within 15 days of date of assignment 
notice.

(C) Pupils who move into the school unit during 
the summer or during the school term will be 
assigned upon application of parent or guard­

Schedule “A ”



50a

ian with all rights described above in full 
effect. Pupils who move residence within the 
unit during the school term or during summer 
months may continue with the assignment held 
or request a change at will. Pupils who move 
residence away from the school unit at any 
time must transfer to another school system 
immediately thereafter.

(D) Appeals from assignment will not be neces­
sary ; requests for transfer of pupils in grades 
noted above will be approved up to capacity 
of school requested as indicated.

(E) Transportation will be provided to each pupil 
eligible for transportation to the school to 
which he is assigned on the secondary level or 
to the school serving the attendance zone of 
his residence at the elementary level.

V. Racial Composition—Elementary Schools

The Board realizes that, despite good faith efforts to 
develop an equitable zoning arrangement, there is 
some racial imbalance in the zones set up for the 
1965-1966 school year for the Balfour School (pre- 
dominently white student body), and Lindley Park 
School and Donna Lee Loflin School (all white stu­
dent body), and for the Central School (predomi­
nantly negro student body), as set forth in the “Racial 
Date” chart annexed hereto. To a certain extent, the 
imbalance at the Lindley Park School will be reduced 
due to the assignment to that school of four negro 
students (three of whom attended that school during 
the 1964-1965 school year) whose requests for trans­

Schedule “A ”



51a

fer to that school have been granted. The Board will 
study the feasibility of adjusting school zone lines 
to correct this situation and believes it may find a 
satisfactory solution to this problem effective with 
the 1966-1967 school year. The Board will advise the 
U. S. Office of Education promptly in the event that 
it adopts a different zoning arrangement. In any 
event, the rezoning would be designed to further 
desegregate the schools of this district.

VT. Policy Governing Employment/Assignment of Staff 
and Professional Personnel

(A) Employment and/or assignment of staff mem­
bers and professional personnel shall be based 
henceforth on factors which do not include 
race, color, or national origin and shall be on 
a noil-discriminatory basis. Factors to be con­
sidered will include training, competence, ex­
perience and other objective means of making 
evaluation.

VII. Certification

This is to certify that the above Plan for Compliance 
was adopted by the Asheboro City Board of Educa­
tion in special session on June , 1965.

(Signature) ......................................... ..... ........
Chairman, Board of Education

Schedule “A ”

(Signature) ......... .......................................... .
Secretary and Superintendent

(Date)



52a

Schedule “A ”

(See Opposite) iSF



ASHEBORO CITY SCHOOLS 

ASHEBGRO, N. C. 

RACIAL DATA

School 1964-1965 1965-1966
Grades Pupils 

W N
Teachers 
W N ,

Grades Pupils 
W N

Teachers 
W N ?

Asheboro High 10-12 868 2 40 10-12 927 73 40 1 2

Asheboro J r. High 8-9 689 30 8-9 736 90 29 3

Balfour 1-6 410 16 1-6 418 5 15 1

Central 1-12 581 24 1-6 30 248 10 2

Fayetteville Street 7 432 15 7 397 36 14 2

Lindley Park 1-6 451 3 19 1-6 440 17 1

L oflin , Donna Lee 1-6 506 20 1-6 514 19 1

McCrary, Chas. W. 1-6 526 23 1-6 552 28 19 3

Teachey, Guy B. 1-6 522 20 1-6 542 19 2
Totals: 4404 586 183 24 4556 480 172 12 16

Note: ( 1) Enrollment projection for 1965 -1966 is based on assignments made June
1965 plus anticipated initial assignments of pupils which will be made 
on July 15, 1965; it does not reflect movement of pupils from or into 
the school unit.

(2) All pupils in grades 7 through 12 will attend the same schools in 
1965-1966 without regard to race, color, or national origin.

(3) Staff appointments, incomplete at this time, will be made without 
regard to race, color, or national origin.



53a



54a

Schedule “ B”

(See Opposite) I=ip



Asheboro City Schools 
Asheboro, North Carolina

~  j . -2 -
•1

ASHEBORO HIGH SCHOOL (continued) —  j .  j L

L aJ 
A. & 
3. V

Mrs. Joyce Harrington, English 
3lU Shamrock Road /  
Phone 625-6694 L : i$■ y

Mrs. Ernestine B. Presnell, Business Education 
316 Ridgecrest Road Y 
Phone 625-3851*

/ . ?  
A. A 
> 2 -

Elizabeth Ann Holbrooks, English 
825 South Cox Street 0  
Phone '* ». ?

M. Reid Prillaman, Guidance Counselor 
1*11* Brookwood Drive Y* 
Phone 629-1578 C

/ . * !
t.C-

Alec J. Hurst, Admin. A sst., History 
828 Oakmont Drive
Phone 629-U932 %

/. B 
t .  A 
j. af

Mrs. Ruby T. Rich, Biology y  
853 South Cox Street r* 
Phone 625-21*89

/• a  
a. A
#•3

Donald Gray Jarrett, Jr., Spanish 
936 South Park Street y  
Phone 625-21*82 ^

/• 8 
»• /) 
3. ©

Linda C. Sloop, Homs Economics a  
202 South Main Street . f\ 
Fhone 625-3893

J. 3

Mrs. Wilda B. Kearns, ICT Coordinator 
647 Maple Avenue V 
Phone 625-3010 r

/ .  *  

3 /J

Mrs. Ruby B. Smith, Math
251 South Elm Street /> -
Phone 625-1*175

M  
2 . A
3.1*

Merle E. Lancaster, Biology 
526 West Kivett Street ^  
Phone 625-1*994

' i . 1
3./S

William J. Smith, History y  
1*08 Dublin Road A 
Phone 625-561*8

t j l
3,7

Mrs. Erma T. Long, Math v  
181*4 Raleigh Road ' 
Phone 625-2462

I* M
i.a'

Lee J. Stone, Business, Biology 
5l6 West Kivett Street X  
Phone 625-2090

/. 5 
2 . A 
r  /

Billy R. Lovette, Dist. Education 
Thomasville A  
Phone

*• A  
5.3*

Edward R. Sugg, Industrial Arts 
1021* Pepperidge Road X  
Phone 625-5078

7, B 
*- A
3. ©

Route 1*, Box 312A 
Phone 873-2621*

Business ̂ education Social Studies

I, B Mrs. Anne H. Moore, Business Education
I , A 1020 Greystone Road Y
J . /y Phone 625-1*919

 ̂ B E. C. Morgan, Math ^
S>. A Route 5 r
J .ly  Phone 629-1221*

o Max D. Morgan, Physical Education 
101U Oakdale Street

<*>7 Phone 625-5852

Route 1, Denton 
Phone UN9-2819

I. $  Donald Thomas, History 
V  A 908 C liff Road 
3 ./y  Phone 629-1276

/• g  Joe V. Trogdon, Industrial Arts y  
A. A 31U Croomcrest Road A
3- 2. Phone 625-1781*

/ .  AJ William F. VanHoy, Jr., Social Studies 
6* 1507 Mackie Avenue Y

J.*3 Phone 629-1318 f

/• B Patricia Faye Parrish, English 
2. A 61*0 East Kivett Street 
I .0  Phone 625-4120

{• a
3> V Phone 629-1157

Morris B. Whitson, Math, Biology 
70l* Highland Street ^



55a



Schedule “B”

56a

(See Opposite) ISP



ASHEBCRO CITY SCHOOLS

OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT

Guy B. Teachey, Superintendent 
613 South Park Street 
Phone 625-2682

ASHEBCRO, NORTH CAROLINA 

DIRECTORY

1961i-1965

& /■  1

Mrs. Kay R. Craven, Secretary 
l86l Howard Avenue 
Phone 625-5086

CJ. 3 Coms-u

/. e
*■ A

Charles H. Weaver, Asst. Superintendent J . Q 
826 Avondale Road
Phone 625-52U9

Johnny R. Parker, Dir. of Elem. 
255 West Liberty Street 
Phone 629-9691

Instr.

Mrs. Mildred F. Chrisco, Mm. Secretary 
939 C liff Road 
Phone 625-5U72

Mrs. Anna C. Shaw, Secretary 
1615 Bray Boulevard 
Phone 625-5901

Mrs. Marie H. Malpass, Att. Counselor
1035 Shamrock Road 
Phone 625-^860

Garrett Cox, Superv. of Maintenance 
301; Stowe Street
Phone 625-2595

Carl H. Skeen, Superv. of Cafeterias
111 West Central Avenue 
Phone 625-6968 ' '

Mrs. Marion Bailey, Cafeteria Clerk 
601; Oakmont Drive 
Phone 625-5U1i9

(Jj &L2
/ f  C y .p ASHEB0R0 HIGH SCHOOL

/* J) Keith C. Hudson, Principal 
i  As?. South Elm Street 
j  | ’ Phone 625-6185

Col. 3 CotM
/ a r - u

• a
3 . f o

I . fA
A - <5 
I • /

J. 8 
l. A 
3.37

/. hf 
1. C

7. &
*•. A
i . n

h i
M

%,c
j j i

I'B

}J $

1*1t.c
i . t
/. a
x.A

Mrs. Linda S. Baxter, English^ 
Route 5, Box Ul2 r  
Phone 629-150U

Helen Bostick, French 
103 South Main Street 
Phone 625-2927

Warren B. Buford, J r., Social Studies
737 Britt Avenue _
Phone 629-1035 A

Katherine Buie, Librarian ^
Franklinville A
Phone 82i;-2835

Mrs. Kittie J. Caveness, Latin, English
Franklinville X
Phone

Mrs. Walker W. Derr, Math .
222 Bossong Drive A
Phone 625-5U01;

Mrs. Mildred T. 
Route 2 
Phone 625-75U3

Faircloth, English
X

Joseph B. Fields, Band 
751 Spencer Avenue 
Phone 629-9671;

Mrs. Lena R. Flenniken, English 
1103 Arrowwood Road 
Phone 625-3608

David B.
Ramseur
Phone

Gallemore, English

Angelyn Glisson, Physical Education 
36O South Cox Street

V f  Phone 625-U819



57a



58a

Schedule “B”

(See Opposite)



Asheboro City Schools
Asheboro, North Carolina

I % * / a. 3  U
ASHEBCRO HIGH SCHOOL (continued) a

i. ^
Mrs. Brenda S. Dale, English
32U Auman Street n n
Phone 625-UltOl 'i t Leona Wood, English y 

321; East Salisbury Street r
7. A

j .  J't

l ' l

Phone 625-332U
u

Janet C. Fletcher, Lang. Arts, Soc. St. 
202 South Main Street y  
Phone 625-3893 ACarl L. Ziegler, Chem., Physics 

Route 2, Seagrove Y
3. d*

3 . S Phone ' 

ASHEBORO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

K A 
3 1 1

/. ZW

Mrs. Lorene H. Harrell, Spec. Education 
929 Walton Court V 
Phone

Hugh Edwin Harrington, Band

X It*

0. V. Harrell, .Principal 
929 Walton Court 
Phone

Carol B. Cornelison, 
Route 3, Box U70-A 
Phone 629-9107

Secretary

/• Af
v. c.
| /A

U

'* 0*•. A

h 8 
3. V

1 : 2
f

'• A}
C,

3, 1 0

'* 3
A

J- /
/ .  B

3. *•

John Howard Allen, Music 
Route 1, Troy 
Phone 576-l±U50

K
9.

I.
L>
3 .

I ,

8
A
3

i3

Mrs. Shirley S. Bain, 
303 Ridge Avenue 
Phone 629-9793

Math,
8  

1. A
Science, Health J

t s
Sue Bradley, Science, Health 
339 South Cox Street 
Phone 625-2U20

Mrs. Judith F. Brookshire,
Timberlane Road
Phone 629-9783 /

Lang. Arts 
Soc. St*.

yi

'it

Mrs. Margaret B. Buie, Science 
729 North Fayetteville Street 
Phone 625-6387

Joseph R.
Box 583
Phone 625-3396

7
Burn, Guidance Counselor

Viola F. Coffin, Art, Soc. 
ItOl West Kivett Street 
Phone 625-2690

St.

Mrs. Virginia S. Craven, Spec. 
126 North Randolph Avenue 
Phone 625-2U9? )(

Education

I • 
l-
J

I .

3.

/ .  
t*
3.

t.

1 .
X

s
n.

8
A
3

8
A
y

e
A
i

B
A
O

3lU Shamrock Road 
Fhone 625-669R '

Phyllis A. Holland, Physical Education
339 South Cox Street y
Phone 625-2U20

Mrs. Grey K. Kearns, Librarian 
Route 2 X"
Phone 625-6U50

Mrs. Doris T. Lucas, Lang. Arts, Soc. St. 
Route 5, Box 32L
Phone 629-9L5U Z1

W. Ronald Lucas, Physical Education 
Route 5 y
Phone 629-9U5U

Curtis E. McCombs, Science, Health 
1U1U Westwood Drive y.
Phone 625-6781 A

Ivey G. Maness, English y,
925 Glenwood Road /*
Fhone 625-663U

Jack M. Maness, 3aBkssdM2S Math 
1018 Brookdale Drive p
Phone \

B. Wade Owen,Jr., Soc. St. ^
220 South Elm Street A
Phone 625-U718

Mrs. Georgia S. Parsons, Latin, Lang. Arts 
U55 East Kivett Street V
Phone 625-U778 *

Nancy Ridenhour, Home Economic® 
ll;3 North Main Street Q
Phone 625-U376 #»



59a



60a

Schedule “B”

(See Opposite) 2SP“



Asheboro City Schools
Asheboro, North Carolina

i:«
3. O

/.
x.
»•

5
£
0

/. a
*•4}> 7

l:  l
l 'A
J-S

I.
a.
* V

/• §  
3 • t
/. a
x.A

ASHEBORO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL (COTtinuicTJ 
front/J R  Poo lx.

Math, Science, Health 
128 Carolina Avenue j/
Phone 625-3838 A

Mrs. Patty H. Routh, Math, Science 
Box 275, Central Falls R mP
Phone 629-8187 f

B. Ray Scott, Math
1*30 Stowe Avenue v
Phone 625-3029 '

Mrs. Ola M. Smith, Home Economics, Science 
3U6 C liff Road
Phone 625-3938 /

Mrs. Julia H. Sugg, English 
1021* Pepperidge Road v
Phone 625-5078 P

Harold Teague, Math ^
201 Underwood Street *
Phone 625-6015

/• ?%'A
a it

J u  JL 4
Mrs. Ruth B. Cranford, l*th
327 H ill Street /
Phone 625-2062

/. ft Mrs. Emily H. Gray, 
t-.g. Route 1, Randleman 
t.lS Phone 8521

1st

/
-931 ■ Shamrock—Read1 
Hwne 6£5" g966-

BALFOUR SCHOOL

V  Grady King, Principal 
V jW * Box i-35, Seagrove Y

Phone 873-2521* '

Mrs. Florence H. Carroll, Secretary 
2005 North Fayetteville Street 
Phone 625-3718

7. J Swana Baldwin, Librarian
1. ^ Route 1, Franklinville X
3 . ^ Phone 3906

/. A? Mrs. Edith W. Brookbank, 5th
t, 6* Route 1 y
3- *7 Phone 625-1*613 p

/, 5 Mrs. Audrey S. Campbell, 6th
3L. 305 R. R. Ave. Randleman

Phone 2016 P

l , 8  Mrs. Lena T. Jackson, 1st 
i J  Route 1, Pleasant Garden 

Phone Greensboro 67l*-28l6

/.  B Mrs. Annie Laurie James, 2nd
1,4 515 C liff Road Y
3 ?  Phone 629-1529 - '

!• 8  Mrs. Carolyn M. Jessup, 5th 
X-A 1211 Arrowwood Road /
M  Phone 629-1227

1.8
x.A

Mrs. Nannie B. Morton, l*th 
1305 Winslow Avenue 

$ .lt  Phone 625-6592
6̂ 77*; L’ Conni**,

it1.0
128 North Main Street 
Phone 629-1093

6th

618 Parkview Street
Donald R. Chisholm, Principal

X

R
(R<

i . 5  Mrs. Christine A. Ritchie, 3rd 
X.A 500 C liff Road y
3. /  Phone 625-1*1*1*7 /*

/. /?  Carolyn Shaw, 1st
X.A 1721 First Street V
?. 0  Phone 625-2 /85

A #  Mrs. Peggy Vick, 2nd v
X./) 321* Silver Avenue A
3 • J Phone 625-6891

A $ Mrs. Verda Walker, 3rd )(
X-'A 202 Bos song Drive 

Phone 625-2098

/• flj Mrs. MaryAnn B. Ward, 2nd
^•6 229 Shamrock Road X
3.10 Phone 625-5513

FAYETTEVILLE STREET SCHOOL

R

J. 7  Phone 625-6615



61a



62a

Schedule “B”

(See Opposite) BSI’3’



Asheboro City Schools
Asheboro, North Carolina

/ - A  > 2 - — . ±
FAYETTEVILLE STREET SCHOOL (continued) 1 , B

Mrs. Rebecca B. Chapman, Secretary
863 Greystone Road

i  i

Phone 625-5068 r  3
i .  A

/ . Harvey A. Allen, 7th k  z
133 East Academy Street Y

3. y Phone 625-U058

l • A5 Mrs. Ailene J. Brink, 7th
i .  & 225 South Main Street V
j .  iC Phone 625-2291 f

/, 8  
K A

Garden S. Butler, PhysicalEducation 
1500 Arrowwood Road

3. % Phone 625-5398

J, 8 Justin B. Cox, 7th y
i .  4 1308 Keystone Road *

[ ' 6
y  i t

3 . f Phone 625-2235

/• fll Mrs. Marian S. Felton, 7th

j .  7
8lU C liff Road /

\' • 0Phone 629-9U16

/r >*f Robert Dale Howell, 7th 3.
1,$, 530 South Park Street J

i:?J .7 Phone 625-2987

/ •/)/ Henry L. Ingram, Jr., 7th 3 n
Box 606 Y

n3 .^ Phone 625-U761

[ ' 3 Margaret Lane, 7th 3 . $
7-’ A Box 15U, Ramseur Y

/• 8  
t .  /Q

Phone 82U-261U

Mrs. Nora H. Norred, 7th 5. 0
i .t* Box U83, Ramseur Y

( Jj .  * Phone 82U-5201 "

/ • 8 Mrs. Lillian B. O'Briant, Special Educatj2*i **
u  A 1025 Timberlane Drive y

'• £3 . i Phone 629-95U1

* • 8 Mrs. Elizabeth C. Page, Art 3« 3 J
J. y) 9U2 Walton Court , y
3. V Phone 629-9618 r

Wayne F. Vestal, 7th 
U07 Ragsdale Road 
Phone 625-5U2U y

j .  D

Mrs. Floretta M. Walker, Special Education
3I46 Worth Street ^  j?

Phone 625-U117

W. Mike York, J r., 7th' 
127 North Elm Street 
Phone 623-2538

LINDLEY PARK SCHOOL

Warren G. Hawkins, Principal 
309 C liff Road y
Phone 625-3U68 t

Mrs. Ava C. Hughes, Secretary 
711i Cool Spring Road.
Phone 625-U981

Nancy Adkins, 1st
139 South Cox Street
Phone 625-322U X

Mrs. Rosa Alease Anderson, 2nd 
5U0 West Kivett Street 
Phone 625-2U6U f.

Mrs. Helen G. Biddle, 3rd 
221 South Elm Street 
Phone 625-2671

Mrs. Ncrma W. Connell, Uth 
1003 Redding Road 
Phone 625-5365

Joan Ellen Craig, Uth 
223 Gardner ■Road 
Phone 629-9U8U

y
Mrs. DeEtte K. Cranford,
Box 63U 
Phone 625-U252

1st

y
Mrs. Cora F. Craven, 2nd 
121 North Elm Street 
Phone 625-3630

y

Mrs. Beatrice H; Feezor, 5th & 6th 
602 Shamrock Road .
Phone 625-UU32 «

Mary Eva Griffin, 2nd 
505 West Kivett Street 
Phone 625-36U1

R



63a



64a

Schedule “B”

(See Opposite)



Asheboro City Schools
Asheboro, North Carolina

J~ .a.
LINDLEY PARK SCHOOL (continued)

i> g Mrs. Betty E. King, 5th ,
%, g  Route 1 ](
j .  ? Phone 625-7753

Mrs. Frances F. Kizer, 6th 
205 South Randolph Street ^/• a

x- A
3 »i Phone 625-3360

/ * 8  Ellen McLaurin, 3rd
A 153 Academy street Y

3 .3 ^  Phone 625-UU38 '

/« B 5th 0
1. A 5U9 East Presnell Street 
j,, q Phone 625-1*561*

/ ,  a Mrs. Norvia B. Poole, 1st 
*•. 207 Gardner Road ^
> . 3 *  Phone 625-21*72 lh

1 : 1
Wanda Lynn Presson, 6th 
301 C liff Road 

d Phone 625-3032 i

/ .  $  Mrs. Sally H. Pugh, Librarian 
J*. A Route 2, Randleman y
3 . 3 Phone 629-1121* r

/ .  /? Sharolyn L. Ware, l*th .
i ,  n 223 Gardner Road 'f.

$ , q Phone 629-91*81*

CHARLES W. MeCRARY SCHOOL 

/ . A t  Mrs. Inez C. Lewallen, Principal
a -A K ?”  ” JJ--------* ” --J,213 Ridgecrest Road 

jfO Phone 625-21*77 /

/ .
V■■2

Mrs. Sara Seagraves, Secretary 
1502 Pepperidge Road 
Phone 629-9331

Mrs. Ida Ruth Alman, 1st 
222 Gardner Road V"

>. Phone 625-5206

Mrs. Mary M. Andrews,^Teacher Aide) 
556 North Elm Street ^
Phone 629-1155

-6-
/

/• *  
V A 
3.
/ .  £ 
1 . A  
y t *

3
Mrs. Esther M. Badger, 6th 
Route 2, Box 115, Ramseur 
Phone 821*-2363

Mrs. Fannie Barker, 6th 
1*02 Walker Avenue 
Phone 625-1*361

X

X
i . 0 Sandra Faye Batchelor, 1st y 

A 61*0 East Kivett Street ^  
3  0  Phone 625-1*120

/ < ^  Suzanne C. Bevins, 1st 
*-• A 123 South Randolph Avenue
3. 3. Phone 629-9601

/» $  Mrs. Rayburn Y. Blevins, l*th 
10i*l Pepperidge Road 

3 , A Phone 629-1279

/  ’ B Mrs. Norine A. Borva, 1st ^  
A 803 Lewis Street /

3». 33 Phone 625- 1*921*

/ . a Mrs. Jean H. Butler, 6th 
d

Phone 625-5398
A 1500 Arrowwood Road

3. $

/ • 8  Mrs. Evelyn Dorton Casper, l*th 
A 1238 Neely Drive Y

3. 3 Phone 629-961*1*

/ .  £  Mrs. Adelaide B. Cromartie, 2nd.
A 225 Worth Street /

3. f  Phone 625-1*390

/• $  Mrs. Margaret McD. E llis , 3rd
A 628 Dublin Road Y

X/O Phone 625-1*303 '

/* 8  Mrs. Helen B. Hawthorne, 2nd 
x' A Route 1 X

A. /!• Phone 629-1588

/•/if Mrs. Julia Ross Lambert, 5th 
x'q  1*30 Sunset Avenue 'Y
X.%(f Phone 625-3111* *

i l, y  Mrs. Bert K. Maness, 3rd 
3* A 925 Glenwood Road 
'• / /  Phone 625-6631*

h B Mrs. Alice B. Moore, 3rd
705 Shamrock Road )(

3  W  Phone 625-1*330

R



65a



66a

Schedule “B”

(See Opposite) 83̂ “



Asheboro City Schools
Asheboro, North Carolina

I J U . ^  ^
* ‘  CHARLES W. McCRARY SCHOOlT?continued)

a, 0  Mrs. Carolyn E. Redding, 5th p  
fa 612 Edgewood Road A

/ ,  /  Phone 625-6740

/• $  Mrs. Alberta A. Russell, 2nd 
X, fa Route 4 V
3e jy  Phone 629-8324 ^

/* $  Mrs. Patricia Skeen, Librarian 
* . A 111 West Central Avenue y  

@ Phone 625-6968 f

/ .  0  Mrs. Gladys S. Thomas, 5th 
fa 642 Parkview Street V

3 . *y Phone 625-2880 '

/  . 0  Mrs. Nancy R. Welborn, 4 th
i  , fa Station 1, Box 81
j ' / l .  Phone 629-9479 f

PARK STREET SCHOOL

^ Donna L. Loflin, Principal 
4-’./W*n 920 Sunset Avenue 
3” yy Phone 625-2045

/?«+•

Mrs. Lillian C. Brown, Secretary 
617 Lee Street 
Phone 625-3585

A $  Mrs. Iris H. Buff lap, 4th 
X 4 335 Worth Street y
J. /J- Phone 625-6304 A

#• B Barbara Burgess, 6th n
fa Ramseur <\

3. /  Phone 824-3012

faf Mrs. Annie P. Dorsett, 3rd
%. (fa 722 Holly Street \ /
3, 3 Phone 625-3570 ■ *

/ .  g  .p/« x  v
j . , 4  720 Parkview Street ^
■*. 4) Phone 625-4583 A

3rd

/ .  £  Mrs. Jane L. Gallimore, 5th 
X. a Route 2, Denton »
3  g  Phone 857-2352 X

i .  ^3
/• $  Mrs. Judith M. Gray, Librarian 

1743 Brook Drive ^a. 4
1. 3 Phone 625-2851

/. $  Mrs. Juanita Cox Hedrick, 2nd 
X - fa Box 98A, Route 4, Innwood Road
*• 4 Phone 629-9931 4

i .  4
? . 0  Phone 625-5325

Mrs. Frances F. Jones, 2nd. 
355 Holly Street ^

/« $  Lucy L. Lovett, 1st 
*. 4  622 Holly Street 
S .3 f  Phone 625-3154

/• Mary Grace Owen, 6th 
3"» fa Seagrove X

$ Phone 879-2298 #

*' j} Mrs. Geraldine Payne, 4th 
t, fa 2803 Î amar Drive Y
3, /3  Phone 629-9921 r

/ . 4 / Polly Powell, 4th V
Z , £  607 South Park Street * 
3 . 3d Phone 625-3084

/» R Mrs. Vysta W. Rempson, l e t /  
*•. 4  938 South Park Street X
3. 10  Phone 625-2556

f , #  Mrs. Willie B. Riddle, 3rd
I*, fa 502 Oakmont Drive y
3 , / /  Phone 625-4841 "

I- 4  Mrs. Elinor G. Senter, 2nd.
i. 4  620 South Park Street %J
X l  j Phone 625-4122 *

/• 3
3*/2. Phone 625-5692

Mrs. Effie Wiles, 5th & 6th 
735 Sherwood Avenue

J?t1

I • $  Mrs. Elizabeth H. Williams 5th 
3». 4  140 South Elm Street y
3. / I  Phone 625-3542 *

7? Mrs. Johnnie McLellan Wilson, 1st 
~ < 4 .  1032 Parkview Street /
3 , /  P Phone 625-4219 ^



67a



68a

Schedule “B”

(See Opposite) fSr”



Asheboro City Schools
Asheboro, North Carolina

X  X  3GUI B. TEACHEY SCHOOL ------

- 8-

$/ ,  /VJ G. Glenn Brookshire, Principal 
3. Timberlane Road y

3 • 0

3. V Phone 629-9783 X / .  if

/ .  /$

3. f

Mrs. Rebecca B. Chapman, Secretary 
863 Greystone Road 
Phone 625-5068
tfr}. t>,cL

Mac.jtiiul 111 1 min3 .......... .. 1s t  0
327 Brookside Drive f\
Phone 625-6659

/ .  0  Mrs. Leoma Benson, 5th y
2 . 4  2607 Lineberry Street X
j . /  Phone 625-5367

I , A( Mrs. Carolyn S. Chisholm, 3rd 
j .t £ 6l 8 Parkview Street y
3 , 7 Phone 625-6615 '

/ ,  — Beatrice S. Chrisco, Sp.
8 Box 7, Seagrove 

3 . / 0  Phone 873-2061

/> [X Ruth Daughtry, l;th 
U. 4  Box 686, Ramseur 
3. 0  Phone

/ ,  g  Elizabeth Ann Johnson, 1st 
l* 4 U22 West Wainman Avenue
3 • % Phone 625-2005

R

i-
3.

X  -Pattie Marie Mauldin, 5th 
U01 West Kivett Street V  
Phone 625-2690 ^

Mrs. Frances L. Overstreet, 3rd 
1002 Arrowwood Road ^

0  ihone 629- 1181;

j Mrs. Mary Jo Durham, Sp. Ed. (Day Center)

I' Mrs. Shirley Owen, 5th 
4  220 South Elm Street 

3. f Phone 625-ii7l8
1

f - B
Z'A
3 . r

Cue
’ 0  ttI

K A
3.0

Mrs. Joan S. Redding, Uth 
610 South Park Street 
Phone 629-9907

S±eh, 2nd
U05 Twain Drive 
Phone 625-6718

Ed. (Day Center)

X

R

/ '  /J Mrs. Eldora K. Robbins, 6th
1 * 4  Box 387 V
? . / r  Phone 625-7121 X

(• 77 Mrs. L illie  B. Thurston, hth 
617 East Stowe Avenue ^*•1

0, $ Phone 625-6305

1 , /if Mrs. Kathleen C. Whatley, Librarian
2 , L 1859 Howard Avenue Y

Phone 625-U798

/» 0  Mrs. Gwendolyn J. York, 2nd 
' 4  127 North Elm Street 

3 . 0  Phone 625-2538
£-P

j  , Mrs. Faedene Ridge Kirk, 2nd
A Box 325 

3,^2 Phone 857-2U03

/ ,  /2 Patricia Anne Leggett, 1st 
a 717 Galway Place 

3( j,, Phone 625-6081;

h
i .
3.

0  Judith C. Maness, 3rd V -612 Main Street, Ramsei; 
Phone 82U-2282

{ '  3
\ • A
3. j j  Phone 625-1*209

Mrs. Irene J. Manning, 6th 
205 East Kivett Street ^

R - R
OTHER PERSONNEL

A
3, l )  Phone 625-U582

Mrs. Rosa W. Auman, Bible 
930 Shamrock Road ^

/ ,  0  Dwight M. Holland, Art 
• 4  530 South Park Street X

3- 10 Phone 625-2987

/• %t, -4
3- i  Fhone 625-6962

Mrs. Rose F. Patterson, Music 
213 Ridge Avenue y

/* M Louise Thomas, Music
*»• 611 Jordan Road, Ramseur yT
3-3-f Phone 82U-253U ^



69a



70a

Schedule “B”

(See Opposite) iSi^



Asheboro City Schools
Asheboro, North Carolina

M  JL
CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL J L J i

-9 -

I *2-  3  M
j M Jefferson R. Snipe, Principal 
% fisjn 1*35 Watkins Street 
3 j^ffhone 629-9780

R f . A Mrs. Margaret L. Jones, 3rd 
X , A 807 East Salisbury Street X  
3, Phone 625-5022

Mrs. Ann W. Scott, Secretary 
606 Greensboro Street 
Phone 625-6761*

/• 8 Jackie E. Kilgore, 6th & 7th 
353 Watkins Street 
Phone 629-1306

/ .  $  Mrs. Marietta Wagner Foster, Home Economic^, /3 Mrs. Sarah S. Lassiter, 5th 
&. A ^05 Watkins Street ^  p  £./$ 1*53 Watkins Street X
J , /3  Phone 625-5301 7<*V\ $ Phone 625-5369

/  • K Mrs. Lillian P. Harris, English, French /• $  Sarah E. McLaurin, 3rd 
X ,  Pi 705 East Salisbury Road _  « Z- n  626 Frank Street
3 . $•+ Phone 625-1*1*07 K tT .  3 , ^  Phone 625-5366

5-/V

Charles N. Holley, 
117 Burns Street 
Phone

Industrial Arts

0 -R

/»  f)| Mrs. Elizabeth S. Jones, Soc. 
%’ 4  907 East Salisbury Street
3.31* Phone 625-5695

S t . , Math, 
English

PR
/»  $  Pearline L. Palmer, Librarian 
%. h 350 Watkins Street 
3  . Phone 629-1050 R--P.

/ .  & Mrs. Ruth F. McRae, i*th 
2* A 721* Frank Street ^

Phone 625-5067

/ .  $  Russell Eugene Murphy, 8th 
i* C 57 Washington Road X

f  Phone 625-6673

/ .  Louis H. Newberry, Counselor. 8th 
Z. £  738 Frank Street ~ —  H  /  
3 . /3  Phone 625-5769

’ *  A
Gaines W. H. Price, Band 
729 Frank Street ' ' 
Phone 625-5321*

Science

!- (X Mrs. Lucille 0. W. Barrett, Sp. Educ. 
t .  £, 726 Frank Street V
3, Phone 625-506? **

Mrs. Janie A. Brooks, 1st 
825 East Salisbury Street 
Phone 625-6890

i '  $  Mrs. Eliz’abeth P. Garner, 2nd
A 1029 Perry Street V

3 -2 2  Phone 625-1*816 ^
„  Le.l/<rr\t M B i m e i

/ . /? Mr bw-4» 11,1 1.7«rW—1 U 2nd
l ,  a  338 Watkins Street V
3. II Phone 625-1*565 ^

/ .  ^  Mrs. Adelaide H. Hodges, 6th 
A  5Ul Greensboro Street >

3. /i-MPhone 625-5997 1

Mrs. Mabel Patterson, l*th 
626 Frank Street 
Phone 625-5366

I ' R Mrs. Lois B. Pearson, 5th 
Z. A 337 Watkins Street 
3. $ Phone 625-61*38

/•<? Sarah Inell Peterson, Commercial, 8th 
626 Frank Street ~
Phone f j  Y

I'B  Mrs. Blondie Jones Segers, Music. ?th 
l-A  726 Frank Street " . /
3- % Phone 625-5067 n V

h B  
Z ,A

Mrs. Geraldine M. Siler, 
337 Watkins Street 
Phone 625-61*38

1 st
X



71a



72a

Asheboro City Schools
Asheboro, N. C.

5.b. Explanation of Format 
Column 1—Name 

Column 2—Education
B—Bachelor’s degree 
M—Master’s degree

Certificate 
A—Class A 
G—Class Graduate 
Adm.—Administrator’s

Experience
No. of years shown

Column 3—Subjects and/or duties

Schedule “ C”

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Allen, Betty Lou B Primary grade
A
0

Arnold, Barbara T. B Speech; dramatics;
A English
0

Bridges, Gail L. B Math; Earth science
A
3



73a

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Schedule “ C”

Craven, Betty M.

Farlow, Linda E.

Gant, Barbara J.

B Mathematics
A
7
B Elementary grade
A
1
B Mathematics
A
0
B Primary grade
A
0
B Primary grade
A
1
M Director Sec.
G Science Inst.
7
B Primary grade
A
0
B Elementary grade
A
0
B Elementary grade
A
3



74a

Schedule “C”

Column 1 Column 2

Hall, Rosalie A. B
A
7

Hughes, Mary S. B
A
0

Jackson, Ruth E. B
A
11

McGruder, Ellison C. B
A
0

McKinny, Carol J. B
A
0

Pinkham, Mary Linda B
A
2

Pipkin, N. Delorius B
A
0

Poole, Rebekah Jane B
A 
1
B 
A 
13

Column 3 
Elementary grade

Primary grade

Language Arts

Social Studies; 
Athletics

Primary grade

Home Economies

Elementary grade

Home Economics

Prichard, Pearl Special Education



75a

Schedule

Column 1 Column

Pugh, Betty J. B
A
0

Boss, Donald M. B
A
0

Russ, Yerna J. B
A
2

Scott, Rebecca H. B
A
0

Smith, Doris S. B
A
16

Smith, Sara K. B
A
11

Soler, Silvia A. B
A
2

Sorrie, Patricia Long B
A
0

Spencer, Sue R. B
A
0

Column 3 
Elementary grade

C”

Elementary grade

Phys. Ed.; Mathematics

Elementary grade

Speech Therapy

French

Spanish; Phys. Ed.

Special Ed.

Elementary grade



76a

Schedule “C”

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Staton, Camille J. B Primary grade
A
5

Warlick, Emmalee H. B Primary grade
A
1

Willeford, Berta C. B Language Arts
A 
0
M
Adm.
6

Wooten, John S., Jr, Principal



77a

To: Hugh E. Anderson, Esq.
Ferre, Anderson, Bell & Ogburn
Law Building
Asheboro, North Carolina

Plaintiffs request that the defendant, the Asheboro City 
Board of Education, answer under oath in accordance with 
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the fol­
lowing interrogatories:

1. Please state what procedures and criteria are used 
to evaluate the performance of teachers in service. 
If the procedures and criteria are used for evaluat­
ing the performance of teachers in service are in 
writing, please submit a copy of same.

2. Please state if there are teaching vacancies pres­
ently in any of the schools in the school system and 
if any new teachers have been hired new to the 
school system for the first time since September 21, 
1965.

3. Please state the date when teachers are to be con­
sidered by the Superintendent and other admin­
istrative officials for employment for the 1966-67 
school year.

P lease take notice that a copy of such answers must be 
served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15) days after 
service.

Interrogatories Dated January 10, 1966

This the 10th day of January, 1966.



78a

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey, Super­
intendent, Asheboro City Schools and Ex Officio 

Secretary, Asheboro City Board of Education

The answers to the interrogatories appearing below were 
given by Mr. Guy B. Teachey, Superintendent, Asheboro 
City Schools and Ex Officio Secretary, Asheboro City 
Board of Education, and appear as follows:

1. Question :

Please state what procedures and criteria are used to 
evaluate the performance of teachers in service. If the 
procedures and criteria are used for evaluating the per­
formance of teachers in service or in writing, please sub­
mit a copy of same.

1. A nswer :

The evaluation of performance of teachers in service in 
the Asheboro City Schools is a continuing process which 
begins when the teacher enters an assignment and goes on 
until separation occurs. Each teacher in the system holds 
a contract for a single school term or less in all cases, and 
in order to maintain a program of instruction at the high­
est possible standard the performance level of each teacher 
is subject to constant review. It is the responsibility of 
the Superintendent to recommend to the Asheboro City 
Board of Education the teachers to whom new contracts 
for another school term will be offered. Recommendations 
are made on the basis of decisions reached through the 
evaluation process.

I. The Procedures follow:
A. Observation of classroom situation

1. By Principal, on irregular schedule



79a

2. By Supervisor, by appointment and/or with­
out announcement

3. By Superintendent, occasionally, as possible

4. By State Department of Public Instruction 
personnel on irregular visits

B. Observation of progress made by pupils, as indi­
cated by
1. Marks on subjects—grades

2. Promotions and retentions
3. Test scores, achievement, and aptitude
4. Success in next higher grade

C. Observation of teacher-pupil-parent relationships
1. Discipline problems

2. Parent and public reaction
3. Enthusiasm of pupils
4. Community inter-relationships

D. Conferences concerning performance of teacher
1. Teacher with principal, supervisor, State De­

partment personnel with Superintendent

E. Written evaluation by principals
1. Once (at least) each school year
2. Report accompanied by recommendation con­

cerning new contract

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



80a

II. The criteria used in performance evaluation are 
listed herewith, with each rated on a scale gener­
ally from 1 (Superior) to 5 (Poor)
A. Classroom presentation

1. Manner—attractive to pupils
2. Voice—pleasing
3. Language—suited to grade level
4. Forcefulness—puts lesson across

5. Evidence of initiative
6. Evidence of careful planning

B. Knowledge of subject(s) and methods
1. Preparation in field
2. Up-to-date in knowledge of subject(s)
3. Up-to-date methods and use of materials

C. Understanding of pupils
1. Understanding of child growth and develop­

ment
2. Ability to establish rapport
3. Ability to excite pupils, create enthusiasm

D. Professional attitude; professional interest
1. Participation in in-service training opportuni­

ties
2. Desire to improve teaching skills

(a) Summer schools

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B, Teachey



81a

(b) Advanced degrees
(c) Special institutes, seminars

3. Acceptance of responsibility and carrying out 
the obligation of a teacher

4. Acceptance of authority; team-work
5. Loyalty to profession and school system

E. Appearance
1. Neatness and appropriateness of dress

2. Use of make-up
3. Facial expressions
4. Physical handicaps

2. Question :

Please state if there are teaching vacancies presently in 
any of the schools in the school system and if any new 
teachers have been hired new to the school system for the 
first time since September 21, 1965.

2. A nsweb :

I. Vacancies exist today, January 20, 1966, in the Ashe- 
boro City Schools in the following positions:

Kindergarten teacher 
Nursery school teacher

II. Teachers new to the system employed since Septem­
ber 21, 1965, have been employed for the following 
positions:

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey

Industrial Arts



82a

Physical education 
Third grade

3. Question :

Please state the date when teachers are to be considered 
by the Superintendent and other administrative officials 
for employment for the 1966-67 school year.

3. A nswer :

No definite date has been set for final consideration and 
employment of teachers for the 1966-67 school year. Con­
sideration of personnel for employment for the following 
school term normally goes on throughout the year in­
formally and decisions are made final usually in April 
and/or May of each year.

/ s /  Guy B. T eachey 
Guy B. Teachey
Superintendent, Asheboro City Schools 
Ex Officio Secretary, Asheboro City Board 
of Education

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



83a

T o : Hal H. Walker, Esq.
Hugh R. Anderson, Esq.
Ferre, Anderson, Bell & Ogburn
Law Building
Asheboro, North Carolina

Plaintiff requests that the defendant, the Asheboro City 
Board of Education, answer under oath in accordance with 
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the fol­
lowing interrogatories:

1. State whether the procedures and criteria used in 
evaluating teachers are in writing.

2. State whether the procedures and criteria used in 
evaluating teachers are made available to teachers at the 
time of employment or at any time during the evaluation 
of the teacher.

3. State how long the present procedures and criteria 
used in evaluating teachers have been used by the school 
system.

4. With respect to the procedures used in evaluating 
teachers, state how frequently observations are made by 
the principal, the supervisor, the Superintendent, and the 
State Department of Public Instruction.

5. State whether the frequency in observing teachers 
for purpose of evaluation differs according to the rating 
of teachers—i. e., are teachers with poor ratings observed

Interrogatories, dated February 23, 1966



84a

more frequently than teachers with good or excellent 
ratings.

6. Describe how factors considered in observing prog­
ress made by pupils are measured and used.

7. Describe how factors considered in observing teacher- 
pupil-parent relationship are measured and used.

8. State how frequently conferences concerning perform­
ance of teachers are held with teacher and principal, super­
visor, State Department personnel and Superintendent. 
State whether frequency of such conferences depends on 
rating of teachers.

9. State whether records are kept of conferences con­
cerning performance of teachers and if same are made 
available to the teachers following or during the confer­
ences.

10. State in detail how written evaluations of teachers 
by principals are made and how they are used in award­
ing new contracts.

11. Please attach copies of written evaluation of each 
teacher in the school system, including the Negro teachers 
who were not rehired for the 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 
school years.

12. State how the criteria presently used in evaluating 
teachers were developed.

13. State the original source for each criterion used in 
evaluating teachers.

Interrogatories, dated February 23, 1966



85a

14. State whether teachers participated in establishing 
the criteria used in evaluating teachers or whether criteria 
were established by the administrative staff, the Board of 
Education, the State Department of Public Instruction and 
principals.

15. State the individuals involved in establishing the 
criteria used in evaluating teachers.

16. State whether all criteria carry equal weight. If 
not, state the relative weight of each item.

17. State who uses the criteria to make the evaluation 
of teachers.

18. State how many people make evaluations of each 
teacher. State how many different people evaluate each 
teacher during the school year and how many times.

19. State whether written record is kept of evaluations. 
If so, please attach a copy of the most recent evaluation 
of each teacher in the school system, including the Negro 
teachers not rehired for the 1965-66 school year.

20. State the individuals who participate in decision of 
whether to award new contracts to teachers and how they 
go about making the decision whether or not to award new 
contracts.

21. Please list the over-all years of experience of each 
teacher, the years of experience of each teacher in the 
Asheboro School System and certificates held by each 
teacher including the Negro teachers not rehired for the 
1965-66 school year.

Interrogatories, dated February 23, 1966



86a

22. Please state the grades or subjects now being taught 
by each teacher in the school system.

23. Please attach a copy of the form used by the teach­
ers for indicating their desire to continue teaching in the 
school system and indicating by name which teachers ex­
pressed a desire, when the form was first returned during 
or at the close of the 1964-65 school year, not to return 
for the 1965-66 school year.

24. Please list the teachers retained in the same position 
for the 1965-66 school year and teachers retained but 
placed in a different position and indicate the new position.
Please take notice that a copy of such answers must be 
served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15) days after 
service.

Interrogatories, dated February 23, 1966

This the 23rd day of February, 1966.



87a

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey, Super­
intendent, Asheboro City Schools and Ex Officio 

Secretary, Asheboro City Board of Education

The answers to the interrogatories appearing below were 
given by Mr. Guy B. Teachey, Superintendent, Asheboro 
City Schools and Ex Officio Secretary, Asheboro City Board 
of Education, and appear as follows:

1. Question :

State whether the procedures and criteria used in evalu­
ating teachers are in writing.

1. A nswer :

No; except as outlined in answer to earlier interroga­
tories.

2. Question :

State whether the procedures and criteria used in evalu­
ating teachers are made available to teachers at the time 
of employment or at any time during the evaluation of the 
teacher.

2. A nswer :

N o; except that trained teachers are made aware of the 
criteria during their preparation for teaching and there­
by have the normal procedures and criteria available at 
all times.

3. Question :

State how long the present procedures and criteria used 
in evaluating teachers have been used by the school system.



88a

3. A nsweb :

At least twenty years except required written evaluation
by principals only one year.

4. Question :

With, respect to the procedures used in evaluating teach­
ers, state how frequently observations are made by the 
principal, the supervisor, the Superintendent, and the State 
Department of Public Instruction.

4. A nsweb :

a. Principals—constantly
b. Supervisor—directly, two to six times yearly

—indirectly, constantly
c. Superintendent—directly, irregularly

—indirectly, constantly
d. State Department of Public Instruction—irregularly

5. Question :

State whether the frequency in observing teachers for 
purpose of evaluation differs according to the rating of 
teachers—i.e., are teachers with poor ratings observed more 
frequently than teachers with good or excellent ratings.

5. A nsweb :

Yes.

6. Question :

Describe how factors considered in observing progress 
made by pupils are measured and used.

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



89a

6. A nswer :

Observations are made and measured directly from pupil 
records. Marks, test scores, promotions, future success 
of pupils are compared with measurable aptitudes as 
possible, and more favorable levels of performance are 
considered indications of greater teaching effectiveness.

7. Q uestion :

Describe how factors considered in observing teacher- 
pupil-parent relationship are measured and used.

7. A nswer:

Observations by persons in supervisory positions mea­
sure the teacher’s effectiveness in dealing with pupils, 
patrons and community and are used by supervisory 
personnel to indicate success and/or probable future suc­
cess of the teacher both in human relations and in the 
academic teaching area.

8. Question :

State how frequently conferences concerning perform­
ance of teachers are held with (illegible) .................. ..........
(illegible) ...................................-................. -..... ------ -------- ---

8. A nswer :

a. Principal-—generally two to six times per year
b. Supervisor—irregularly
c. Superintendent—occasionally
d. State Department of Public Instruction personnel— 

rarely, except in case of “vocational” teachers

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



90a

e. Yes, frequency of conferences does depend on rating 
of teachers.

9. Question :
State whether records are kept of conferences concerning 

performance of teachers and if same are made available 
to the teachers following or during the conferences.

9. A nswer :

Generally, no records are kept of such conferences.

10. Question :
State in detail how written evaluations of teachers by 

principals are made and how they are used in awarding 
new contracts.

10. A nswer :

Made by principal on basis of observations and confer­
ences; simple rating scale is used. The evaluation and
recommendation are used to provide some of the informa­
tion necessary for decisions concerning contracts.

11. Question :

Please attach copies of written evaluation of each teacher 
in the school system, including the Negro teachers who were 
not rehired for the 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 schoool 
years.

11. A nswer :

a. 1963-1964—not available
b. 1964-1965—attached— (approximately 200 sheets)

c. 1965-1966—not yet available; due in April, 1966

Ansiver to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



91a

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey

12. Question :

State how the criteria presently used in evaluating teach­
ers were developed.

12. A nswer:

Criteria used have been developed from literature of the 
profession and out of the experience of the teaching, 
supervisory and administrative personnel of the school 
system.

13. Question :

State the original source for each criterion used in evalu­
ating teachers.

13. A nswer :

See answer to 12 above, which applies.

14. Question :

State whether teachers participated in establishing the 
criteria used in evaluating teachers or whether criteria were 
established by the administrative staff', the Board of Edu­
cation, the State Department of Public Instruction and 
principals.

14. A nswer :

Indirectly, yes; preparation of outline prepared by ad­
ministrative staff.

15. Question :

State the individuals involved in establishing the criteria 
used in evaluating teachers.



92a

15. A nswer :

Superintendent G-uy B. Teachey, Assistant Superintend­
ent Charles H. Weaver, Director of Elementary Instruc­
tion Johnny R. Parker, various principals, teachers, mem­
bers of board of education.

16. Question :

State whether all criteria carry equal weight. If not, 
state the relative weight of each item.

16. A nswer :

All criteria do not carry equal weight. The approximate

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey

weights are:
Classroom presentation —30%
Knowledge of subject(s) and methods—20%
Understanding of pupils —25%
Professional attitude, interest —-15%
Appearance —10%

17. Question :

State who uses the criteria to make the evaluation of 
teachers.

17. A nswer :

Principal, Supervisor, Superintendent.

18. Question :

State how many people make evaluations of each teacher. 
State how many different people evaluate each teacher dur­
ing the school year and how many times.



93a

18, A nswer : ......

Formal written evaluation—one.
Non-written evaluation—three, or more, as indicated in 
numbers 4 and 17

19. Question :

State whether written record is kept of evaluations. If 
so, please attach a copy of the most recent evaluation of 
each teacher in the school system, including the Negro 
teachers not rehired for the 1965-66 school year.

19. A nswer:

Since 1964, one written record kept each year. Copies 
attached as indicated in No. 11.

20. Question :

State the individuals who participate in decision of 
whether to award new contracts to teachers and how they 
go about making the decision whether or not to award new 
contracts.

20. A nswer :

Principal, Assistant Superintendent, Superintendent, 
subject to approval of Board of Education. Statutes 
require Superintendent to make recommendations. He 
does so on basis of conferences with other members of 
administrative staff. Board accepts or rejects recom­
mendation thus made.

21. Question :

Please list the over-all years of experience of each 
teacher, the years of experience of each teacher in the Ashe-

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



94a

boro School System and certificates held by each teacher 
including the Negro teachers not rehired for the 1965-66 
school year.

21. A nswer :
Attached—Schedule A, Column I:

1. Total years’ experience
2. Years Asheboro system

3. Certificate

22. Question :

Please state the grades or subjects now being taught by 
each teacher in the school system.

22. A nswer :

Attached—Schedule A, Column II: Grade or subjects
underlined

23. Question:

Please attach a copy of the form used by the teachers 
for indicating their desire to continue teaching in the school 
system and indicating by name which teachers expressed 
a desire, when the form was first returned during or at 
the close of the 1964-65 school year, not to return for the 
1965-66 school year.

23. A nswer :

Attached—Schedule B : List as requested on reverse side.

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey



95a

Answer to Interrogatories by Guy B. Teachey 

24. Q uestion  :

Please list the teachers retained in the same position for 
the 1965-66 school year and teachers retained but placed 
in a different position and indicate the new position.

24. A nsw er  :

Attached—Schedule A, Column III, Pages 1-10
All teachers retained same position—-“S”
All teachers transferred—“Tr.”

This the 5th day of March, 1966.

/ s /  G u y  B . T eachey  
Guy B. Teachey 
Superintendent,
Asheboro City Schools 
Ex Officio Secretary,



96a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey
# # • m #

Thereupon. Guy B. T eachey a witness called pursuant to 
notice, being first duly sworn in the above cause, was ex­
amined and testified on his oath as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers:
Q. Would you state your name, please? A. Guy Tea­

chey; Guy B. Teachey, usually.
Q. Mr. Teachey, are you presently employed by the Ashe- 

boro City Board of Education? A. I am.
Q. In what capacity? A. Superintendent of Schools.
Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 

A. Eighteen years.
Q. Did you work with the Board in any other capacity 

prior to your employment as Superintendent? A. I did.
Q. You did? In what capacity? A. Principal, Asheboro 

High School.
Q. How long were you Principal at Asheboro? A. Two 

years.
Q. And you were Superintendent for— A. Eighteen.
Q. Mr. Teachey, would you state what steps were taken 

by the Asheboro City Board of Education between 1954
— 4 —

and 1964-65 to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision 
in Brown versus Board of Education?

Mr. Anderson: Pm going to object as to the form 
on that.

The Witness: Now do I answer the question in 
that form anyway?

Mr. Chambers: Yes.

A. Well, I ’m afraid I didn’t quite follow it.

—3—



97a

Q. Let me rephrase the question. Did the Board of Ed­
ucation take any steps during the year 1954 to comply with 
the Brown versus Board of Education decision!

Mr. Anderson: Same objection as to form.

A. The Board—
Q. This is in 1954. A. In or between?
Q. In. A. In 1954, formal steps, formal action, no.
Q. Did the Board take any steps in 1955 to comply with 

the Brown decision? A. The Board took no formal action 
for several years but stood ready to consider any applica­
tion for change of assignment at all times.

Q. You say that the Board took no formal action for 
several years. Do you mean that no steps were taken in 
1956, ’57, and ’58? A. No, I ’m not sure that this is what

—5—
I mean. I mean that the Board was prepared to desegregate 
upon request.

Q. That was in the year 1957? A. 1954.
Q. And 1955? A. And ’56 and ’57.
Q. But the Board took no formal action itself? A. It 

took no formal action.
Q. From 1954 until 1960, did you have any Negroes at­

tending schools with white students? A. No.
Q. Did you have any Negroes attending school with white 

students in 1961? A. No, nor ’62, nor ’63.
Q. Did you have any attending school with whites in 

1964? A. Yes.
Q. That was the school year 1964-65? A. Yes.
Q. How many students were assigned to formerly all- 

white schools in 1964? A. All who requested such assign­
ment. May I state this in answer—

Q. Would you first give me the number? A. I’d have to 
refer to the records. Six; six is my recollection.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



98a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

-— 6—

Q. And these students requested transfer! A. And re­
ceived it.

Q. And this was pursuant to the North Carolina Pupil 
Enrollment Act? A. That’s correct.

Q. Did any students request transfer in the year 1965? 
Strike that. The year 1964-65 was the first time you had 
integration in the schools? A. The first year we had any 
request for transfers of this type.

Q. Mr. Teachey, in administering the North Carolina 
Pupil Enrollment Act, did you notify the parents in the 
school system that they could request transfer? A. They 
were notified at the beginning through newspaper publicity 
quite thoroughly in—perhaps I shouldn’t mention the date, 
hut when the Pupil Assignment Act was enacted.

Q. And ever since then? A. I ’m sure that quite often 
this information was made available but perhaps not for­
mally.

Q. Did the Board take any formal action to notify the 
parents that they could request transfers in the system? A. 
No.

Q. Did the Board adopt any plan to desegregate the 
schools during this period—that is, from 1954 to 1965 ? A.

Yes.
Q. I’m talking about the school year 1964-65. A. No.
Q. There was no plan during the prior year to desegre­

gate the schools? A. No. Now if by your question you 
mean a formal plan, the plan was an informal one in which 
any requests were considered.

Q. You mean, do you not, that you followed the North 
Carolina Pupil Enrollment Act? A. That’s correct.

Q. Was it your policy at that time to assign Negro stu­
dents to Negro schools and white students to white schools



99a

like that? Was it the policy of the Board to assign Negro 
students to Negro schools and white students to white 
schools? A. It was the policy of the Board to assign ini­
tially children to the schools to which they applied.

Q. This resulted, didn’t it, in Negro students being as­
signed to Negro schools and white students to white 
schools? A. It did.

Q. Mr. Teachey, I notice that you have several elementary 
schools in the system, is that correct? A. Six.

Q. Six. You have one school which was formerly all- 
Negro, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

— 8—

Q. And this was a union school, grades one to twelve? 
A. That’s right.

Q. All Negro students in the school system were initially 
assigned to this school, is that correct? A. Until 1964-65.

Q. Until 1964-65? A. Yes. At their request.
Q. These six students you indicated requested transfer, 

were they not assigned to the all-Negro school before they 
requested transfer? This is the policy of the Pupil Enroll­
ment Act, isn’t it?

Mr. Anderson: Object as to form.

A. Would you restate this question?
Q. Is it the policy of the Pupil Enrollment Act, or at least 

as it was administered by the Asheboro City Board of Edu­
cation, to first make initial assignments to students and then 
permit the student to request transfer? A. Yes, it was.

Q. That’s correct, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. And the six students you indicated requested transfer 

for 1964-65 were first assigned to the formerly all-Negro

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



100a

school, is that correct! A. At least five. There was one 
beginner; and I can’t be absolutely certain—

— 9—
Q. Wasn’t the beginner assigned to the all-Negro school 

and then requested transfer! A. Perhaps; but this I 
would have to check the records.

(Discussion off the record.)

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Teachey, for the elementary schools in the system, 

did the Board have general attendance zones for these 
schools! A. Unofficially.

Q. A student in one part of town would not be assigned 
to a school across town, would he! A. Not originally as a 
rule.

Q. And you had, therefore, some generally recognized 
boundaries for each school? A. With variations from year 
to year, yes.

Q. Did you have any maps for these attendance areas? 
A. No.

Q. How did the student know the school to which he was 
initially register? A. He knew generally if there were to 
be any change from the communities which were assigned 
to the school the year before by public notice, either through 
news or otherwise.

Q. Did the public notices indicate the school that the 
student was to register in? A. In some cases.

— 10—

Q. Isn’t that true in most cases? A. Well, we did not 
find it necessary very often.

Q. It was generally understood that a student in a par­
ticular area would attend a particular school? A. Yes.

Q. And this was public knowledge? A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



101a

Q. It was also generally understood that Negro students, 
wherever they stayed, would be enrolled at the all-Negro 
school? A. Generally.

Q, And the name of this-— A. Not enrolled. Let me cor­
rect that. Assigned, with the privilege of requesting trans­
fer.

Q. All right. They would be initially assigned to this all- 
Negro school? A. That’s right.

Q. The name of that all-Negro school was the Central 
High School? A. That’s right, which was in fact a union 
school.

Q. A union school.

The Witness: May I speak to the attorney here?
(Discussion off the record.)

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, let us turn to your answers to interroga­
tories and the schools you have listed here. Would you state 
the enrollment for the Guy B. Teachey school as of the close 
of the 1964-65 school year? A. 527.

— 11—

Q. Anri this is all-white, is that correct? A. All-white. 
I ’m sorry; let me get my bearings. Am I on the right place? 
I may have given you the wrong—This could have been— 
Are you looking at the sheet where I have this?

Q. Yes, sir. A. No, that’s not last year. This is pro­
jected for ’65-66, the figure I gave you. Now what is it? 
What was the question ?

Q. The enrollment of the Guy B. Teachey School as of 
the close of the 1964-65 school year? A. 522.

Q. And this was all-white? A. All white.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



102a

Q. The enrollment for the Charles W. McCrary School?
A. 525; all-white.

Q. And the enrollment for Donna Lee— A. Lofiin.
Q. —Lofiin? A. 501; all-white.
Q. And the enrollment for Lindley Park? A. 454; 451 

white, 3 Negro.
Q. The enrollment for Fayetteville Street? A. Fayette­

ville Street, 430; all-white.
Q. The enrollment for Central? A. 581; all-Negro.

— 12—

Q. The enrollment for Balfour? A. 410; all-white.
Q. Ashehoro Junior High? A. 689; all-white.
Q. And Asheboro High School? A. 864 white, 2 Negro; 

866 total. This is as of June 2, 1965. The figures in this 
answer, I believe, were projected for 1965-66.

Q. The enrollment for the 1964-65 school year of two 
Negroes at Asheboro High School resulted from these two 
Negro students requesting transfer? A. That’s right.

Q. To the Asheboro High School, is that correct? A. 
That’s right.

Q. These students were initially assigned to Central? 
A. Presumably, yes.

Q. And you indicated you had three Negroes at Lofiin— 
or Lindley Park? A. Lindley Park. That was at the end 
of school. There were actually four assigned to the school 
but one requested transfer and was reassigned during the 
school term.

Q. And these students were initially assigned to the Cen­
tral School and requested transfer to— A. Presumably, 
unless there is an exception for one first-grade pupil who

—1 3 -
may not have been assigned originally to Central. I can’t

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



103a

be sure o f  that. N orm ally, i f  he attended the pre-school con­
ferences, he would have been assigned to Central.

Q. D id you advertise or give notice that the children 
could attend any pre-school conference they wanted to f D id 
the B oard adopt a form al policy  that students could attend 
any pre-school clinic they desired? A . This was an ad­
m inistrative policy  and I  believe children did occasionally. 
There was, as fa r  as I  know, no Board action on this. W e 
had quite a few  children who did attend other pre-school 
conferences.

Q. N ot quite a few  N egroes, are there? A . No, whites.
Q. D o you  know o f  any N egroes who enrolled or at­

tended—  A . No, I  don’t.
Q. — any pre-school clinic? A. I  don’t know o f  any, nor 

do I  know o f anything that was done to discourage it.
Q. There was, however, no form al policy  to encourage it?

A. No.
Q. Or even to perm it it? A . There was no form al policy 

in either direction. It was perm itted fo r  other children and 
would have been perm itted in any case.

— 14—~
Q. But no form al policy  adopted by the Board o f Educa­

tion? A . No.
Q. Mr. Teachey, did the B oard follow  a policy— at least 

up until the 1964-65 school year— o f assigning all N egro 
teachers to Central School? A . It was never discussed. It 
was done but wasn’t—

Q. In  fact, all N egro teachers were assigned to the N egro 
school? A . That is correct.

Q. A nd  all white teachers assigned to the white school? 
A . No.

Q. W here is there an exception? A . W e had one itiner­
ant white teacher assigned to Central fo r  several years.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



104a

Q. What was this teacher teaching? A. Bible.
Q. Bible? And this was part-time? A. Well, it was 

part-time at all schools, in all schools where she taught.
Q. And when was the first time in which she was assigned 

to the Central School? A. This is an indefinite answer, 
but approximately three years prior to ’64-65.

Q. Was she paid by the Board of Education? A. Yes.
—15—

Q. And you think that she was assigned approximately 
three years prior to 1964-65 ? A. I am fairly certain it was.

Q. This would be the 1961-62 school year? A. No, I don’t 
intend to imply that this is absolute, but approximately.

Q. This is the only exception you have? A. Only excep­
tion.

Q. Did this teacher teach Bible in all other schools in the 
system? A. Not all; the elementary schools.

Q. All of the elementary schools? A. That’s right.
Q. All other white teachers were assigned to white 

schools, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. You followed the policy, did you not, of employing 

Negro teachers for Negro schools? A. Negro teachers 
were employed and assigned to Central.

Q. They were employed for Central School? They were 
not considered for employment at any other school, were 
they?

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

Mr. Anderson: I think it would be well for the 
record to get in what period of time we are talking 
about here.

Q. This is up through 1964-65? A. Restate it then for
—16—

me, please, sir!
Q. The Board did not consider an application for a Negro



105a

teacher for any school other than Central School, is that 
correct? A. That is substantially correct.

Q. And the same with respect to white teachers ? That is, 
the Board did not consider an application of a white teacher 
for any other than white schools in the system? A. It had 
not; neither did it have any applications of Negroes for the 
other schools.

Q. You did not have a formal policy that would permit 
Negroes to apply for other schools, did you? That is, the 
Board never instructed you to consider applications of Ne­
groes for white schools? A. I had no instructions either 
way.

Q. Nor did the Board instruct you to consider white ap­
plicants for Negro schools? A. No instructions in either 
case.

Q. There was no formal policy adopted to this effect? 
A. No.

Q. Mr. Teachey, as Superintendent of Schools, you are 
the administrative officer of the Board, are you not? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. And the Secretary of the Board of Education? A. 
That’s correct.

—17—
Q. You attend practically all of the Board meetings? A. 

Yes.
Q. And record the minutes of the Board? A. Yes.
Q. You would be familiar, therefore, with the policies 

adopted by the Board, would you not? A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Teachey, prior to the beginning of the 1965-66 

school year, did the Board adopt any policy to govern as­
signments of students in the school system? A. Define 
“policy”  for me.

Q. Did the Board adopt any plan to govern assignments 
to students in the school system? A. No.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



106a

Q. That is, for the 1965-66 school year! A. We have a 
plan for ’65-66. Now I understood your question to be up 
until ’64-65 in my former answer.

Q. My question now then is: Did the Board adopt any 
plan to govern assignments to students for the 1965-66 
school year! A. Yes; yes.

Q. Would you state what that plan is! A. Geographical 
zones for elementary pupils; unit-wide assignment for sec­
ondary pupils. Elementary, grades one through six; 
secondary, grades seven through twelve.

Q. What did you say was for grades seven through 
twelve? A. Unit-wide assignments. In other words, the

- 1 8 -
plan presently in operation is that all pupils in grades 
seven, eight—through twelve will be assigned to the same 
school unit-wide.

Q. Is that the Asheboro Junior High School and the 
Asheboro Senior High School? A. No, that’s Fayetteville 
Street School, Asheboro Junior High School, and Asheboro 
High School.

Q. Is the Fayetteville Street School a junior high school? 
A. Yes.

Q. And the Asheboro Junior High School is a junior high 
school also, isn’t it? A. Yes.

Q. You have two junior high schools? A. Yes, except 
that Fayetteville Street accommodates only grade seven, 
the first year of junior high school, and Asheboro Junior 
High School accommodates only grades eight and nine. 
Asheboro High School accommodates the three years which 
normally are considered as a senior high school.

In practice, we have one junior high school in two build­
ings.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

(Discussion off the record.)



107a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

Q. How many elementary schools do you have in the sys­
tem now? A. Six.

—19-
Q. Was Central High School changed from a union school 

to an all-elementary school? A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you draw maps for each of these elementary 

schools? A. We drew a map of geographical zones.
Q. For each elementary school? A. Not separate maps. 

Now they are all on the same map.
Q. The same map shows all the zones for each school? 

A. That’s right.
Q. Each elementary school? A. That’s correct.
Q. How many teachers did you have in the school system 

at the close of the 1964-65 school year? A. Two hundred 
and four.

Q. How many teachers were you alloted for the 1965-66 
school year? A. These 204 were not allotted. Now was this 
implied in your former question?

Q. How many teaching positions do you have available 
for the 1965-66 school year? A. May I get that informa­
tion ?

Mr. Anderson: Yes. He needs to consult some 
records.

Mr. Chambers: Sure.

A. Now the question is—
— 20—

Mr. Anderson: How many teachers are employed 
by the—for the city schools this year.

(Discussion off the record.)

A. I’ll have to correct my statement on 204; it was 209 
last year, 206 this year.



108a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. You have 206 positions open for this school term? A. 
Two hundred and six positions.

Q. And you had 209 positions last year! A. That’s 
right.

Q. Do you know, Mr. Teachey, whether this number, 206, 
represents any loss in elementary teachers! A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell us how many? A. No, not definitely; 
probably all—that is, as to numbers, probably all.

Q. You mean the difference between 206 and 209 would 
represent the loss in elementary teachers? A. Probably 
all elementary. Now I base that statement on this fact: 
that our high school enrollment and junior high school en­
rollment has not fallen off. There is a slight decrease in 
elementary enrollment.

Q. You have therefore, you think, the same number of 
positions for high school teachers? A. We may have even 
more.

— 21—

Q. And you may have even more? A. That’s right. I 
should qualify that statement. I don’t have those figures at 
my fingertips. When I say “we may have even more,” I 
simply am implying that I ’ll have to check the records to 
give an accurate answer to this question.

Q. To your knowledge, did you lose any positions in the 
High School? A. No. Let me add the word “numerically” 
to this. We lost no positions as far as the number of posi­
tions ; we may have had some changes in teaching fields due 
to registration and so on.

Q. Do you know whether you had any changes in the 
teaching fields? A. No, I don’t know.

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, would you look again at schedule 
A in the answer to interrogatories filed by the Defendant?



109a

Mr. Pearson: Mr. Hollifield, let the record show 
that we have advised the newspaperman that we are 
taking depositions and that publishing anything said 
here is publishing evidence before it has reached the 
courtroom; and we have so advised the newspaper­
man that it doesn’t become public knowledge until it 
is admitted to the Court.

Now we have no objection to newspapermen or 
publicity, but this is just—We are bound by Court

- 22-

rules. If he insists on doing that, he does so at his 
own risk.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, according to the figures you have given 
us, you have 72 Negroes and 921 whites in the Asheboro 
High School for the 1965-66 school year! A. These were 
given you in July. That is substantially correct; there is a 
slight variation at present.

Q. Do you know whether there has been an increase in 
either the number of Negroes or number of whites! A. I 
can give you the figures through September 13th.

Q. Would you do that? A. 887 white, 73 Negro.
Q. Would you also give us the figures for the Asheboro 

Junior High School? A. 736 white, 86 Negro.
Q. How many white? A. 736.
Q. And how many Negro? A. 86.
Q. And Balfour? A. Balfour, 408 white, 4 Negro.
Q. Central? A. 230, Negro.
Q. No white? A. No white.

— 23—

Q. You indicated in here that you anticipate 35 white 
students in the Central School? A. Assigned.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



110a

Q. Assigned! All of these students transferred out! A. 
All asked to be transferred out.

Q. That was pursuant to your transfer policy! A. That 
was pursuant to our plan of compliance.

Q. Which includes a provision that permits students to 
transfer— A. Yes.

Q. -—after initial assignment! A. That’s right.
Q. And your figure again for Central was what! A. 230.
Q. The figures for Fayetteville Street! A. Fayetteville 

Street, 403 white, 33 Negro.
Q. The figures for Lindley Park! A. 455 white, 4 Negro.
Q. The figures for Loflin! A. 487 white.
Q. No Negro! A. No Negro.
Q. The figures for McCrary! A. 95 white, 32 Negro.
Q. And the figures for Teachey! A. 539 white.

—24—
Q. No Negro! A. No Negro.
Q. Mr. Teachey, could you give us the number of high 

school positions that you had available—field or otherwise— 
for the 1964-65 school year! A. Restate that, please, sir.

Q. Would you give us the number of high school positions 
in the school system for the 1964-65 school year! A. Total 
positions!

Q. Total positions. You can supply that later on.

(Discussion off the record.)

A. Last year!
Q. Last year. A. All right. I can count this and give 

you an answer. The number of teachers, including princi­
pals, at Asheboro High School and Central High School—

Q. And Central High School. A. —forty seven.
Q. That’s the total figure for Central and Asheboro High 

School! A. Right.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



111a

Q. Now would you give us the positions at Asheboro 
Junior High School? A. The same year!

—25—
Q. The same year. A. Thirty.
Q. Thirty!
(Discussion off the record.)

A. That only includes the eighth and ninth grade.
Q. Asheboro Junior High? A. Yes. Now do you want 

Fayetteville Street also?
Q. I’m talking about positions open in 1964-65. A. No 

change in organization.
Q. No change in organization? A. No.
Q. Well, would you give us the positions open in the 

seventh grade at Fayetteville for the 1964-65 school year? 
A. Fifteen. Let me state, however, that at Asheboro Junior 
High and at Fayetteville Street School—two at Fayette­
ville Street School and one position at Asheboro Junior 
High School are not definitely junior high positions; they 
are what we call special education. But the numbers in­
clude those.

Q. You indicated previously, Mr. Teachey, that the num­
ber of positions available are the same this year? A. I 
didn’t indicate that in exactness; I indicated that I know 
of no decrease in the number. I can find out.

Q. Mr. Teachey, your plan that you adopted to govern 
assignment of students this year required the transfer of 
several students, did it not, from the formerly all-Negro

—2 6 -
school to the formerly all-white school? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You stated previously that you had five Negro 
students in formerly all-white schools during the 1964-65

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



112a

school year, is that correct? A. A total of six; five at the 
end of the year.

Q. All right. Now with this school term, several of the 
Negro students—in fact, all of the high school students 
and some elementary students were assigned to formerly 
all-white schools, is that correct? A. Not in our system.

Q. What do you mean? A. Quite a number of high 
school students at Central were assigned— I have no way 
of knowing where they were assigned hut they were as­
signed to schools in another school system. This applies 
to both elementary and Central.

Q. Up to and through the 1964-65 school year, you 
brought Negro students in from the county to Central 
School? A. We accepted them; they were sent to us.

Q. They were brought in from the county to Central? 
A. That’s correct.

Q. You discontinued this policy for the 1965-66 school 
year? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now in the system you have only students in the 
city attending the school system? A. Students within the

- 2 7 -
school district.

Q. The school district encompasses the city? A. And 
additional areas. That includes all of Asheboro township 
plus a small area, Back Creek township, plus another 
small area. It’s not coterminous with the city.

Mr. Anderson: It’s coterminous with the Ashe­
boro township except two other areas that voted to 
come into the system a few years ago.

A. The answer to the question would be “yes” , except as 
to when you said the “city” .

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



113a

Q. Mr. Teachey, you indicated that you had an increase 
in high school students for the ’65-66 school year? A. 
Some increase, yes. I don’t remember—

Q. And you indicated that you had a small decrease in 
the number of elementary students? A. Yes; at least no 
substantial increase. I believe—I would have to go to the 
records, but I think there is a slight increase in some 
schools—

Q. Slight increase? A. -—and decrease in others. I no­
tice here— Let me set this straight? Elementary, this is 
grades one through six. There is a slight increase. No, 
I ’m looking at secondary.

Total elementary last year, 2747. Total elementary this 
year, 2654. 2747; 2654.

Q. And would you give us the total enrollment for high
- 2 8 -

school students both last year and this year? A. I ’m add­
ing here. 2231 last year.

Q. And this year? A. 2228, a slight decrease.
Q. What was the figure for this year in the elementary 

schools ? A. 2654.
Q. Mr. Teachey, with the reorganization of the school 

system with respect to the assignment of students, how 
did the Board instruct the Superintendent to make assign­
ments of teachers in the elementary schools? A. Here is 
a statement from the minutes of the Board meeting of 
April 8th. It does not cover—■ It does not give an exact 
answer to your question but I think implied is the answer.

Q. May I see that? A. “Henceforth all pupils will be 
assigned—

Q. Wait a minute. Go ahead. A. Shall I read that?
Q. Yes. A. This is a statement from the minutes of 

the Asheboro City Board of Education, Thursday, April 8,

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



114a

1965. “The Superintendent is instructed to inform instruc­
tional personnel that henceforth all pupils will be assigned 
to schools by geographical—geographic areas and teachers 
will be employed on the basis of qualifications for any

—29—
position which is open; and that the Board proposes to 
handle all assignments of pupils and teachers without 
reference to race and to continue its efforts to provide 
for this community the best possible school system staffed 
by the most competent professionals available” .

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, how did the Superintendent’s 
office proceed with assigning teachers to the elementary 
schools for the 1965-66 school year? A. The normal proce­
dure has been to reassign teachers who continue in the 
system to the same school in which they worked formerly. 
There are obvious reasons why we do this.

Q. And did you follow that procedure for the school 
term? A. Yes.

Q. You followed the same system, reassigning the same 
teachers to the same schools? A. Generally. There are 
exceptions when requests are made for extraordinary cir­
cumstances.

Q. That’s with respect to all the elementary schools in 
the system? A. That’s right.

Q. Did you follow the same policy with respect to the 
junior high and high school—that is, assigning the same 
teachers back to the same positions they were in during 
the 1964-65 school year? A. Generally. I believe one or 
two transfers had to be made due to registration—the

- 3 0 -
demands of registration.

Q. What were these transfers? A. I can’t give'— I 
said, “I believe” . I think one perhaps was in— No; this 
would have to be checked.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



115a

Q. All of the high school teachers at Asheboro High 
School were reassigned to the same school! A. Yes.

Q. And all of the teachers at the Asheboro Junior High 
School were reassigned to the Asheboro Junior High 
School! A. No.

Q. What wms the exception! A. At least one was as­
signed to Fayetteville Street School. May I check with 
my assistant here to be sure of this!

Q. Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)

A. The answer to this question should be, “generally” .
Q. The same would be true with respect to the Fayette­

ville Street School! A. Generally; there is at least one 
exception there, also. But the answer would still be, “gen­
erally” .

Q. In other words, all of the teachers teaching in these 
schools were reassigned with the exception of those at 
Central to the same school! A. No. Those at Central, 
some of them have been assigned to other schools.

—31—
Q. What teachers at Central have been assigned to white 

schools! A. Do you mean by name!
Q. Yes. A. Mr. Bussell Murphy has been assigned to a 

white school.
Q. What school! A. Fayetteville Street School and 

Asheboro High School. He teaches and coaches.
Q. He has been assigned from Central to Fayetteville 

Street and Asheboro— A. Asheboro High School.
Q. Asheboro High School. A. And Mrs. Laverne Barnes 

has been assigned to—
Q. Laverne! A. L-a-v-e-r-n-e Barnes. Laverne H. 

Barnes; B-a-r-n-e-s. She has been assigned as a librarian

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



116a

three days a week to Balfour School. She continues to 
work two days a week at Central.

Q. Is there another Negro teacher who has been as­
signed to a white school? A. No.

Q. Just these two teachers? A. These two.

Mr. Anderson: I ’m going to object as to the form 
of these questions, referring to these schools as 
“white schools” . I think they should be named by

— 32—
the name of the school.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, when you cut out the high school at 
Central, you lost several positions at Central High School, 
is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. And because of the policy you followed in reassign­
ing the teachers back to the same school, you had these 
vacancies created there, is that correct? A. Bestate that 
question.

Q. Because of the policy of reassigning a teacher back 
to the same school, you had the vacancies created because 
you had discontinued the high school at Central? A. I 
don’t see that this would create any vacancies. The posi­
tions were discontinued at Central, but that wouldn’t leave 
a vacancy.

Q. Oh, I see what you’re saying. You’re quite correct.
Because you had these positions discontinued at Central 

High School and because of your policy of reassigning the 
teachers to the same school, the teachers who taught in the 
high school grades at Central were no longer retained by 
the school system, is that correct? A. May I distinguish 
between secondary and high school? We think of our teach­



117a

ers in terms of elementary and secondary, with the break 
coming at the seventh grade. Now is this your under-

—3 3 -
standing ?

Q. Yes. A. The answer would have to be “no” . Mr. 
Murphy was secondary.

Q. What about the other teachers besides Mr. Murphy 
and Mrs. Barnes? A. Would you like a list of them?

Q. No, I just want to know whether the answer would 
still be “no” . A. I ’ve lost the question now.

Q. Because you have discontinued the high school grades 
—that is, grades seven through twelve—at Central High 
School and because of your policy of reassigning teachers 
to the same school, the teachers teaching in the high school 
grades—that is, grades seven through twelve—with the 
exception of Mr. Murphy and Mrs. Barnes were no longer 
employed in the school system? A. If this question im­
plies that this is the only reason they were no longer em­
ployed, the answer is definitely “no” .

Q. Well, what other reason would be involved? A. Com­
petency, certificate, fields, retirement, various other rea­
sons.

Q. Now in your answers to interrogatories, for the Cen­
tral High School teachers you indicated that Mr. Gaines
W. H. Price was not retained because there was no vacancy, 
is that correct? A. That’s correct.

—34—
Q. Now is this why he was not employed? A. Yes, I 

would say this is a primary reason Mr. Price was not em­
ployed.

Q. There was no vacancy? A. There was no vacancy. 
Mr. Price was a band instructor. He also taught some 
science. But as far as we are concerned, his field is band.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



118a

Q. Now in Mr. Louis Newberry’s case, you indicate no 
vacancy? A. That’s correct. Mr. Newberry’s primary field 
was counselling; and there was no vacancy.

Q. That is no vacancy at Central High School? A. No. 
Q. What do you mean, “no vacancy” ? A. I mean we 

don’t have counsellors in our elementary schools.
Q. Therefore, when you cut out the high school grades 

at Central, you had no vacancy at Central for a high school 
counsellor? A. No vacancy anywhere.

Q. Anywhere? A. Anywhere.
Q. Do you have counsellors in the school system? A. 

We do.
Q. Then you have some vacancies somewhere, don’t you?

—35—
A. No.

Q. You have counsellors? A. We have counsellors.
Q. How many counsellors do you have in the system? 

A. We have two.
Q. Two counsellors? A. Two counsellors.
Q. Who are they? A. Mr. Reid Prillaman.
Q. Mr. who? A. Reid Prillaman, P-r-i-l-l-a-m-a-n, and 

Mr. J. R. Burn.
Q. Where are they counsellors? A. Mr. Prillaman is 

at Asheboro High School; Mr. Burn at Asheboro Junior 
High School.

Q. How long have they been there ? A. Mr. Prillaman— 
I’ll answer Mr. Burn first because I can be definite about 
Mr. Burn. Mr. Burn, three years; Mr. Prillaman, a mini­
mum of five, perhaps six.

Q. How many years was Mr. Newberry at Central? A. 
Two.

Q. Two years. Did you compare the qualifications of 
Mr. Burn with Mr. Newberry? A. I did.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



119a

Q. What degree does Mr. Burn have? A. Mr. Burn 
has a Masters Degree.

—36—
Q. A Masters Degree? A. A Masters Degree.
Q. What degree does Mr. Newberry have? A. Masters 

Degree.
Q. Now what factor led you to employ Mr. Burn rather 

than Mr. Newberry? A. Experience and, I think, the time 
with us; the fact that Mr. Burn was a full-time counsellor 
and Mr. Newberry had only been employed in counseling 
on a part-time basis.

Q. Why was that, Mr. Teachey? A. We did not— At 
the size of Central School, we could only afford part-time 
counseling.

Q. You didn’t have a full-time counsellor at Central, did 
you? A. No.

Q. And this was a Negro school, was it? A. Yes.
Q. And you had only a part-time counsellor there? A. 

Part-time counsellor.
Q. And yon had a full-time counsellor at Asheboro High 

School? A. Yes, but with nine times as many pupils.
Q, And you had a full-time counsellor at Asheboro Junior 

High School? A. Yes, with seven hundred pupils com­
pared to a hundred pupils.

—37—
Q. What factor led you to retain Mr. Prillaman? A. 

Competency.
Q. How did you determine competency? A. Results.
Q. What results? A. Results we observed of his work 

with our young people.
Q. When did you observe Mr. Prillaman? A. The length 

of time he was with us, the time he has been counseling.
Q. Did you observe him? A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



120a

Q. Did you observe Burn? A. Yes.
Q. Did you observe Mr. Newberry? A. Yes.
Q. Now what did you see in Mr. Prillaman’s work or in 

Mr. Burn’s work you didn’t see in Mr. Newberry’s? A. 
I saw a much more efficient organization of counseling 
work.

Q. What degree does Mr. Prillaman have? A. Mr. Pril- 
laman has a Masters Degree.

Q. Masters Degree? A. Yes.
Q. All right. What is counseling, Mr. Teachey?

Mr. Anderson: Well, Pm going to object to the
—3 8 -

form of that question.

A. What is counseling? Counseling is advising, dealing 
with other people and the solution of their problems—• 
academic, social, and vocational.

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Teachey, that you didn’t return 
Mr. Newberry because he was a Negro— A. No.

Q. —and you didn’t want a Negro counseling white 
students— A. No.

Q. -—at the school? A. No.
Q. Who is going to counsel the Negro students? A. 

Mr. Prillaman, unless we—
Q. Do you think Mr. Prillaman will be able to counsel 

the Negro students? A. I think so.
Q. Why? He hasn’t had any dealing with Negroes be­

fore, has he ?
Mr. Anderson: Object to the form.

A. I don’t know. Yes, I—
Q. When did he have dealings with Negroes? A. I

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



121a

imagine he had dealings with Negroes, for a short while at 
least, while he was in industry.

Q. You don’t know that, do you? A. No. No, I don’t 
know that.

— 39—
Q. And you don’t know whether Mr. Burn has had any 

dealing with Negroes? A. No, I don’t.
Q. In fact, your whole system prior to this year was to 

send the Negroes to Negro schools and the white students 
to white schools with the exception of six, isn’t that cor­
rect? A. Yes.

Q. And your counsellors had no contact at all with the 
Negroes? A. While they were here.

Q. Sir? A. They had no contact— Excuse me. Excuse 
me. I can’t answer that question. I don’t know.

Q. Let’s go back to Mr. Price. You said Mr. Price is in 
band and science? A. Band and science, yes.

Q. And you indicate that there was no vacancy for Mr. 
Price? A. No vacancy, that’s right.

Q. You have a band instructor in your system? A. Yes, 
sir, we have two.

Q. Two band instructors? A. Yes.
Q. Why was there no vacancy for Mr. Price? A. Mr. 

Price’s qualifications.
Q. What’s wrong with Mr. Price’s qualifications? A.

— 4 0 -
Well, if you-— I don’t mean to imply there’s anything 
wrong with his qualifications. I simply mean to imply 
that the other people we had on our staff were better quali­
fied.

Q. Why were they better qualified? A. Experience and 
training, college degrees.

Q. What experience do the band instructors have that

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



122a

Mr. Price didn’t have? A. Mr. J. R. Fileds—is his initial 
“R”—Joseph Fields. Mr. Fields had—as far as I know— 
at least twelve years experience. He has been with ns 
eight years. Mr. Harrington has been with us three years. 
Both of them hold Masters Degrees in their field; and 
Mr. Price did not hold such a degree. The competency 
of Mr. Fields is unquestioned. For eight years he has 
produced bands with superior ratings at all state contests. 
At the contests, Mr. Price was unable to produce this 
quality in his bands.

Q. Mr. Teachey, when did you compare these teachers? 
A. When we found that we had no vacancies.

Q. When you found you had no vacancies? A. That’s 
right. And we found that we—

Q. When did you find you had no vacancies? A. The 
time we changed; this was in April.

Q. In April you sat down and compared the qualifica­
tions of Mr. Price with these other teachers? A. Now 
what do you mean by “sat down and compared” them?

— 41—
Q. I mean you had to take time to consider their quali­

fications, didn’t you? A. At one sitting?
Q. Well, two or three sittings. A. Yes.
Q. And you did do that? A. Yes.
Q. Who sat down with you? A. I sat down alone.
Q. By yourself? A. Yes.
Q. Did you present these findings to the Board? A. 

Informally, yes, I presented these findings to the Board. 
But this is not the manner generally in which personnel 
are selected by presenting detail—

Q. You just presented the name of the people to the 
Board, didn’t you? A. With recommendations.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



123a

Q. With recommendations for employment? A. That’s 
right.

Q. You did not point out that Mr. Price, according to 
your findings, according to your statement, was less quali­
fied than the others! A. I probably did.

Q. Would that be in the minutes? A. No.
—42—

Q. When did you sit down to consider Mr. Newberry? 
A. During the same period of time, May and—

Q. Why did you indicate in your answers to interrogato­
ries that you had no vacancies? A. Well, because that’s 
what developed. We didn’t need—

Q. Isn’t this an afterthought of yours, Mr. Teachey! 
A. No. No. You mean the “no vacancy” ?

Q. Yes. A. Certainly not.
Q. I mean you are now comparing these people—

Mr. Anderson: I object. The question has been 
answered. I object as to form.

A. No. No. That is definitely not an afterthought.
Q. How long did Mr. Price teach band? A. Three years. 
Q. Three years? You stated the other teacher had 

taught three years, didn’t you? A. No, Mr. Burn taught 
three years.

Q. Mr. Burn taught three years? A. Mr. Burn is a 
counsellor.

Q. How long did the other band instructors teach? A. 
I ’ll have to—

Q. You stated that one of them taught twelve years, 
Mr. Fields? A. Now the question was “experience” , or

— 43—

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

“how long in our system?”



124a

Q. The years of experience of Mr. Fields and Mr. Har­
rington, the length of time in your system; and the same 
thing for Mr. Price.

(Discussion off the record.)
A. I can give you part of the answer now while she’s look­
ing up the other one. Mr. Fields, twelve years experience, 
nine years here, Masters Degree. Mr. Harrington, five 
years experience, four years here, Masters Degree. Mr. 
Price, eleven years experience, three years with us, and 
a bachelor’s degree.

Q. Now you say Mr. Price has eleven years experience, 
three years here! A. That’s right. That is what our 
records show.

Q. Mr. Price has a bachelor’s degree, is that correct! A. 
That’s right.

Q. Did Mr. Reid teach anything else besides hand? A. 
Who?

Q. Mr. Reid. A. Mr. who?
Q. Reid. Fields, Pm sorry. A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Harrington teach anything else besides band? 

A. No.
—44—

Q. Did Mr. Reid teach anything else besides band? A. 
I don’t know Mr. Reid.

Q. Mr. Price; I ’m sorry. A. Mr. Price did.
Q. He did? A. Right.
Q. What other field did he teach? A. Taught science.
Q. Did you have any positions open in science? A. We 

had one position for a Director of Secondary Science In­
struction, which required—

Q. How many science positions do you have in the school 
system?

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



125a

Mr. Anderson: Let’s wait until he finishes his 
answer.

Mr. Chambers: I ’m going to go right ahead.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. How many positions did you have in science here? 
A. None.

Q. How many positions do you have? A. Did you say 
“now” ?

Q. Yes.

The Witness: Johnny, would you go get our new 
directory for me?

(Discussion off the record.)
—45—

A. Now the question is how many science positions we 
had open, is this it?

Q. This school year. A. We had one for a Director of 
Secondary Science Instruction, which requires a Masters 
Degree in science.

Q. Mr. Teachey, I ’m talking about—you have in high 
school several science positions, do you not? A. Not open 
positions.

Q. I mean you have science positions? A. Oh, yes.
Q. And in junior high school you have science positions? 

A. That’s right.
Q. And at Fayetteville Street you have science positions, 

do you not? A. Certainly.
Q. Regardless of whether they are open—it might be 

that they are all filled, but you have science positions? 
A. Oh, yes. I understood you to say “open” .

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



126a

Q. No. I was asking how many science positions you 
have in the schools. A. I ’ll have to get that.

Q. All right.
(Discussion off the record.)

A. The question is how many positions presently, is this it? 
Q. Yes. A. Including a Director of Secondary Science

- 4 6 -
Instruction, there are four at Asheboro High School.

Q. Would you tell us who fills those positions! A. Who 
fills them now!

Q. As of now. A. Mrs. Ruby T. Rich, Mr. Archie B. 
Fairley, Miss Merle Lancaster, and Mr. Carl Zeigler; those 
are the four.

Q. How many positions do you have at Ashehoro Junior 
High School! A. I ’m trying to find it right now. These 
quite often are in combination with other subjects. Now 
there are six positions at Asheboro Junior High School 
which include science.

Q. Could you tell us who fills those positions! A. If 
I may tell you that there are other subjects involved at 
the same time. Mrs. Shirley Bain teaches mathematics.

Q. Bain! A. B-a-i-n, Bain; mathematics and science. 
Mrs. Justine Blackburn teaches health principally, and 
science. Mrs. Gail Bridges teaches mathematics and science. 
Mrs. Margaret Buie, mathematics and science.

Q. Is that B-o-u-i-e! A. No. B-u-i-e. Mrs. Jean Butler, 
mathematics and science. James A. Hayworth, science and 
mathematics.

Q. Hayworth! A. H-a-y-w-o-r-t-h. Curtis McCombs, 
science.

—47—
Q. Just science! A. Well, he has one class of health;

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



127a

science and health. Donald R. Poole—-I might have mis­
counted awhile ago—science, health, and civics.

Q. Is that Poole! A. Poole, P-o-o-l-e. That looks like 
all the science.

Q. And at Fayetteville Street? A. Fayetteville Street 
School, there are six teachers—or seven with science-math 
block; I ’ll have to count those for you.

I see only four. I thought we had six but I only see 
four.

Q. Would you give us the names of those! A. Science- 
math, these are seventh grade science-math or science: 
George C. Bridges, Jr.; Ernest Samuel Jordan, math; 
science; Russell E. Murphey, math, science; and W. Mike 
York, Jr., math, science.

Q, What science course did Mr. Price teach at Central! 
A. Biology and chemistry or physics.

Q. Biology and chemistry or physics! A. Yes. As I 
stated, they of course were alternated.

Q. And he had been here for— A. Three years.
Q. Now how long has Mrs. Rich been here! A. More 

than twenty.
—48—

Q. More than twenty. Does she hold a Masters Degree! 
A. No.

Q. How long has— Is that Mr. Fairley! A. Mr. Fair- 
ley. This is his first year; he’s a new employee.

Q. New employee! A. Yes.
Q. Does he hold a Masters Degree! A. Yes.
Q. He holds a Masters! A. Masters Degree.
Q. How long has Miss Lancaster been here! A. May I 

give approximate figures for these, or do you prefer that 
I get accurate records. I can give you my recollection,

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



128a

because of these I couldn’t say whether it was ’55 or ’56. 
Is this satisfactory?

Q. No, we would prefer having an accurate figure. A. 
I ’ll have to detail that for you later. I don’t know.

Mr. Chambers: We will submit some additional 
interrogatories.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you know the length of service of Mr. Zeigler? 
A. No.

Q. Does he hold a Masters? A. Yes.
—49—

Q. And is that Mr. Bain or Mrs. Bain? A. Mrs. Bain. 
Q. Mrs. Bain. Do you know the length of service of Mrs. 

Bain? A. Her service has been interrupted for maternity. 
I don’t know.

Q. Does she hold a Masters? A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know the length of service of the other teachers 

you listed? A. Some of them I do; some I don’t.
Q. Mr. Teachey, did yon compare Mr. Price with all these 

other teachers? A. In a general way. However, Mr. Price 
to us is a music teacher.

Q. He also holds a degree in science? A. He also has 
a science certificate.

Q. But you did not compare him with all these other 
teachers, did you? A. Generally.

Q. You compared him with all the teachers at Asheboro 
Junior High School? A. Generally.

Q. What do you mean, “generally” ? A. Well, that nor­
mally means to me that I had in my knowledge Mr. Price

—50—

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

and our organization.



129a

Q. What about your knowledge of all the other teachers? 
A. I knew in a general way, without going into detail, how 
their qualifications would compare. Certainly we didn’t 
spend hours comparing all these people.

Q. You did not. A. That’s right.
Q. And that’s with respect to the teachers at Asheboro 

High School as well as those at Asheboro Junior High 
School, isn’t it? A. We compared them to a degree which 
we felt was necessary to give us an accurate—give us the 
information to make a good sound decision.

Q. Now what degree is that, Mr. Teachey? A. Many of 
the items which we consider are subjective.

Q. What items did you consider? A. Competency.
Q. How did you determine competency? A. Classroom 

performance.
Q. Did you observe all of these teachers ? A. Indirectly 

and directly.
Q. Where did you get the information indirectly? A. 

From principals, supervisors.
Q. You had information from principals regarding all 

these science teachers ? A. Yes.
—51—

Q. Do you have that information available? A. Much 
of it is information brought in conference; I ’m not sure we 
would have it available in written form.

Q. Do you have any information in written form regard­
ing these teachers? A. Yes.

Q. You do have it available? A. Yes.
Q. Is it easily accessible? A. Well, we have at least one 

which shouldn’t be too much difficulty, one from the princi­
pal on each teacher.

Q. One recommendation from the principal? A. There’s

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



130a

at least one in the file, I believe, which we could get quite 
easily.

Q. You should have one on Mr. Price also, shouldn’t you! 
A. Yes, I think so.

Q. He apparently was recommended last year, wasn’t he? 
A. Yes, I believe; and probably this year.

Q. That is for the ’64-65 school year, certainly he was 
recommended by the principal? A. Yes.

Q. And for the ’65-66 school year? A. Yes. In consider­
ing a recommendation, however, we must consider the in­
dividual who makes the recommendation.

—52—
Q. Do you mean you thought less of the recommendation 

of the principal at Central than you did of the other prin­
cipals of other schools? A. Yes.

Q. You did? A. Yes.
Q. Why was that? A. General lack of competence in him 

as a principal.
Q. You say the principal at Central was also incompe­

tent? A. Yes.
Q. How long had he been principal of this school? A. 

Two years.
Q. Two years. Mr. Teachey, before we go through these 

other teachers, what factors did you consider in determin­
ing the competency of a teacher? A. The normal, of 
course, are things that you have asked about or certainly 
you have mentioned. You have mentioned degrees; you 
have mentioned experience. But of greatest importance, as 
far as we are concerned, is performance in the classroom, 
classroom performance.

Now in addition to that, professional attitude; ability to 
accept responsibility and carry out obligations of a teacher; 
I think certainly we would consider initiative.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



:131a

Q. Are yon reading something! A. Yes, I have some 
notes here on some criteria we try to follow.

—53—
Q. May I see those! A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to read the rest of those! A. Not es­

pecially.
Q. Would you! A. I will. Now which did I leave out?
Q. I think you stopped with initiative. A. Acceptance 

of authority; loyalty—loyalty, of course, to the administra­
tion and the school system. And I jotted a new one down a 
few days ago, which I came across in some of the readings 
on the qualifications of a teacher. It had to do with—This 
person pointed out that the good teacher is one who can 
excite pupils, who can create enthusiasm among them and 
this kind of thing.

These are subjective.
Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, normally it would be very difficult 

for the Superintendent to— A. Yes.
Q. —to evaluate every teacher in the school system ac­

cording to these criteria? A. We must depend upon other 
people.

Q. And you have indicated that you thought very little 
of any statements of the principal at Central High School? 
A. Yes.

—54—
Q. That’s true? A. Yes.
Q. So you would therefore think very little of any of his 

evaluations of the teachers over there according to the 
criteria you have listed? A. Yes.

Q. Wouldn’t you? A. Yes.
Q. You said very little? A. That’s right. Very little, 

let me say that.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



132a

Q. You evaluated Mr. Price according to the statements 
of his principal? A. Not altogether.

Q. Did you have some personal— A. No; Mr. Price was 
recommended by the principal.

Q. Did you have some personal observations of Mr. Price 
to determine these various qualifications according to the 
criteria you have listed here? A. Yes. The fact that he 
was employed in the first place as a music teacher, and 
second as a science teacher. His position with us was 
chiefly due to the fact he could direct the band.

Q. You didn’t consider him for science? A. Yes, we did 
consider him but we did not consider him a top science 
teacher.

—55—
Q. According to these qualifications? A. That’s right.
Q. Did you get a chance to evaluate him according to the 

criteria you have listed? A. If you mean to sit down and 
go through them one by one, the answer is no. Generally, 
yes.

Q. You got the information from the principal? A. No, 
I got the information from the principal but I don’t think 
I got this information.

Q. What did you get the information about the— A. 
The fact that he didn’t have a band on the street much 
of anything for a couple of years was quite enough for us.

Q. This wouldn’t have helped you evaluate his ability to 
teach science? A. No.

Q. Now did you consider Mr. Newberry according to 
these same criteria? A. Generally.

Q. Where did you get the information regarding him? 
A. Observation; just observation.

Q. How many occasions have you had to observe Mr.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



133a

Newberry? A. I was in the school and saw him per­
sonally, probably an average of once a month.

Q. Was he rated by his principal! A. My recollection 
is yes.

—56—
Q. But you again thought very little of the principal’s 

recommendation? A. That’s right.
Q. Now let’s go to some of the other teachers. Now let’s 

go to some of the other teachers who are not here anymore. 
Miss Estelle Peterson taught commercial education; and 
you indicated that there was no vacancy. A. Miss Peter­
son taught commercial and 8th grade. There was no va­
cancy at Asheboro High School last spring; and we still 
have not had to employ any commercial teachers through 
any increase.

Q. Do you have any commercial teachers there? A. We 
have three.

Q. Three commercial teachers? A. That’s right.
Q. Do you have any commercial teachers at Asheboro 

Junior High School? A. No.
Q. Fayetteville? A. No.
Q. You have three commercial teachers? A. That’s 

right.
Q. At Asheboro High School? A. Yes.
Q. You hired a commercial teacher this year! A. No.

—57—
Q. I see in the directory of teachers that Miss Stella 

Jane Walker teaches business education. Is that the same 
as commercial education? A. That’s right.

Q. How long has Miss Walker been here? A. One year.
Q. One year? Does she have a Masters Degree? A. No.
Q. How long had Miss Peterson taught? A. Two years

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



134a

—if you can accept that; two or three; not more than 
three; two, I believe.

Q. Had she taught anywhere prior to coming here? A. 
I don’t know.

Q. I see that Mrs. Anne H. Moore taught business ed­
ucation. How long has she been in the city school system! 
A. I don’t know; at least ten years.

Q. Does she hold a Masters Degree? A. No.
Q. I see that Mrs. Ernestine Presnell also taught busi­

ness education? A. Yes.
Q. How long has she been here? A. At least four— 

probably five—and she has a Masters Degree.
—58—

Q. She has a Masters Degree? A. Yes.
Q. Can you look at the answers to interrogatories and 

get some idea about the length of service these people 
have been here? Does the number “3” in column one in­
dicate the length of service? A. I ’ll have to check that; 
it indicates the length of service or experience of the 
teacher.

The Witness: What does that indicate, do you re­
member ?

Mr. Anderson: We have it somewhere in the in­
terrogatories; I ’ve forgotten. You have my copy 
there.

A. The number—yes, this settles it for me. That is experi­
ence, not in our system.

Q. That’s experience, total years experience? A. Total 
years experience.

Q. Well, according to the answers to interrogatories, 
Mrs. Presnell has four years experience? A. I said at 
least four.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



135a

Q. And a B certificate! A. Mrs. Presnell?
Q. Isn’t the “L” in column one— A. A Masters Degree. 

She completed her Masters Degree this summer. “B” is a 
Bachelor’s Degree; “M” is a Masters Degree.

Q. So we would change this “B” up here to an “M” !
—59—

A. Presently. Not at the time we submitted this.
Q. I see that Mrs. Moore has a Bachelor’s Degree and 

fourteen years experience? A. That’s correct.
Q. And Mrs. Stone has a Masters Degree! A. Who?
Q. Stone has a Masters—I’m sorry; Mr. Stone. A. Yes, 

Coach Stone has a Masters Degree and twenty-seven 
years experience. Now I can correct—I didn’t realize that 
I had this available. I can correct my time on Miss Peter­
son; she had only one years experience.

Q. Miss Peterson? A. One year experience; so she evi­
dently came here to our system.

Q. Miss Peterson? I believe— A. I told you I didn’t 
know and it’s here in this information.

Q. Are these the only business education teachers you 
have, Mrs. Moore, Mrs. Presnell, Miss Walker, and Mr. 
Stone? A. That’s right.

Q. Miss Walker was newly employed this year? A. No, 
she was employed last year but was not on the directory. 
You won’t find it anywhere on the directory because the 
original teacher became pregnant and Miss Walker suc­
ceeded her in November.

Q. In November? A. That’s right.
—60—

Q. Was Miss Peterson recommended by the principal? 
A. I don’t know. I can find out.

Q. What did you think of her ability to teach? A. Miss 
Peterson’s ability, average or less.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



136a

Q. What about Miss Walker? A. We consider her con­
siderably above average for a person with the experience 
she has had; she and Miss Peterson both have limited 
experience.

Q. Both have limited experience? A. That’s right.
Q. Both have the same degree? A. Both have the same 

degree.
Q. Both have the same certificate? A. Same certificate.
Q. Now did you get a chance to evaluate Miss Peterson 

according to the criteria you listed? A. Generally.
Q. Generally? A. Yes.
Q. Did you get a chance to evaluate Miss Walker accord­

ing to the criteria you have listed? A. Generally.
Q. What about Mrs. Moore ? A. For a good many years, 

yes.
— 61—

Q. And Mrs. Presnell? A. For several years, yes.
Q. You had a chance to evaluate her personally? A. 

Personally and with help.
Q. And with help. What about Mr. Stone? A. Yes; 

since 1949.
Q. Personally? A. Personally.
Q. You observed him in the classroom? A. Yes.
Q. You have observed Mrs. Moore in the classroom? A. 

Yes.
Q. And you observed Mrs. Presnell in the classroom? 

A. Mrs. Presnell only briefly, personally.
Q. Only briefly; most of your information regarding her 

was indirectly? A. The majority, yes.
Q. You didn’t get a chance to observe Miss Peterson in 

class? A. Briefly.
Q. Briefly? A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



137a

Q. Most of your information regarding her is indirectly? 
A. Most of it.

Q. And this information came from one you didn’t con-
—62—

sider very reliable ? A. Some of it.
Q. Now Mrs. Segers taught music in the seventh grade, 

is that correct? A. Music in the seventh grade.
Q. And she was advised that there was no vacancy, is 

that correct? A. Yes.
Q. How many music teachers do you have ? A. One, two, 

three, four.
Q. Is that at Asheboro High School? A. No. No. Ashe- 

boro Junior High School, Fayetteville Street School, and 
elementary itinerant music teachers; at least two will be 
listed under “Other Personnel” . Mrs. Patterson—

Q. Would they be in the itinerant music teachers? A. 
That’s right.

Q. Mr. John Howard Allen teaches music at Asheboro 
Junior High School? A. He does.

Q. How many years experience does he have? A. Ten.
Q. Ten years. Does he have a Masters Degree? A. He 

does.
Q. He has been in the system here ten years? A. No, he 

has been in the system one year.
—63—

Q. One year? A. Yes.
Q. Who was the other music teacher? A. In Fayette­

ville Street School, Mrs. Marian S. Felton, Masters Degree, 
graduate certificate, seven years experience, approximately 
five years in this system.

Q. What is her name again? A. Mrs. Marian S. Felton; 
it’s listed in the directory as seventh grade but this is a 
full-time music position.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



138a

Q. And who are the itinerant music teachers! A. Mrs. 
Rose Patterson and Miss Louise Thomas.

Q. How many years of experience does Mrs. Patterson 
have! A. Nine years experience.

Q. Nine years. And she holds a Masters! A. No, 
Bachelor’s Degree, A certificate.

Q. How many years of experience does Miss Thomas 
have! A. Twenty-nine years.

Q. Does she hold a Masters! A. Yes, and a graduate 
certificate.

Q. Did you get a chance to evaluate these teachers ac­
cording to the criteria you have listed! A. Generally; we 
attempt to evaluate all teachers.

Q. Did you get a chance to evaluate Mrs. Segers accord­
ing to the criteria! A. Yes.

—64—
Q. Personally! A. By observation of some of her work, 

the club work, and those things, yes.
Q. You saw those personally! A. I saw the perform­

ance perhaps more than the actual teaching.
Q. You did get a chance to observe her in the classroom! 

A. To some extent; very slightly.
Q. Did you get a chance to observe other music teachers 

in the classroom! A. Not recently.
Q. Did you, before you determined who to retain! A. 

Oh, yes, I have all of these.
Q. Well, did you get a chance to evaluate them prior to 

your determination! A. Restate that question.
Q. Did you get a chance to evaluate them prior to your 

determination! A. Yes.
Q. You did! A. Yes.
Q. At what time! A. I can’t answer that; I don’t know; 

various times.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



139a

Q. Did you have any written information regarding these 
teachers at the time you made your determination? A. At

- 6 5 -
least one piece of written information, yes.

Q. What was that? A. An evaluation by principals.
Q. By principals? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have that available? A. I couldn’t be abso­

lutely sure I have it on the two itinerant, because they work 
in different schools; perhaps I do. But I’m sure I have it 
on the others available.

Q, Do you have the evaluation by the principals of the 
music teachers? A. Yes. Now you—I did not state that 
I was certain I have it on Mrs. Patterson and Miss Thomas 
but I ’m fairly certain I have it on the other two.

Q. Is there a music teacher at Central High School now? 
A. There is an itinerant music teacher.

Q. Who goes there part time? A. Yes. I wish to cor­
rect that, though. I believe you said “Central High School” . 
Central School.

Q. Central School. I ’m sorry. What about Mrs. Pearline 
Palmer? A. Mrs. Pear line Palmer, librarian. Miss or 
Mrs.?

Q. I’m not positive. A. I’m not positive; Miss, I believe. 
Miss Palmer, resignation requested. Miss Palmer was a 
beginning librarian, had no experience, and at the end of

— 66—

the year there was very little evidence of any cataloguing, 
any processing which needed to be done. We could not 
tolerate this. In addition, her certificate was only a two 
year probationary certificate. We requested her resigna­
tion.

Q. How many librarians do you have? A. Seven—eight. 
Eight.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



140a

Q. Do all of them hold a Masters Degree! A. No.
Q. How many hold a Masters Degree! A. One.
Q. All the others hold Bachelor’s Degrees? A. Yes.
Q. How many years of experience do the others have, 

individually? A. By name or just—
Q. By name. A. Katherine Buie, thirty-seven years ex­

perience ; Mrs. G-rey Kearns, three years experience.
Q. What does Mrs. Grey Kearns hold, a Masters or a 

Bachelor’s Degree? A. A Bachelor’s; I ’ll tell you when I 
get to the Masters.

Q. What was the first name? A. Buie.
Q. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree? A. Bachelor’s unless

—67—
I tell you otherwise.

Q. All right. A. Swana Baldwin, thirty-two years ex­
perience; Mrs. Sally Pugh, three years experience; Mrs. 
Skeen, at the time this was submitted we listed no years 
experience because it was her first year.

Q. She had no years experience? A. No experience, 
until that year of course.

Q. What year was that? A. Last year; she has one 
year now.

Q. I thought this thing was prepared for 1965. A. No, 
this was ’64-65.

Q. This information was submitted though, wasn’t it, 
for the— A. ’64-65.

Q. In July of 1965?

Mr. Anderson: Well, now the interrogatories
speak for themselves, Mr. Chambers; I don’t know 
what we’re trying to prove by this particular—

Mr. Chambers: The years of experience.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



141a

A. Well, she has no years of experience prior to last year. 
This is what all of those are, prior experience to 1964-65.

Now Mrs. Judith Gray, three years experience; Mrs. 
Kathleen C. Whatley, ten years experience, Masters Degree.

Have I listed all of them! Did you keep a record!
— 68—

Q. No. Did you get a chance to compare all of these 
teachers with Miss Palmer! A. Generally.

Q. Now you stated that Miss Palmer had a probationary 
certificate. Your answer to interrogatories indicate she 
had an A certificate. A. It was an A certificate; but the 
normal certificate is valid for five years. Hers, unless she 
improved her National Teacher Exam score, would expire 
in two years.

Q. How many other teachers—librarians—had proba­
tionary certificates! A. None.

Q. All the others had the regular certificate! A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Did Miss Palmer teach anything else besides library- 
library science! A. Full-time librarian.

Q. Do you have a librarian at Central now! A. Central 
shares a librarian with the Balfour School. If you care for 
an explanation, I ’ll give you an explanation. Southern As­
sociation standards require full-time librarians for certain- 
size schools. We have two which aren’t at that size; and 
we divide a librarian between them. Balfour and Central 
share their librarian.

Q. Why wasn’t Jackie Kilgore re-employed! A. Mr.
—69—

Kilgore informed me that he had accepted a position else­
where prior to the time that we had any vacancies in the 
system.

Q. Wasn’t he recommended by the principal! A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



142a

Q. Indicating that he wanted employment! A. Yes. But 
in the meantime, he perhaps— In the meantime, he secured 
other employment.

Q. Did Mr. Kilgore write a letter to you to that effect! 
A. No, he simply informed me of that fact.

Q. You didn’t consider Mr. Kilgore’s application for re­
employment? A. Generally, yes, until he told me he had 
employment elsewhere.

Q. Had you notified him before then that he was em­
ployed or would be employed in the school system next 
year? A. No, he wasn’t employed.

Q. Didn’t you, in fact, get a notice out prior to then that 
so many teachers would not be back in the system? A. I 
mailed a letter to all teachers for whom positions were 
indefinite at the time, yes.

Q. And when did you mail that letter? A. May 14th.
Q. May 14th? A. Yes.

_ 7 0 —
Q. And didn’t you mail that letter to the teachers at 

Central High School? A. Yes.
Q. These were the only ones involved, were they not? 

A. These were the only ones whose positions were in ques­
tion, that’s right, as to whether their positions would be 
continued or not.

Q. When did the Board adopt the plan for assignment 
of students? A. The preliminary action was in February 
on the plan for compliance. Now that plan—that was Feb­
ruary the 11th: “Henceforth all pupils who reside within 
the Asheboro school district will be assigned according to 
place of residence by geographic areas.”

Q. And the notice that you have there was sent to the 
Central High School teachers in March? A. In May.

Q. In May? A. May.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



143a

Q. May I see that? Was this sent to each individual 
teacher at Central? A. To those for whom we weren’t 
sure we would have positions available.

Q. Wasn’t this all the high school teachers at Central? 
A. No.

—71—
Q. What exceptions were there? A. The principal and 

Mrs. Lillian Harris.
Q. Who is Mrs. Harris? A. Mrs. Harris was an English 

teacher—English-French.
Q. Why didn’t you send the letter to the principal and 

to Mrs. Harris? A. The principal, we had a resignation 
from the principal. Mrs. Harris, in a conversation with 
me personally, was informed that in spite of any change 
in organization, due to her length of service and her loy­
alty to our system, would be given every consideration for 
continued employment. She informed me in a letter and 
a conversation that, at her age, she did not want to make 
the adjustment; so she retired.

Q. And you sent this letter to every other teacher in the 
Central High School? A. This letter went to one, two, 
three other teachers in Central High School.

Q. Didn’t it, in fact, go to more than those, Mr. Teachey? 
A. Not at Central High School. Secondary, well, yes; per­
haps Mr. Murphy and to the seventh and eighth grade 
teachers; that’s correct.

Q. Does this encompass all the teachers at Central ex­
cept in the elementary grades, grades one through six? 
A. It also went to some of the elementary, one or two of 
the elementary teachers.

—72—
Q. You are saying, though, that it went to all the High 

School teachers with the exception of the principal and

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



144a

Mrs. Harris? A. All of those who taught— Let me limit 
it. Those who taught in grades nine through twelve, yes.

Q. All those who taught in grades nine through twelve? 
A. That’s right.

Q. And how many elementary teachers? A. Well, there 
are some other secondary. Grades nine through twelve 
plus— Well, I have another tabulation here somewhere. 
The letter went to Mrs. Foster, Mr. Holley, Mrs. Jones in 
grades nine through twelve. The same letter went to Mrs. 
Palmer, the librarian, and Mr. Price. I miscounted him; 
that made four.

Q. Four in grades seven through nine? A. Nine through 
twelve.

Q. Nine through twelve? A. Now in addition, it went 
to a first grade teacher, Miss Janie Brooks; it went to Mr. 
Kilgore, who was a seventh grade teacher; it went to Mr. 
Murphy, Mr. Newberry, Miss Peterson, and Mrs. Segers.

Q. Mr. Teachey, I ’m going to ask you to read this letter 
into the record. A. All right.

Q. Including the date. A. “May 14, 1965. Pursuant to
- 7 3 -

action of the Asheboro City Board of Education on Thurs­
day, May 13, 1965, this will inform you that at this time 
the Board cannot offer you a contract to teach in the Ashe­
boro City Schools beyond the termination date of your 
current contract.

“I was instructed to say to you further that we shall keep 
your application for a teaching position in our school sys­
tem active for any length of time you desire and that your 
qualifications, experience and prior service as a member of 
our staff will be considered carefully as vacancies arise. 
Please advise us if you accept employment elsewhere in

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



145a

order that we may remove your name from our applicant 
file.

“We appreciate very much your service to our school 
system and extend our best wishes for your professional 
future.” Signed by the Superintendent.

Q. May I see that again?
Mr. Teachey, according to this letter, the teachers were 

already displaced, is that correct? A. At that time, we 
could not offer them a contract; that’s correct.

Q. You had made that determination, that they would 
not be in the system, by May 14th? A. No.

Q. When did you make that determination? A. Several 
of these teachers are in this system.

—74—
Q. At least as of May 14th, you were of the opinion that 

these teachers to whom you have sent this letter would not 
be in the system? A. No.

Q. Your letter states that, “we shall keep your applica­
tion” on file “ for a teaching position in our school system” 
and that any application would be considered carefully as 
vacancies arise. A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct? A. Well, I just read that.
Q. So that meant, did it not, that they had no position 

at that time? A. Yes.
Q. And the only consideration you would give their 

application would be if a vacancy occurred? A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. So you had determined as of May 14th that no position 

would be available for them? A. No. At that time, no 
position was available. Doesn’t the letter say, “at this 
time” ?

Q. Yes, that as of May 14th no position would be avail­
able. A. On May 14th.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



146a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

—75—
Q. Yes. A. That doesn’t say no position will be avail­

able May 17 th.
Q. And this was because the high school positions were 

closed at Central, or would be discontinued for the 1965-66 
school year? A. Partially.

Q. Is that correct? A. Partially.
Q. Did you also release a news item to the papers or 

news media that these positions would be closed, or that 
thirteen Negro teachers would not be employed— A. No.

Q. —for the next school term? A. No.
Q. Did you release a news item regarding this? A. No.
Q. Do you recall a news item? A. Yes. I released an 

item concerned with the whole situation. I released an 
article at the request of a newspaper after other articles 
had appeared in certain papers in the state and on certain 
radio stations.

Q. To the effect that thirteen teachers would not have 
their contracts renewed for the next school term? A. No, 
I don’t believe I released any such item as that.

Q. I have a news release here and I want to read it and
—7 6 -

ask you if this came from your office. A. All right, sir.
Q. This is a special news item to the news department of 

your radio or television station. Please include this in­
formation on your news broadcast as soon as received. 
Superintendent Guy B. Teachey and the authorities of the 
Asheboro City Schools have notified thirteen members of 
the teaching staff of the all-colored Central High School 
that their contracts will be terminated at the end of the 
present school term. Students from the school have been 
sent to the all-white Junior High and Asheboro High 
School, which had token integration last fall. Negro stu-



147a

dents who attended Central from outside the City of Ashe- 
boro were distributed to schools in the county unit. A. 
What is your question?

Q. Do you recall this as coming from your office? A. It 
did not.

Q. It did not come from your office? A. It did not. 
Does it have any signature?

Q. No signature is attached to it. A. No signature; then 
it definitely could not have come from this office.

Q. Now we were discussing Jackie Kilgore; and you 
said that Jackie Kilgore advised you of employment else­
where? A. That’s right.

—77—
Q. That was after he had received this letter from you 

advising that Ms position would not be available for the 
next year, is that correct? A. I ’m not sure as to the time 
of that; it was in the spring.

Q. It was after May 14th, wasn’t it? A. I don’t know.
Q. You stated that he told you this orally and not by 

letter? A. Yes; I have no letter from him.
Q. You don’t recall whether it was after May 14th? 

A. No.
Q. He wouldn’t go looking for a job elsewhere if he 

had a job here, would he? A. Oh, yes, he might have; 
we discussed this whole possibility with the entire staff 
earlier.

Q. Did you meet with him— A. I ’m sorry. Earlier than 
May 14th.

Q. Didn’t you meet with the teachers over there at Cen­
tral? A. Yes.

Q. To advise them about this ? A. I told them that there 
was a good possibility that we would lose positions and

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



148a

I think Jackie was one that began looking for a job. Now 
this is surmise; I ’m not positive.

Q. You advised them that you would lose positions over 
at Central High School, didn’t you! A. No. I advised 
them that there would probably be some change in per-

— 78—
sonnel but I didn’t advise any individual that any posi­
tion—

Q. Didn’t you advise the staff at Central High School, 
at one of the joint meetings of the staff, that they would 
lose the positions in the school system for the next school 
term! A. No.

Q. You did not do that? A. Did not. I discussed it 
with them, but I did not advise them that any individual 
would lose their position.

Q. You did not advise them that the High School staff 
would lose positions? A. No.

Q. Why was Charles Holley not retained in the school 
system? A. At the time this was presented, there was 
no vacancy. A  vacancy later developed; he was offered a 
position and declined it.

Q. Why wasn’t any vacancy available at the time? A. 
In this case, just as in band and counseling, we didn’t need 
an additional industrial arts teacher.

Q. Well, you needed an industrial arts teacher, didn’t 
you? A. Not at the time this was—

Q. Don’t you have an industrial arts teacher in the 
system? A. We have three.

Q. You have three? A. Eight.
— 79—

Q- So you had three positions? A. That’s right.
Q. Why wasn’t he given one of those positions? A. We

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



149a

felt that we would have a position for Mr. Holley later 
and he was actually, in fact, offered a position.

Q. Why wasn’t he given a position initially! A. Mr. 
Holley led me to feel that he preferred to move.

Q. When did Mr. Holley lead you to feel that way? A. 
I can’t give you a date.

Q. Didn’t Mr. Holley in fact— Wasn’t he recommended 
by the principal? A. Oh, yes.

Q. And indicated all the time that he wanted to be em­
ployed in this system? A. He did not accept a position 
when we offered it.

Q. He indicated initially that he wanted to be employed 
in this system? A. I don’t recall this.

Q. Didn’t all of the teachers here indicate that they 
wanted to be employed, Mr. Teachey? A. This may be 
true; there was, at the beginning, one or two exceptions. 
Mrs. Harris did not.

Q. And all the other teachers did? A. Mr. Snipe did 
not, not officially; let me put it that way.

—80—
Q. All of the other teachers did though, didn’t they? A. 

I don’t recall. I have the impression that there was one 
or two who did not.

Q. What about the white teachers, did they? A. We 
gave them an opportunity to do so; many did and some 
did not.

Q. Did you send this letter to any white teacher? A. 
Not this one.

Q. You did not? A. No.
Q. You sent it only to the Negro teachers at Central 

High School? A. This particular letter, yes.
Q. And you just didn’t have a position open for Mr. 

Holley initially? A. At the time.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



150a

Q. And you didn’t really compare Mr. Holley with these 
other industrial arts teachers, did you? A. We consider 
Mr. Holley as a good teacher.

Q. He’s a very good teacher, isn’t he? A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, better qualified than some of these in­

dustrial arts teachers you retained in the system? A. No. 
No, he’s not.

Q. You did not offer Mr. Holley a teaching position
—81—

initially? You said you offered him a position after he— 
A. We offered Mr. Holley a teaching position in June. Now 
many times it’s June before positions are offered. Mr. 
Holley evidently had committed himself or felt that he had 
committed himself by that time.

Q. Mr. Holley received one of these letters, didn’t he? 
A. Yes.

Q. Which advised him that no position would be open? 
A. No, it didn’t advise him that no position would be open; 
it advised him that no position is open on May 14th.

Q. And that you would consider his application only if 
a vacancy occurred? A. That’s right.

Q. Why wasn’t Mrs. Laverne Barnes retained in the sys­
tem? A. Mrs. Barnes is presently in the system.

Q. She is presently in your system? A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t she receive one of these letters? A. Yes, she 

did.
Q. And you considered her only as a vacancy occurred? 

A. That’s right.
Q. You didn’t consider her before? A. We considered 

her when we had a vacancy.
Q. Only when you had a vacancy occur after May 14th? 

A. That’s right.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



151a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

—82—
Q. Where is she teaching now? A. She’s teaching at 

Balfour and Central; she is a librarian.
Q. At Balfour? A. Balfour and Central.
Q. And Central. And on May 14th, you didn’t consider 

her for another position, did you, not if she received this 
letter? A. Oh, yes. Yes, she was under consideration.

Q. But she wasn’t considered for a position at the time? 
A. Oh, yes. That’s what this letter states, that they will 
be considered as long as they wish to be.

Q. As of May 14th, you didn’t consider her for another 
position in this system? A. We didn’t have a position to 
which we could assign her at that time.

Q. Because you had the positions all filled? A. That’s 
right.

Q. And you didn’t consider her for one of those posi­
tions? A. No.

Q. Why wasn’t Mr. Russell Murphy retained in the sys­
tem? A. Perhaps I need to go into a little bit of detail 
here. This comes back to some of the questions you have 
hinted about our former principal, my not having a great 
deal of confidence in his reports. Mr. Murphy was teacher 
and coach at Central. Mr. Snipe did not recommend Mr. 
Murphy in the early part of the spring. I was inclined, 
frankly, to accept Mr. Snipe’s evaluation on its face. But

—83—
as the spring wore on, I discovered that there could have 
been something personal.

At any rate, we decided to give Mr. Murphy an oppor­
tunity the first chance that came along to show us the 
situation. So we assigned him during the summer to 
Asheboro High School.

Q. To Asheboro High School? A. Asheboro High



152a

School. And to the coaching staff at Asheboro High School. 
Now Mr. Murphy has a graduate certificate but it’s an 
elementary certificate and he is not qualified to teach at 
the secondary level; so—

Q. Don’t you consider Mr. Murphy a good teacher! A. 
Mr. Murphy is a teacher on our staff now. We don’t have 
any we don’t consider at least average or—

Q. You would consider him a good teacher! A. I con­
sider him a satisfactory teacher.

Q. Was he considered initially for a position? Did he 
receive a letter on May 14th? A. He received a letter.

Q. So he wasn’t considered for a position? A. Yes.
Q. I think we’re getting our considerations of positions 

mixed up here. I ’m talking about consideration for a posi­
tion in the school system, not a vacancy that might occur 
later on. A. I believe I’m correct in stating that all these 
teachers received consideration.

—84—
Q. You don’t mean to say that Mr. Murphy was really 

considered for a coaching position in Asheboro High 
School, do you? A. Certainly I do.

Q. At Asheboro High School? A. At Asheboro High 
School.

Q. On May the 14th? A. Before May 14th.
Q. Before May 14th? A. Before May 14th.
Q. You considered Mr. Murphy for a coaching position 

there? A. We considered— We discussed it with Coach 
Lee Stone prior to May 14th.

Q. And you still sent him a letter? A. Yes.
Q. Because you— A. The decision had not been reached 

that there would be a vacancy.
Q. But you did not consider him for a head coach posi­

tion? A. No, he is not the head coach now.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



153a

Q. You didn’t consider him for the head coach position? 
Was he the head coach at Central? A. He was the only 
coach at Central.

Q. He was a coach then? A. That’s right.
-—85—

Q. But you didn’t consider him for head coach at Ashe- 
boro High School? A. No.

Q. In fact, you didn’t consider him for any other position 
except assistant coach there, did you? A. I don’t under­
stand that question.

Q. You didn’t consider Mr. Murphy for any other posi­
tion at Asheboro High School except the assistant coaching 
position? A. Yes; as a teacher.

Q. You stated that he has an elementary degree? A. He 
is qualified to teach driver education.

Q. Driver education? A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider him for driver education? A. He 

did teach driver education beginning June 7th.
Q. Did you consider him for driver education on May 

14th or prior to May 14th? A. Had to be, yes.
Q. You considered him for a driver education position? 

A. Because he began his work June 7t,h.
Q. And you sent him a letter on May 14th? A. Yes.
Q. Advising him that no position would be available? 

A. It hadn’t been resolved. No, I didn’t say no position 
would be available. I think we’re confused on this. Did I

— 86—

not state my position?
Q. Did your letter not state that: this is to inform you 

that at this time this Board cannot offer you a contract 
to teach in the Asheboro Schools? A. That is correct. 
Quite often we interview a teacher—a prospective teacher. 
The teacher is told at the end of the interview that at this

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



154a

time we cannot offer you a contract. This is true at any 
time before a decision is reached.

Q. It would be fair to say though, wouldn’t it, Mr. 
Teachey, that you didn’t consider Mr. Murphy for any 
position except the assistant coaching position at Asheboro 
High School, as of May 14th?

Mr. Anderson: I ’m going to object to the form.

A. Restate it.
Q. It would be fair to say, would it not, that you con­

sidered Mr. Murphy only for the assistant coaching posi­
tion in Asheboro High School as of May 14th? A. No.

Q. It would not? A. It would not.
Q. How would you modify that statement? A. We 

would consider—

Mr. Anderson: Object to the form.

A. We would consider him for driver education.
Q. Driver education? A. That’s right.

—87—
Q. And yet you sent him a letter on May 14th advising 

him that you were unable to offer him a contract to teach 
in the school system? A. That’s correct; registration was 
not complete and we didn’t know how many vacancies we 
would have in drivers education.

Q. You say he is teaching driver education there now? 
A. No; he teaches math and science.

Q. Math and science? A. At the Fayetteville Street 
School.

Q. He doesn’t teach driver education? A. No, not at 
this time; he may next summer.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



155a

Q. He taught it this summer? A. He taught it this sum­
mer.

Q. He teaches in an elementary school and coaches at 
the high school? A. No, he teaches in a junior high school 
and is a member of the coaching staff of Asheboro High 
School.

Q. Why wasn’t Miss Janie Brooks retained in the sys­
tem? A. Mrs. Janie Brooks had been told at least a year 
prior that her performance in the classroom must improve 
or her contract would not be renewed.

Q. She has been in the system ten years? A. Oh, no, 
she had been in the system only two or three years. She

— 88—

had ten years experience, perhaps.
Q. She had ten years experience? A. Nine years plus 

last year, which would make a total of ten years; but not 
here.

Q. Did she have an A certificate? A. A certificate.
Q. Wasn’t she recommended by the principal? A. I 

don’t recall; she wasn’t recommended by our Director of 
Elementary Instruction.

Q. She was recommended by the principal, though? A. 
I don’t recall; she might have been.

Q. But again you didn’t consider the principal’s recom­
mendation very highly? A. I guess we have that in the 
record already.

Q. Who is the Director of Elementary Education? A. 
The position is vacant at present.

Q. Who was the— A. Doctor Johnny Parker.
Q. Is he still in Asheboro? A. He is presently Assistant 

Superintendent.
Q. Now you stated that Mrs.— Is that Miss Kilgore or 

Mrs. Kilgore? A. Mr. Kilgore.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



156a

Q. —-was also sent a letter on the 14th of May advising 
that no position was available ? A. At that time.

—89—
Q. At that time? A. Yes.
Q. Is he in the system now? A. No. We discussed him 

awhile ago, if you will recall.
Q. Mr. Kilgore? A. Yes; Jackie Kilgore.
Q. And we also discussed Mr. Murphy? A. Mr. Murphy 

is with us now.
Q. Is that Mr. or Mrs. Brooks? A. Mrs. Janie Brooks. 

You just left her.
Q. Just left Mrs. Brooks? A. I don’t know whether you 

finished with her or not.
Q. I got my names mixed up.
How many elementary school teachers at Central were 

not retained for this school year? A. Elementary? Mrs. 
Brooks; one.

Q. Is that only Mrs. Brooks? A. Yes.
Q. All of the others were retained? A. Now this doesn’t 

mean that they are all with us. We had one or two resig­
nations.

Q. Who resigned? A. Miss Sarah McLaurin.
Q. Is she the only one who resigned? A. Yes, after the 

original contracts.
—90—

Q. Where are these teachers teaching now? A. Mrs. 
Brooks— Now what teachers do you mean, all of them?

Q. The teachers who were retained. A. Oh, those wh.o 
were retained. Except for— Well now, you are speaking 
of elementary?

Q. Yes. A. They are all at Central.
Q. All at Central? A. All at Central.
Q. And this was pursuant to your policy of returning

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



157a

teachers to the position they were in the previous year? 
A. Generally; each teacher has an opportunity to request 
transfer if they wish.

Q. Only if they request transfer will you assign them 
to another school? A. No. No. We reserve the right to 
do so, also.

Q. But you follow the policy here of returning the teach­
ers to the same school they taught in the previous year? 
A. Let me say that they were returned.

Q. Well, you called it a policy of returning! A. If there 
is a policy.

Q. Didn’t you state though, earlier, that you had a policy 
of returning the teachers to the school they taught in the

—91—
previous year? A. I might have used the word, “policy” . 
General practice would have been a better word.

Q. But you follow the general practice here of returning 
these Negro teachers back to school? A. That’s right.

Q. And you stated that all Negro students are still at 
this school? A. No, I didn’t say that all of our Negro 
students are in this school.

Q. All elementary students? A. No, I didn’t so state.
Q. I ’m sorry; you’re correct. You stated that only Negro 

students are at this school? A. That’s right.
Q. Is that correct? A. That’s right.
Q. Do you have any white teachers teaching at that school 

at all? A. At Central?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. Who are they? A. Mrs. Rose Patterson, itinerant 

music teacher, on the same basis that she teaches at two 
other schools. Mrs. Auman; Mrs. Auman teaches Bible.

—92—

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

Mr. Dwight Holland teaches art.



158a

Q. Is that part-time? A. All of those are itinerant. 
Now we have Mr. Stewart Wooten, full-time principal.

Q. Full-time principal? A. Mr. Stewart Wooten.
Q. He’s white? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Teachey, would yon state the policy of procedure 

you follow in reemploying teachers for the following school 
term? A. Procedure?

Q. Yes. A. Yes. In the spring, we send to each teacher 
a notice that it’s time for us to consider contracts for the 
next year and that on this form there are four sections. 
One is that the teacher, for example, would like to he re­
employed. Number two is that the certificate will be out 
of force and the teacher would still like to be reemployed 
if it can be approved by the Board. Number three is a 
performance statement. Number four is a resignation 
statement. I may have those numbers out of order.

In addition to this, at the same time on the same form 
are two or three other statements which will give the 
teacher an opportunity to request transfers or change of

—9 3 -
subject assignments, that type of thing.

Now this goes to the teachers. And then as they come 
back, we tabulate resignations, retirements, get our files on 
the teachers, consider them with the recommendations of 
principals and our supervisors, and offer them contracts; 
or if no contract is to be offered, usually we have a discus­
sion and see if we can’t reach a mutual agreement for sep­
aration from the system. If such mutual agreement can­
not be reached, then we simply do not renew their contract.

Q. What time of year do you send this form to the 
teachers? A. It varies; it varies according to the pressure 
on our office; and there has been considerable recently. It 
might have been later in the year; I don’t recall.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



159a

Q. Did you send the form this year! A. I believe we 
used the same form. I would have to check; hut I—

Q. Do you recall when you sent that form! A. No, not 
definitely; it was—

Q. Was it May! A. Probably April.
Q. April! A. Late April or early May.
Q, Did you send a form to the Aslieboro High School 

teachers? A. Yes.
Q. Did you send the form to Central? A. Yes; if we

—-94—-
sent any anywhere, we sent it to them.

Q. Did you send it to Central? A. To the best of my 
recollection.

Q. Did you receive the form back? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have that form in your file? A. Yes.
Q. And it’s your recollection that you did send it to 

Central? A. Yes.
Q. And they were returned? A. Yes, generally. Now 

there may have been some who didn’t. But I think most of 
them were returned.

Q. And they would be available in your file? A. Yes, 
sir.

Mr. Chambers: Shall we break for lunch?
(Thereupon, at 1:00 o’clock P. M., the deposition 

was recessed until 2:00 o’clock P. M.)

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



160a

2:00 o’clock P. M.

(Thereupon, Direct Examination of Guy B. 
Teachey continued as follows:)

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, 1 would like to go back to Mrs. Segers 
for a moment. She taught the seventh grade also, didn’t 
she? A. Half-time, yes.

Q. Did she have a certificate for that position? A. Her 
certificate was music. Let me verify that.

(Discussion off the record.)

A. Her certificate is music.
Q. Miss Peterson taught the eighth grade in addition to 

commercial education? A. Half-time.
Q. And her certificate entitles her to teach the eighth 

grade? A. No. Her certificate is commercial. Under pres­
ent regulations in the State Board of Education, a teacher 
with a subject certificate may teach, in emergencies, all 
subjects in grades seven and eight. This way we were 
able to work out part-time provisions, whereby we could 
offer commercial subjects and half-time music to this small 
high school.

Q. What course is Miss Jones now teaching, Elizabeth 
Jones? A. Mrs. Elizabeth Jones now teaches fifth grade. 

Q. This is one of those emergencies? A. No. Mrs. Jones
—96—

has a blanket certificate. She is eligible— Her certificate 
permits her to teach any grade.

Q. Any grade? A. Let me maybe qualify that slightly. 
She does have— Mrs. Jones is qualified for english and/or

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



161a

social studies, one or the other or both, in high school. 
Formerly she held an elementary and I believe it was a 
blanket certificate. But she worked for us in the Randolph 
County school system as Elementary Supervisor for sev­
eral years prior to her transfer to high school.

Q. She taught social studies and math in Central? A. 
Social studies and-—-

Q. Math and english? A. Principally english. There 
might have been— It looks like there must have been one 
math class.

Q. And she is one of the Negro teachers at Central High 
—or was one of the Negro teachers at Central High? A. 
Yes.

Q. Who is now teaching fifth grade— A. That’s right. 
Q. —at Central? A. YTes, sir.
Q. Now Mrs. Barnes taught the second grade? A. Sec­

ond grade. Mrs. Barnes succeeded— Sometime during the 
term last year, her mother passed away and Mrs. Barnes

—97—
was employed to replace her. Now at the beginning, I 
believe—

Q. She is not teaching now? A. Yes, she is a librarian. 
Q. She is a librarian? A. Yes.
Q. But she taught second grade? A. Yes, taught second 

grade.
Q. Now does she have a teaching certificate that entitles 

her to teach in any of the elementary grades ? A. She has 
a primary certificate; and also has qualified recently for 
library work.

Q. She is qualified for library work? A. Has recently 
met at least the minimum requirements for library.

Q, But she also has a certificate entitling her to teach 
the primary grades? A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



162a

Q. This would be grades one, two, and three? A. No, 
a primary certificate is valid in grades one through eight.

Q. One through eight? What is a secondary or grammar 
certificate? A. A secondary certificate is a subject cer­
tificate. Grammar grade certificate is valid in grades one 
through eight.

Q. Isn’t a grammar grade certificate for grades six
— 98—

through eight? A. No. A. grammar grade certificate is 
grades one through eight.

Q. One through eight? A. Yes.
Q. And would be subject certificates? A. No. A sec­

ondary certificate is—
Q. A  secondary certificate is— A. —a subject certifi­

cate.
Q. But a grammar grade certificate would entitle you 

to teach in grades one through eight? A. One through 
eight.

Q. Now Mrs. Segers taught the seventh grade? A. She 
taught half-time in seventh grade.

Q. She could teach grades one through eight? A. No. 
Her certificate is a subject certificate in music.

Q. Mr. Kilgore taught seventh grade? A. Seventh 
grade.

Q. Sixth and seventh? A. It was a combination; there 
were a few sixth grade people.

Q. His certificate entitled him to teach grades one 
through eight? A. I believe Mr. Kilgore’s certificate is a 
subject; therefore, he could not teach full time below the 
seventh grade. I’ll verify that if you wish, Mr. Kilgore’s 
certificate.

— 99—
Q. I ’m going to ask you about some others. I was wonder­

ing if we could not just file interrogatories and get the

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



163a

certificates of all the teachers. A. Well, the certificates 
of all the teachers in the system or all the teachers in—- 

Q. All the teachers in the system.
Miss Peterson taught the eighth grade and commerce? 

A. That’s right.
Q. And she had a subject certificate? A. Subject cer­

tificate.
Q. And this would entitle her to teach in grades seven 

and eight? A. It would entitle her to teach all subjects 
in grades seven and eight.

Q. All subjects in grades seven and eight? A. That’s 
right.

Q. And the same thing with reference to Mr. Kilgore? 
You think he had a subject certificate? A. Yes, if the 
subject certificate is correct. I believe that this is a subject 
certificate; I would have to confirm that.

Q. Now Mr. Newberry taught the eighth grade in addi­
tion to counseling? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mow many certificates did he have? A. Only one;
— 100—

that’s all that a teacher can hold.
Q. One certificate. Did he hold qualifications for other 

certificates? A. Possibly. Possibly. I can see what he 
has listed.

Q. Didn’t he, in fact, have three Masters Degrees? A. 
Not that I know of, no.

Q. This wouldn’t be listed? A. At least he never in­
formed us; he told us he had a Masters Degree from New 
York University on his application blank and this is the 
only degree he lists. I didn’t check any further; if he has 
any, I believe he would have told us.

Q. Would it be listed on the form that he filed with you?

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



164a

A. Yes, it should be unless he left it off. I would say that 
in my opinion he holds a Masters Degree.

Q. Mr. Murphy taught the seventh grade? A. Mr. 
Murphy taught—

Q. He’s the coach now, I think. A. —if I can find it— 
eighth grade.

Q. Eighth grade? He was eligible to teach grades one 
through eight? A. Yes. His certificate would permit him. 
Let that be in the record, that his certificate permitted him. 
We would not permit him to teach first grade.

Q. Why wouldn’t you permit him to teach first grade? 
A. On account of temperament, disposition, and many,

— 101—

many reasons. He wouldn’t be—
Q. Would you permit one with Mr. Murphy’s certificate 

to teach the first grade? A. With the same certificate, yes. 
The certificate would not be the determining factor.

Q. What would be the determining factor? A. Many 
other qualifications. It’s quite unlikely, for example, that 
a football coach would teach first grade children just on 
the face of that—

Q. Is that the reason that he would not teach in the 
system? A. Not teach first grade.

Q. Is he a football coach? A. Well, that’s one of the 
reasons.

Q. Is there another reason? A. Yes, his experience, his 
practice teaching, various reasons.

Q. Do you mean that one would have to do practice 
teaching in the first grade to teach first grade in the sys­
tem? A. No, not necessarily; he might do it in the second 
or third. But with a secondary background as Mr. Murphy 
has, not with that.

Q. Do you mean that everybody who teaches in grades

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



165a

one, two, and three have done practice teaching in the first 
grade? A. Ninety-five percent, yes.

Q. There are some exceptions? A. All of our teachers
- 102-

in grades one through six have either primary or grammar 
grade certificates and therefore have done practice teach­
ing in their relative fields. There are a few exceptions in 
which we may have a grammar grade teacher, who by dis­
position and experience, has built up experience in teach­
ing primary grades. The reverse of that, there may be 
one or two cases in which a primary certificate may be 
assigned to fifth or sixth grade; but this is the exception. 
They are very rare exceptions.

Q. You admit that there are exceptions to this policy? 
A. This is no policy. This is simply—

Q. This is practice? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you do have people who have perhaps grammar 

grade certificates teaching in the first grade? A. No.
Q. No one teaching the first grade here has done practice 

teaching in the grades above the third grade? A. No one 
teaching first grade holds a grammar grade certificate, let 
me put it that way.

Q. No one teaching the first grade holds a grammar 
grade certificate? A. That’s right.

Q. Second grade? A. No.
—103—

Q. Nor the third grade? A. There may be a third grade. 
Now this is getting down to— If there is, there’s not more 
than one or two.

Q. Certainly, however, Mr. Murphy would be able to 
teach grades four through eight— A. Oh, yes.

Q. —on his certificate? A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



166a

Q. And Mrs. Brooks has a grammar grade certificate or 
a primary certificate? A. One or the other.

Q. She taught the first grade and she could teach grades 
one through eight? A. Her certificate would permit her 
to teach grades one through eight.

Q. And your system? A. Our system probably would 
not.

Q. Is that a practice or a policy? A. It is a practice 
based on various factors, principally the disposition and 
the experience of the teachers; temperament, certainly.

Q. Mrs. Foster taught home economics— A. That’s 
right.

Q. —at Central High School? A. Yes.
—104—

Q. And she was not employed in the system this year? 
A. Her resignation was requested.

Q. When was it requested? A. Actually we sent her 
the letter but this involved simply a method of handling. 
Mrs. Foster had poor ratings for the past two years from 
her state supervisor. This is a vocational position. And 
especially in housekeeping, her state supervisor said there 
was much to be desired. Therefore, we couldn’t have kept 
Mrs. Foster under any circumstances.

Q. How long did Mrs. Foster teach in this system? A. 
Two or three years.

Q. What experience does she have? A. Thirteen years.
Q. You kept her in the system two years? A. Two 

years.
Q. And do you have this report of the supervisor in your 

file? A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Snipe recommend Mrs. Foster? A. I don’t 

know.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



167a

Q. Did she send in a form requesting that she be re­
tained in the system? A. Probably.

Q. Ton sent out a form to her for her to indicate whether 
she wanted to be back in the system this year? A. Prob­
ably, probably.

—105—
Q. And she returned the form indicating that she wanted 

to be in the system? A. Again I can’t be sure, but prob­
ably.

Q. How many home economics teachers do you have in 
the system? A. Two vocational.

Q. Two vocational? A. One noil-vocational. Mrs. Pos­
ter was vocational.

Q. What are the qualifications for a non-vocational home 
ec teacher? A. Qualifications for non-vocational are a 
home economics certificate—

Q. Home economics certificate? A. —and quite a few 
other subjective qualifications.

Q. What are they? A. I gave you a list earlier.
Q. Do they have to hold a degree? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mrs. Foster held a degree? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now what are these other subjective things you were 

talking about? A. This is the list we discussed in earlier 
testimony. I think I showed you a list and maybe you 
made some notes on it. —106—

Q. The degree, experience— A. Yes. Those are not 
subjective, of course, they are objective.

Q. —performance in the classroom. A. Performance. 
That’s certainly one of the most important; and many other 
items. Loyalty to the system, her ability to accept respon­
sibility.

Q. Now are you suggesting that Mrs. Poster was not 
loyal to the system? A. No.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



168a

Q. Are you suggesting that she was unable to accept 
responsibility? A. Yes, to some extent.

Q. Are you suggesting that she was not initiative? A. 
Yes.

Q. Are you suggesting that she did not accept authority? 
A. No.

Q. Are you suggesting that she did not excite the pupils? 
A. Yes.

Q. Now where did you get these recommendations for 
this report? A. This report largely; most of it from the 
supervisor who visits vocational departments regularly, a 
representative of the State Department of Public Instruc­
tion.

Q. Who was the supervisor? A. I don’t remember her 
name; it’s in our files.

—107—
Q. Is she white or Negro? A. She’s a Negro.
Q. She’s a Negro but you don’t know her name? A. No, 

but I can find it.
Q. Does she supervise any other school? A. She super­

vises other schools. I don’t know where, but other schools 
besides here.

Q. No other school in this system? A. I ’m not sure 
whether she was assigned to any other schools in this sys­
tem or not. I know there were some sessions in another 
school at which she was present; but I can’t be sure 
whether this was as a participant in a conference or in a 
supervisory capacity.

Q. Did she supervise any other school in the Asheboro 
City school system? A. I just answered that, that I don’t 
know.

Q. Does she supervise any school now in the system? 
A. She hasn’t visited us this year.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



169a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey 

Q. She has not? A. No.
Q. Wasn’t she assigned to the Central School? A. I 

don’t know; I didn’t assign her.
Q. You didn’t assign her? A. No.

—108—
Q. You don’t know what the school supervisor does? A. 

She visited Central and I have seen her visit other schools, 
but as I indicated—

Q. What other schools? A. Asheboro High School.
Q. You saw her visiting Asheboro High School? A. Yes. 
Q. Was she visiting as a supervisor? A. I don’t know.
Q. Was she visiting this year? A. As far as I know, 

she has not visited this year.
Q. What do you know of her qualifications? A. I don’t 

know anything personally except she is a representative of 
the State Department and they control the appointment. 
They have to approve all of our vocational teachers.

Q. And you accepted her recommendation— A. Yes.
Q. —and acted on Mrs. Foster? A. Yes.
Q. But you know nothing at all about the supervisor? 

A. 1 accepted her recommendation as part of the informa­
tion on which we based our decision.

Q. Is her report easily accessible here? Will we be able 
to see it today? A. Yes. I’ll just jot it down and I can pull

—109—
it out.

Q. I mean during this deposition. A. Perhaps. Do you 
want me to try to find it right now?

Q. Please.
(Discussion off the record.)



170a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Was there a supervisor for the white schools? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Did you receive reports from them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They are available also? A. Yes, they would be avail­

able. We do not have, by the way, either of the white voca­
tional home economics teachers.

Q. You mean who were in the system last year? A. Yes.
Q. They are no longer in the system? A. No longer in 

the system.
Q. They are retired? A. They moved for one reason 

or another.
Q. They did not request re-employment ? A. Either that 

or resigned.
Q. You did not pass on their application and refuse to 

employ them? A. No.
Q. Mr. Teachey, we will want to get the report of the 

supervisor on the two white vocational teachers you had
- l l O -

last year. Is the non-vocational teacher the same one who 
was in the system last year? A. She is.

Q. She is? A. Yes.'
Q. Did you have a report on her? A. No, there is not 

this type report on any except the vocational.
Q. Is she white? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you consider Mrs. Foster for that position? A. 

Generally, yes.
Q. But not specifically? A. No. We—frankly I think 

that answer “generally” is even somewhat misleading be­
cause with Mrs. Foster’s record we didn’t consider her for 
any other position actually.

Q. You didn’t consider her for anything else? A. That’s 
right.



171a

Q. And the only reason you didn’t consider the other 
teachers, that is, the other vocational teachers is that they 
did not request re-employment? A. Then, of course, there 
is no need for consideration.

Q. I)o you know the qualifications of the non-vocational 
teacher you have now! A. Yes. I know the paper quali-

— 111—

fications and our observation of her.
Q. What are the paper qualifications! A. She has a 

Bachelor’s Degree and an A certificate, eight years experi­
ence.

Q. Eight years experience! A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Foster had thirteen years experience— A. Yes.
Q. —and a Bachelor’s Degree— A. That’s right.
Q. —and an A certificate ? A. That’s right.
Q. Who was hired to replace the other vocational teach­

ers! A. One was replaced by Miss Mary Linda Pinkham 
and another was replaced by Rebecca Jane Poole.

Q. Do you have a third? A. No.
Q. Is Miss Poole at Asheboro High School? A. Ashe- 

boro Junior High.
Q. What degree does Miss Pinkham have! A. Bache­

lor’s Degree.
Q. Bachelor’s Degree? A. Yes.
Q. How many years of experience does she have? A.

— 112—

Not more than two-—one or two.
Q. Where did she teach before coming here? A. At 

Rowan County High School, but I can’t—I ’ll have to look 
at the records to tell you the exact school in Rowan County.

Q. In Rowan County? And you say not more than two 
years? A. Yes, one or two.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



172a

Q. You’re not certain whether she had two years! A. 
No, I would have to look at the records—one or two.

Q. What degree did the other vocational teacher have 
that you employed this year? A. Bachelor’s Degree.

Q. How many years experience did Miss Poole have? 
A. Not more than two—one or two.

Q. You’re not positive whether she had two years? A. 
No, she taught in South Carolina for one or two years.

Q. And because of the report that you received from the 
supervisor of the home ec teacher at Central High School, 
you did not consider Mrs. Foster for either of these posi­
tions? A. That’s correct. Now this was not the only rea­
son, however. We had observed Mrs. Foster’s what we call 
slipshod methods for more than a year prior and she had 
been informed of this.

Q. What “we” was that? A. In what way?
—113—

Q. What “we” ? A. What week?
Q. We, we. You say we observed Mrs. Foster. A. Yes. 

I am one of the “we” .
Q. You observed Mrs. Foster in the classroom? A. Yes.
Q. You actually went to the class of Mrs. Foster? A. I 

saw Mrs. Foster in the classroom with her pupils, yes.
Q. Are the salaries of vocational teachers supplemented 

by the Federal Government? A. Salaries of vocational 
teachers are paid—yes, but now not supplemented. There 
is an appropriation by the Federal Government from which 
we receive reimbursement of two-thirds of the vocational 
home economics teachers, part of which comes from the 
State Board of Education and the remainder as income 
from the Federal Government.

Q. You receive one-third from the Board of Education 
and the remainder from the Federal Government? A. No,

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



173a

one-third from our Board of Education, two-thirds from the 
State Board of Education and the Federal Government.

Now let me state that I am not a hundred percent sure 
that we got this type report on all the other teachers, but if 
it’s available I can get it.

Q. Don’t you get a report on all teachers! A. Not this 
type report.

—114—
Q. You didn’t get this report every year even from Cen­

tral? A. No.

(Discussion off the record.)
The Witness: If they are available, we will find 

them.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Was Mrs. Foster completing a third year in the ’64-65 
school year? A. Third year here?

Q. Yes. A. I’ll have to confrm it. That’s my recollec­
tion, but second or third.

Q. Do you have a report for the first and second year? 
A. I doubt it. Frankly, we never know when the supervisor 
is coming. They occasionally make visits and they do not 
give us these reports, but this year we did get one. They 
give us usually quite often a conference period after their 
visit rather than a written report.

Q. The vocational program is essential with the adult 
vocational— A. All vocational presumably deals with 
adults and pupils.

Q. And again the report from the supervisor was the 
basis for not considering Mrs. Foster’s application? A. 
One of the bases.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



174a

Q. Anri would you state again what the other bases were? 
A. Would it be possible to get it from the transcript or do

— 115—
you want me to try to repeat exactly what I said?

Q. I would like, if you know offhand, to— A. Well, I 
know as I ’ve done it before. Classroom competence, initia­
tive, ability to get youngsters to work at their top level. 
These were some of them and this is generally the type of 
thing we consider.

Q. Did you have a chance to observe the two home ee 
teachers you hired? A. To some extent, yes. You’d better 
let me qualify that. Do you mean this year or last year ?

(Discussion off the record.)
The Witness: They did not give us a written re­

port on any of the others last year. Now this is quite 
common that a visit is made and no written report 
is made. I believe this particular supervisor prob­
ably does more of the written reports than some of 
the others.

Q. Has she visited only Negro schools? A. I don’t know.
Q. But you know she doesn’t visit the white schooling 

system? A. I know we’ve never had a report from her on 
a white school. I don’t know—

Q. Either oral or written? A. That’s right.
Q. Now back to the new home teachers you employed 

this year. Did you have a chance to observe them at any 
time prior to the hiring. A. No, not in their classrooms.

— 116—
Q. The only factor you consider—or factors you con­

sidered were the degree and certificates ? A. No. No.
Q. What other factor did you consider? A. References

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



175a

of their systems in which they had worked and general in­
formation we could get from their institutions where they 
graduated. Those were two particular things we used, rec­
ommendations of a former principal—especially the most 
recent former principal.

Q. Would these all be in writing? A. No.
Q. They were not? A. Quite often by telephone.
Q. You mean that her former principal wouldn’t write to 

recommend her ? A. Oh, yes. Yes, he would. But the need 
to employ teachers sometimes is quite urgent, to handle it 
now.

Q. Did they write to recommend these teachers? A. I 
can tell you right away if you’re in a position to wait.

Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Teachey: Don’t you have a 
file on each teacher in the school system? A. Yes; that’s 
what I just said. I can get it.

Q. And you kept a file for each teacher last year, is that
—i n ­

correct? A. We have kept one for several years.
Q. Do you know how many teachers you have teaching- 

in the primary grades? A. No. No, I can’t separate it.
Q. Do you know how many teachers you have teaching 

in the grammar grades? A. Neither can I separate that.
Q. Do you know how many teachers you have teaching 

grades seven through nine? Would that be the grammar 
grades or the— A. No, seven through nine is secondary.

Q. Secondary? A. All of this information I can provide, 
but I certainly doubt—I am unable to give you an exact 
figure. It may be 40, it may be 42.

Q. Would grades ten through twelve be high rather than 
secondary? A. No, they would be secondary.

Q. They would be secondary also? A. Seven through

twelve, secondary. One through six is elementary.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

- 1 1 8 -



176a

Q. Primary would be one through three? A. Primary is 
a distinction in the elementary grades. Now many school 
systems still use an eight-four system, in which one through 
eight is elementary. We have gone with the recent definition 
of the State Board of Education and the North Carolina 
State General Assembly, in which secondary education is 
defined as grades seven through twelve, elementary is one 
through six.

Now in the old system, one through eight, a grammar 
grade certificate normally was considered grades four 
through eight. We still use, if we can, grammar grade cer­
tificates in grade seven, especially if we can get them. We 
don’t always have them. Quite often we have to go to sub­
ject certificates, as we did with some of these people. Pri­
mary certificates—There is a slight difference in training 
for a teacher who wishes to prepare for primary work as 
opposed to grammar grades. It has to do chiefly with—oh— 
literature, reading, this type of thing. However, it is valid 
for grades one through eight under North Carolina regula­
tions.

Q. And would they also be valid for grades one through 
six—six at least—in the Asheboro school system? A. A 
grammar grade certificate ?

Q. Yes. A. Except that we would prefer normally a pri­
mary certificate, one who has had the training aimed at the

—119—
primary or lower grades.

Q. Well, have you not used primary certificates for 
grades one through six in the system? A. We have in the 
past.

Q. Don’t you use it this year? A. Not in grade one; 
not in grade two. I ’m not certain about grade three; there 
may be. If there is, it can’t be over one or two; I wouldn’t 
know.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



177a

Q. Can you use primary certificates in grades one 
through six? A. In rare cases, as I explained earlier. In 
rare cases, if a teacher has shown through experience in 
this position that she is better fitted to deal with a twelve- 
year-old or an eleven-year-old youngster than she is six- 
year-old youngsters, then we may assign her to grammar 
grades.

Q. Then you do make a distinction— A. Beyond the 
certificate, certainly.

Q. —between the primary and the grammar grade stu­
dents? A. Yes, as a beginning point. And then the other 
distinctions are made from my judgment of the person’s 
capabilities, potential, and performance.

Q. And if a teacher came into your system with a gram­
mar grade certificate, would you consider her for employ­
ment in grades one through six? A. If her past record in­
dicated, we would consider her. We might not consider her

— 120—

for any employment if she has a grammar grade certificate. 
This does not guarantee her consideration. We consider 
her if we’re interested in the application. If it shows prom­
ise, then we would consider her first of all for that which 
her certificate said she is trained.

Q. And what area would that be? A. The grammar 
grade would be four through at least seven, possibly eight.

Q. Assuming that she satisfied all the other factors, if 
she had a grammar grade certificate, you would consider 
her for grades four through seven? A. Four through 
seven and possibly eight.

Q. Now, if one had a primary certificate, would you con­
sider her for grades one through six or seven? A. First 
one through three or four; then if there were other condi-

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



178a

tions that seemed to warrant it, we might consider her for 
grammar.

Q. You would first consider her for grades one through 
four? A. That’s right.

Q. Now a secondary certificate is not a subject certificate, 
is it? A. It is a subject certificate.

Q. It is a subject certificate? A. That’s right.
Q. If one had a secondary certificate, would you consider

— 121—

him for grades seven and eight? A. Yes.
Q. You would? A. Yes. If you would permit me to add, 

our seventh and eighth grade organization is semi-depart- 
mentalized and for that reason we can use subject certifi­
cates.

Q. What do you mean by semi-departmentalized? A. 
Well, a teacher with a science certificate quite often—well, 
can teach a block of science and mathematics and vice versa. 
This is semi-departmentalism.

Q. A  teacher with a science degree can teach science and 
mathematics? A. Well, a teacher with a science certificate 
may under state board regulations teach all subjects in 
grades seven and eight.

Q. May teach all subjects in grades seven and eight? A. 
Under state board regulations, but we do not operate under 
that regulation.

Q. Do you have teachers with a science certificate teach­
ing all subjects in grades seven and eight? A. No.

Q. You do not? A. No.
Q. None of your teachers in grades seven and eight teach 

all subjects? A. No.

Q. Not one? A. No.
Q. But they do teach some subjects? A. Oh, yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

—122—



179a

Q. All right; I thought they would. And they would be 
limited to the subject! A. Except in emergency situations. 
Now “emergency” means that we are absolutely unable to 
find a teacher with any certificate which is closely related 
to the field in which we have an opening. Then we might 
have to go and approve one under this all-subject regula­
tion. But this hasn’t been done except in very rare in­
stances; and this year, I don’t know of any.

Q. Mr. Teachey, my question is : The teacher in grades 
seven and eight would be limited in your system to the sub­
jects for which he is qualified or has a certificate to teach! 
A. Yes—that’s what I attempted to answer—except in very 
rare instances.

Q. I mean presently, in your system, a teacher in grades 
seven and eight is limited to a subject for which he has a 
certificate? A. My recollection is that there may be one 
or two exceptions. Other than that, they are in the areas 
for which they trained.

Q. This would be because of the emergency you referred 
to? A. Yes, that’s right. For example, the one I ’m think­
ing about and even here I am not absolutely sure, but we

—1 2 3 -
have a very able person in art and this person may not have 
an art certificate, but she does have a subject certificate 
that permits her to teach all subjects in grade seven. So 
she is teaching art.

Q. Can you think of any other exceptions? A. That’s 
the only exception I can think of at this moment. There may 
be one or two others. I think I can say that that is the only 
one.

Q. Would your records show whether you have other ex­
ceptions? A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



180a

Q. Mr. Teachey, one question to clear up something. At 
the end of a school year, is it necessary for a teacher to do 
anything other than fill in this form that you send to the 
teachers in order to get the hoard to consider her applica­
tion for re-employment in the system? A. No.

Q. And is it not a fact that all of the Negro teachers at 
Central except the teacher you indicated who resigned in­
dicated that they wanted to return to school? A. I don’t 
know. Perhaps. I can confirm or answer that more defi­
nitely from the records.

Q. Mr. Teachey, did you consider Mrs. Barnes’ applica­
tion with reference to all other primary teachers? A. Yes, 
yes.

Q. You did? You considered Mrs. Barnes’ qualifications 
in reference to all other primary teachers in the school

- 1 2 4 -
system? A. As we generally do.

Q. What do you mean, as you generally do? A. We con­
sider all teachers qualifications.

Q. I mean, did you compare Mrs. Barnes to determine 
whether all other teachers in the school system were better 
qualified than she in the primary grades? A. I compared 
Mrs. Barnes’ qualifications and other items to determine 
whether she should be offered a position. We had no posi­
tion available in primaries.

Q. My question is did you consider Mrs. Barnes’ quali­
fications with reference to all other primary teachers in the 
school system— A. Just as we did all the others.

Q. —to determine whether she was less qualified than all 
the teachers in the school system? A. Just as we do all of 
our teachers, yes.

Q. You mean you do this all the time? A. No, I said we 
do the same thing for all of them.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



181a

Q. What do you mean! A. We consider them as op­
posed to each other and we dismiss those who are not—

Q. Do you consider Mrs. Barnes to be-—

Mr. Anderson: Now let him answer the question 
before you ask the next one, Mr. Chambers. He was 
still talking when you came back with the next ques-

—125—
tion.

Mr. Chambers: I will do that. I was just trying to 
get Mr. Teachey to answer the question, that’s all.

The Witness: Have I not answered the question?

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. I was asking, Mr. Teachey, if you considered Mrs. 
Barnes’ application with reference to all other teachers— 
primary teachers—in the Asheboro school system, to deter­
mine whether she was less qualified than all of the other 
teachers in the school system? A. Primary teachers?

Q. The question calls for a “yes” or “no” . A. Yes.
Q. Now would you list all of the other primary teachers 

in th eschool system? A. Now?
Q. Yes. A. No, I can’t. You have a list. No, that’s last 

year’s. Did you get a new directory?
Q. Mr. Teachey, when you made this comparison, did you 

make records of the qualifications of the teachers? A. No.
Q. You did not? A. No.
Q. You are stating that you considered Mrs. Barnes’ 

qualifications with reference to all other primary school 
teachers in the system? A. Yes.

—126—
Q. Now that means you considered her in reference to 

Mrs. Geraldine Siler? A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



182a

Q. What were the qualifications of Mrs. Siler ! A. Mrs. 
Siler’s qualifications—probably about the same certificate 
and so on, but Mrs. Geraldine Siler, BA. 14; Mrs. Barnes, 
BA 11. They’re close together. But Mrs. Siler had been in 
our system a great deal longer; and if we had a first obli­
gation, this was a consideration.

Q. You mean that if one had been in this system longer 
this was a consideration? A. No, not altogether, but in 
this case, other significant considerations being the same.

Q. You mean this is the reason you retained Mrs. Siler 
over Mrs. Barnes? A. In this particular case—in this par­
ticular case, no. If I may answer the question, we do not— 
Longevity is not a prime consideration.

Q. But it was the factor here? A. In this case; yes.
Q. What about Mrs. Lois B. Pearson? A. BA 8; same 

thing.
Q. Same thing? She has less years than Mrs. Barnes?

— 127—
A. But she certainly has many more with us. She has most 
of those eight with us.

Q. How many years does Mrs. Barnes have with you? 
A. Only six months.

Q. Six months? And because Mrs. Barnes had less years 
in the system than Mrs. Pearson, you favored Mrs. Pearson 
over Mrs. Barnes ? A. I would say, in this particular case, 
yes. Now that is not a general statement.

Q. Mrs. Mabel Patterson? A. Mrs. Patterson has spent 
most of her thirty-two years in our system.

Q. And her certificate ? A. The same; Bachelors Degree, 
A certificate.

Q. Was she at Balfour last year? A. No. Mrs. Mabel 
Patterson was at Central last year.

Q. At Central last year? Mrs. Barnes is at Balfour this

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



183a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

year. How many years does Mrs. Ruth McRae have in the 
system! A. Probably ten.

Q. What school did she teach at last year! A. Central. 
Q. Central! A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Sarah Lassiter! A. Most of those thirty-three 

have been here, sir. These ladies—several of them—are
—128—

older in the system than I.
Q. And that was the basis for retaining them over Mrs. 

Barnes! A. Well, no, one of the bases certainly, as op­
posed to Mrs. Barnes. I believe this was your original ques­
tion. This would have been a consideration.

Q. Was it the consideration, primary consideration! A. 
A  prime consideration. Let me put it that way. A prime 
consideration.

Q. Were there any other considerations! A. I think 
that’s enough.

Q. That is the only consideration you want to list for the 
record! A. As between which two teachers!

Q. Mrs. Barnes and the other teachers in the schools. 
A. Mrs. Barnes and the other teachers in Central!

Q. In the Balfour School—no, in the Central School. Yes. 
A. Well, for those that you have named so far, let me put 
it that way. I think Mrs. Barnes has good potential for our 
system.

Q. How many years does Mrs. Mary Greta Walker have! 
A. Mary Greta Walker!

Q. No, it’s Verda W'alker, I mean. A. She has a total 
of thirty-eight years experience, approximately ten in our 
system.

—129—
Q. Approximately ten in your system! A. Yes.
Q. Was her longevity in the system a factor that you con­



184a

sidered in relation to Mrs. Barnes here? A. The longevity 
a prime consideration, yes, sir.

Q. Was there another consideration? A. The fact that 
she was accustomed—she had been to that school—of course, 
was a consideration.

Q. You mean the fact that she had been assigned to Bal­
four before? A. That’s right.

Q. How many years of experience does Miss Maureen 
Dunn have in the system? A. Miss Maureen Dunn is new 
this year.

Q. Why was she considered over Mrs. Barnes? A. Mrs. 
Barnes had already accepted a position as librarian when 
Miss Dunn was employed.

Q. Did Mrs. Barnes indicate she did not want to teach 
one of the primary grades? A. No, but when we had an 
opportunity to employ a librarian—I had had to proselyte 
most of our librarians. So we asked Mrs. Barnes if she 
would be interested and she said she would. So this is the 
reason Mrs. Barnes was employed. And after her employ­
ment there, there can be no comparison of her qualifications 
with anybody else.

—130—
Q. Did you have this vacancy in the system before Mrs. 

Barnes was employed as a librarian? A. I don’t believe 
so. I cannot answer that.

Q. Now do you know when this vacancy was created? 
A. No.

Q. How many years of experience does Miss Barbara 
Gant have in the system? A. Which school is Miss Gant 
in ? She must be new in our system.

Q. She is no longer Miss Gant, is she? A. She’s new.
Q. She’s new? A. She was employed late in the summer.
Q. Employed late in the summer? Why was she con­

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

sidered over Mr. Kilgore who wras in the seventh grade! 
A. Mr. Kilgore had informed me that he had accepted a 
position elsewhere.

Q. That was after he had been notified on May 14th that 
there was no position open at that time? A. At that time, 
that’s right.

Q. And when was this position created? A. It was filled 
late in the summer, probably late July or August, but 1 
don’t know when it developed.

Q. You don’t know when it developed! Did you advise 
Mr. Kilgore that the position was open before he sought 
employment elsewhere? A. No.

—131—
Q. You did not? A. If I may add, my letter asked them 

to let us know and this was the basis for my answer.
Q. According to your answers to the interrogatories Mr. 

Carl McKinney had no experience in the system. A Who ?
Q. Mr. Carl McKinney. A. All right, that’s correct.
Q. And he was employed in the primary— A. I don’t 

know him right now though. You’d better let me find out 
where he is.

Q. I don’t know exactly where he is, I just saw this here. 
A. That’s a misprint. Carol McKinney—May I off the 
record get a little information?

(Discussion off the record.)
Q. She had no experience in the system? A. That’s 

right.
Q. Why was she retained over Mrs. Barnes? A. I indi­

cated that Mrs. Barnes had accepted in June a library posi­
tion. Those are difficult positions to fill and therefore we 
were very pleased that Mrs. Barnes had decided to move 
into library science.



186a

Q. And when was Miss McKinney hired by the system!
—132—

A. July, probably.
Q. Would your records indicate when she was hired! A. 

It would indicate the date of her contract, yes, sir.
Q. According to the answers to interrogatories, Mrs. Re­

becca Groome was hired for the first time by the system, is 
that correct! A. Yes.

Q. Why was she retained over Mrs. Segers! A. Mrs. 
Groome is assigned to sixth grade. Mrs. Segers’ certificate 
is invalid in sixth grade.

Q. Is that according to your system? A. No, according 
to the State Board of Education regulation and our system.

Q. And that’s why she was not retained over Mrs. 
Groome? A. That’s right. That is a prime consideration.

Q. What grade is Mrs. Rosalie Hall employed? A. 
Fourth grade.

Q. Now, would Mrs. Brooks’ certificate entitle her to be 
employed in the fourth grade? A. Mrs. Brook’s certificate 
would entitle her to be employed in the fourth grade. Her 
performance with us would not entitle her to be employed 
again.

Q. What did you observe Mrs. Hall’s performance? A. 
Mrs. Hall’s performance has not been observed. She is a 
new teacher in our system. Her employment was on the 
basis of the best investigation we know how to make.

—133—
Q. What did that investigation entail? A. Inquiries 

from former principals and people who know of her work'— 
professional people.

Q. You have written records of that in her file? A. 
Many of these were by telephone due to the urgency. Prob­
ably not much of it.

Q. But her files would indicate some ? A. Her files would

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



187a

indicate an application. I ’m not sure it would indicate any 
of the references which we sought. Some will and some will 
not.

Q. What about Mrs. Barnes? A. Mrs. Barnes’ file will 
not represent any of the references. We employed her after 
the death of her mother last year, and we employed her on 
the basis of telephone conversations with her principal and 
superintendent.

Q. Mr. Teachey, how many white teachers indicated they 
do not want to return to the system this year, 1965-66? A. 
At the time we asked them to indicate, I can’t give you an 
answer. I could give you an answer of the total number of 
resignations as they developed on through August. In fact, 
I have resignations up into the middle of August.

Q. Didn’t the form that you sent them indicate whether 
they wanted re-employment? A. Yes.

—134—
Q. And those forms were returned before May 14th? A. 

Those forms were—I cannot confirm the date, but presumed 
they wmre returned before May 14th.

Q. They were returned, were they not, before the end of 
May? A. Perhaps, I can’t confirm that from memory. 
Nowr, I have a tabulation of all those who resigned, but I do 
not have dates.

Q. How many teachers resigned in the elementary 
schools, do you know offhand? A. I don’t knowT. I can 
count them. Do you wish me to count them ?

Q. I don’t think it wmuld help unless you could indicate 
the date that they resigned. A. No, I can’t indicate the 
date.

Q. Well, we’ll have to submit inteiTogatories for that too. 
What grade is Mrs. Delarius Pipkin teaching? A. Fourth 
grade.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



188a

Q. Why was she retained over Mrs. Brooks! A. I have 
indicated several times that Mrs. Brooks was not considered 
the type teacher we desired.

Q. You didn’t consider Mrs. Brooks for any position, is 
that correct! A. That’s correct.

Q. I see. Did you consider Mr. Murphy for any position? 
A. Yes.

—135—
Q. You indicated that earlier. A. He is now employed 

with us.
Q. Wasn’t any elementary positions open here before 

Mr. Murphy was employed by you? A. Not at his level— 
not at the level at which we felt he would be most competent.

Q. You didn’t have any positions open in grades four 
through eight? A. Not before we employed him. We em­
ployed him before June to teach driver’s education.

Q. Driver’s education? A. That’s right.
Q. But not to teach elementary education? A. No, we 

had planned to keep him in driver’s education until we had 
a vacancy.

Q. And you notified him in May that no position was 
open? A. No, we notified him that there was no position 
open at that time, May 14th, but then before the end of May 
we employed him. He started to work June 7th. June 7th 
was the date he ended his contract at Central, probably 
three or four days, and three or four days later he started 
work at Asheboro High School.

Q. Did you consider Mr. Kilgore for any position? A. 
Not after he told me he had got a position.

Q. Did you consider him for any position prior to that 
time? A. Yes.

—136—
Q. At what time? A. All the time until he told me that.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



189a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey 

Q. All the time? A. Yes.
Q. And you do not know when he told you— A. No.
Q. —that he had other employment? A. No.
Q. And he told you this orally? A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider Miss Peterson for any field? A. 

We had no vacancies in her field.
Q. And what was that? A. Commercial.
Q. No vacancies? A. That’s right.
Q. Did you consider Mr. Newberry for any position? A. 

No vacancies in his field. We had competent and well-pre­
pared counsellors at both of our schools where we have 
counsellors.

Q. Didn’t Mr. Newberry also teach the eighth grade? A. 
Yes, but we considered him chiefly a counsellor.

Q. You didn’t consider him for any academic field? A. 
No.

—137—
Q. You did not? A. No.
Q. Did you consider Miss Jones for any position? A. 

Miss Jones? Mrs. Jones? We have two Jones.
Q. Mrs. Elizabeth Jones. A. Yes. Yes, in fact, she is 

now employed.
Q. In the fifth grade ? A. That’s right.
Q. Did you consider her for a social science position? 

A. If we had a vacany, we did. I don’t recall that we had 
a. vacancy. We considered here for an English vacancy, but 
we could not offer her a position in that field.

Q. I notice that Mr. Ellison Magruder was newly em­
ployed this year. A. In social studies.

Q. In social studies? A. That’s right.
Q. Isn’t that the same field as social science ? A. That’s 

right.
Q. And you had a position open? A. I don’t recall



190a

whether we did. Yes, we did have a position, if Mr. Magru- 
der is in social studies; let me confirm that. Now this 
Magruder, economics and history.

Q. So you had a position open in social studies! A. Yes, 
and Mrs. Jones was considered.

—138—
Q. Well, why was Miss Magruder hired over Miss Jones? 

A. Mrs. Jones. Various qualities, her personality.
Q. What quality! A. Temperament, ability to cooper­

ate with her principal, even though he might not have been 
the most desirable.

Q. And did you retain Mrs. Jones in the system? A. 
Yes, we have retained her. She has been giving us reason­
able service, I’ll have to say.

Q. Did you consider Mr. Price for any kind of position? 
A. We had no vacancy in band and we did not actually 
consider him seriously as a science teacher.

Q. And you didn’t consider him for any science position? 
A. No, we did not consider his science qualifications what 
we need in the science field.

Q. But you did not consider him for any science posi­
tion? A. We did consider him; but he was not offered a 
position for the reasons I gave.

Q. Did you not hire six new teachers in this month? A. 
September?

Q. In September. A. No, we opened school before Sep­
tember. We did not.

Q. I have a news item here— A. Oh, they were ap­
proved but—

Q. September 13th. —indicating that Mrs. Helen B. Rich, 
Mrs. Helen S. Woodley, Mr. Charles W. Loftin, Miss Jus­
tine Blackburn and Mr. Harold Osborne were approved for

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

—1 3 9 -
positions by the Board of Education. A. That’s right.

Q. Which would be September as well? A. That’s right. 
Q. And do you know what subject these teachers are— 

A. Name them again.
Q. Mr. Harold Osborne. A. Industrial arts.
Q. Industrial arts ? A. That’s right.
Q. Miss Justine Blackburn. A. Health.
Q. Mr. Charles Loftin. A. Charles Loftin, language 

arts, social studies; Junior High.
Q. Mrs. Helen Woodley. A. Helen Woodley, third 

grade.
Q. And Mrs. Helen Rich. A. Third grade.
Q. Who was the industrial arts teacher at Central? A. 

Mr. Charles Holley.
Q. And did you state what he was doing now? A. Yes; 

to the best of my—The information I have is that he is em­
ployed at Wilmington High School in Wilmington, North

—140—
Carolina.

Q. And you had an industrial arts position open? A. 
And he had an opportunity.

Q. But you had advised him in May that no position was 
available at that time. A. We did not have the position at 
that time. That’s right.

Q. When did the position become available? A. Early 
June.

Q. And what was the occasion? A. The addition of a 
position which we did not know about at the moment.

Q. Did someone resign? A. No.
Q. You created a new industrial arts position! A. There 

was a resignation later, but he was offered a position be­
fore the resignation.



192a

Q. In June you had a position open for an industrial arts 
teacher? A. For Mr. Holley.

Q. In June a position was available for some teacher in 
industrial arts, is that correct? A. That’s right, and it 
was offered to Mr. Holley.

Q. Was that the first of June? A. By mid-June.
Q. Why was this position created? A. It was created

—141—
on account of heavy registration.

Q. And when did you have the registration? A. What it 
would amount to is it would have been a transfer of a posi­
tion which might have formerly been assigned to some 
other subject area due to heavy registration in that subject.

Q. What do you mean by transfer of another subject 
area? A. We didn’t get any additional positions. This is 
what I meant—no additional positions. But when registra­
tion for example in art goes up—or industrial arts goes up 
—something else has to go down. You can teach a youngster 
only so many hours a day. Industrial arts seemed to be 
popular and we had a heavy registration. Therefore, it 
appeared necessary to reduce the number of teachers as­
signed to other subject areas and add an industrial arts 
teacher.

Q. Does the Board of Education have to approve this 
new position? A. No.

Q. It does not? A. It approves the person—
Q. It approves the person? A. —but it is the Adminis­

tration’s responsibility.
Q. When did the students register for this position? A. 

Mid-M'ay, and they were tabulated by early June.
Q. Mid-May? A. It took probably three or four weeks 

to tabulate them.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



193a

Deposition of Guy B, Teachey

—142—
Q. The registration for industrial arts? A. The regis­

tration for all subjects.
Q. And when did you offer the position to Mr. Holley? 

A. I don’t have an exact date but I would say Mid-June.
Q. I notice on here, Mr. Teachey, that you had employed 

quite a few math teachers. A. Perhaps.
Q. This is according to your answers to interrogatories. 

A. All right.
Q. Didn’t Mr. Holley also teach math? A. Mr. Holley— 

let’s see; did he? Primarily industrial arts. If he taught 
mathematics, it wasn’t the only thing. I have him listed last 
year as industrial arts. If he taught mathematics, I have 
no record of it for last year. Now he perhaps has in the 
past.

Q. Taught mathematics? A. Yes; but his certificate is 
industrial arts.

Q. How many teachers—new teachers—did you employ 
in grades seven and eight? A. Grades seven and eight, 
four, plus one who left last year for maternity. And if 
that’s considered here, the total would be five.

Q. Would you name those? A. Yes. George C. Bridges, 
Jr.,—No, I believe I counted one here who is not in grade 
seven or eight. I could have given you one too many. I’ll

- 1 4 3 -
name them. —Ernest Samuel Jordan, Mrs. Linda M. My- 
lan, and that’s all. Mrs. Diane S. Taylor returned to our 
system after maternity leave.

Q. Mrs.— A. Diane S. Taylor.
Q. Why was Messrs. Jordan and Bridges considered over 

Mrs. Segers? A. Because we didn’t need a music teacher 
in our present organization.

Q. You didn’t need a music teacher? A. No, sir.



194a

Q. Doesn’t Mrs. Segers teach other than music! A. She 
did, but she did not have a certificate other than music.

Q. What certificate does Mrs. Taylor have! A. Mrs. 
Taylor has social studies. She is teaching social studies and 
language arts.

Q. Didn’t you state earlier that you had exceptions where 
teachers had certificates for one particular field and you— 
A. In very rare instances, I believe I said, and we would 
attempt not to.

Q. Well, why didn’t you give preference to the longevity 
of Mrs. Segers over the new teachers you brought into the 
system? A. Mrs. Segers’ longevity is quite limited. Mrs. 
Segers has been here only two years.

—144—
Q. Three years in addition to the past year? A. Yes, 

perhaps. This matter of longevity, I indicated, is not a con­
sideration for continuation. If so, it would be impossible to 
make any changes.

Q. You stated it was a consideration previously. A. It 
was a consideration, but not a most important considera­
tion.

Q. It was a consideration for retaining the teacher in 
Balfour, wasn’t it? A. I pointed out there—in particular 
cases when other things are equal—it may be. But only 
when other things are equal.

Q. And wouldn’t the same thing apply to Mr. Ernest 
Samuel Jordan and Mrs. Linda Mylan? A. It was.

Q. And Mrs. Diane Taylor? A. It was.
Q. All new to the system? A. Mrs. Taylor wasn’t new. 

Actually, she had no contract because she left last year; but 
she had been with us. It would—

Q. And Mrs. Segers had three years? A. She had a 
music certificate.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



195a

Q. With three years in the system1? A. But we did not 
have a music vacancy.

Q. And she had taught other subjects besides music? A.
—145—

She had taught half-time in the seventh and eighth.
Q. Including all subjects in the seventh and eighth grade? 

A. Part of the subjects.
Q. Do you know those subjects? A. No, I can’t tell you 

what they were; I ’m sorry.

Mr. Chambers: Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Anderson:

Q. Mr. Teachey, what training have you had in the edu­
cational field, sir? A. Teacher’s certificate, to begin with; 
eight years teaching experience; principalship from 1936 
until 1947; and Superintendent from 1947 through the 
present, with degrees—both Bachelors and Masters Degree 
—plus some advanced graduate study, ail at the University 
of North Carolina.

Q. Are you a member of any honor societies? A. Well, 
I’m usually fairly modest; I was fortunate enough to be 
elected to Phi Beta Kappa and an honorary education fra­
ternity, Phi Delta Kappa.

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, are the schools of the Asheboro 
School System approved by any organization that passes 
on the excellence of public schools? A. By the North Caro­
lina State Department of Public Instruction and by the 
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

—146—
Q. When was the approval by the Southern Association 

of Colleges and Schools received? A. We received what is 
known as system-wide elementary accreditation one year 
ago. The Asheboro High School and also the Junior High

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



196a

School—The Asheboro High School was accredited by the 
same organization in 1951.

Mr. Chambers: I’m sorry. Is that the High School 
and Junior High School!

The Witness: No. Asheboro Junior High School 
at the same time we had system-wide elementary.

Mr. Anderson: System-wide elementary and Ashe­
boro Junior High were last year, I believe; the 
Senior High was in 1951.

Q. What action, if any, has been taken by the Asheboro 
City Board of Education specifically directed at excellence 
in academics! A. The Board is on record, through its 
Committee on Academics which has been especially active 
in this area, as having as one of its goals the development 
of an outstanding educational system. Now this includes, 
of course, the best curriculum possible and the best person­
nel, with facilities to match. Now this is in the records of 
our Committee on Academics and approved by the Board 
of Education two-and-a-half to three years ago.

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, prior to the adoption of the plan 
for compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

—147—
1964, has there ever been an application for transfer by a 
Negro student which was not approved! A. No.

Q. Now when was this plan adopted—that is, the plan 
for compliance and the geographic assignment that you 
referred to in your direct testimony? A. The plan adopted 
originally was adopted originally February 11, 1965, in its 
basic components. Now since that time, there have been 
some revisions, of course, with conferences with the Office 
of Education. But the original plan, February 11, 1965.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



197a

Q. Under the plan adopted February 11, 1965, do all 
students in grades ten through twelve in the Asheboro City 
School District attend the same school? A. Ask that again, 
please, Mr. Anderson.

Q. Under the plan adopted in February of ’65—for the 
school year beginning 1965-66 and thereafter—do all stu­
dents in the Asheboro City School District attending grades 
ten through twelve attend the same school? A. Yes.

Q. Now for this same period, do all students in Asheboro 
City School District in grades eight and nine attend the 
same school? A. Yes.

—148—
Q. And for the same period and under the same plan, 

do all students in Asheboro City School District in grade 
seven attend the same school? A. Yes.

Q. In other words, the system operates only one seventh- 
grade school, is that correct? A. A  seventh-grade pupil 
can attend only one school in our District.

Q. And a junior high pupil can attend only one school, 
is that correct, sir? A. That’s right; only one school is 
available for any pupil and for all pupils in the grades 
seven through twelve.

Q. Now in the elementary grades, Mr. Teachey, is initial 
assignment based on a geographic line? A. It is.

Q. And have those lines been publicized? A. Yes.
Q. State whether or not there is an absolute right of 

transfer in the elementary schools? A. Any pupil whose 
parents request transfer within fifteen days after the 
notice of assignment may transfer to the school of the 
parents’ choice.

Q. This is a matter of right, is it? A. As a matter of 
right.

Q. Now state whether or not requests for transfers re-

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



198a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

—149—
ceived after fifteen days from notice of assignment will be 
considered? A. Will be considered and approved, gener­
ally.

Q. What limitations, if any, would you put on it? A. 
The only limitation is overcrowding at a particular school; 
and this overcrowding is based on standards of transfering 
capacity set by the Southern Association of Colleges and 
Schools. Up to that point, they will still be approved.

Q. Now when were the assignments made for the school 
year ’65-66, Mr. Teachey? A. The first week in June they 
were mailed—probably about the 7th of June.

Q. Now with the assignment, was there also a notice to 
the parent advising the parent of the right of transfer— 
that is, of the elementary schools, grades one through six? 
A. There was. They were advised clearly.

Q. Mr. Teachey, do you know how many students were 
at Central High School and Central Elementary School in 
the year ’64-65 that have since transferred to the county 
system? A. I can’t give you the information in that order; 
I can give you the number there last year and the number 
still in our system, if this would meet your purposes.

Q. All right, sir. A. Now Central High only, or the 
total for Central?

Q. Well, if you have it separate, give it to us separate. 
A. All right. Central High, last year, 246; this year, of

- 1 5 0 -
course, there are none in the high school department.

Q. How many Negro students do you have in the Junior 
High and Senior High this year? A. Seventy three at 
Asheboro High School; eighty six at Asheboro Junior High 
School; thirty three at Fayetteville Street School. That’s 
all the Negro pupils in our district; total 192, compared to



199a

246. So we lost the difference to the County presumably. 
There would be some variation, of course. Some have 
moved in.

Q. All right, Mr. Teachey, getting down to specific teach­
ers now. State whether or not Mr. Newberry indicated to 
you or the Board that he desired to be re-employed by the 
Asheboro City School System for the year ’65-66! A. Mr. 
Newberry apparently— May I check the folder one more 
time on that? I have a folder; I thought I checked a while 
ago. I don’t know whether it was last year or the one before. 
I don’t have a recent one here; I thought I had. Let me see. 

Q. Go and get the folder, if you wish.
(Discussion off the record.)

A. Mr. Anderson, Mr. Newberry returned this form on 
April 22, 1965, in which he did state that he would accept 
appointment for ’65-66 if he were elected—or if he were 
offered such employment. We later received from a good 
many teachers another formal application stating that 
they would like to be considered. I did not receive such an 
application from Mr. Newberry.

—151—
Mr. Chambers: I ’m sorry, I didn’t hear the last. 
The Witness: We did not receive such an appli­

cation from Mr. Newberry. That was after we had 
told him that there was no position available for him. 
Several of them—there were two or three who did 
not submit a second one. Of course, it was not neces­
sary.

Q. (By Mr. Anderson) He did indicate that he desired 
re-employment? A. That’s right, on April 22nd.

Q. Now there has been some discussion as to the degrees 
which he holds. Will you check his file and tell us what

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



200a

Masters Degrees he lists? A. Mr. Newberry holds a Mas­
ters Degree, according to his application.

Q. In what field? A. Vocational guidance and counsel­
ing. Now this is the only Masters Degree Mr. Newberry 
lists. If he has any others, we have no record of it. He 
has some additional summer credit, he says, at New York 
University in counseling and guidance. That was 1958 and 
’59. And then he indicates that he went another summer 
and studied some more counseling and special education. 
I don’t know what level. This is his listing. This was his 
application to us; and he lists a Masters Degree.

Q. Mr. Teachey, Mr. Chambers asked you whether you 
considered Mr. Newberry for any position other than coun­
selor—that is, whether you considered him for science or

- 1 5 2 -
social studies. Does he have any training in those fields? 
A. He has a certificate in science and his Bachelors Degree 
was in science and social studies.

Q. Well, did you in fact consider him or not for any 
position in this field? A. Yes, we did. I might have im­
plied that he was not considered; but he definitely was 
considered. But his qualifications were not what we needed. 
May I add that all of his graduate work has been in coun­
seling.

Q. Yes, sir. And I believe that both of the other counsel­
ors also hold Masters Degrees, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, did you send to all the teachers 
in the Asheboro City School System a letter stating that 
all employment and assignment would be made without 
consideration of race or other factors? I’m not trying to 
quote it; I’m trying to paraphrase it. Have you sent such 
a letter of any type? A. To all teachers?

Q. Yes, sir. A. No. Only to those who seemed to be

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



201a

questioning it. Many of our teachers, I think, had no ques­
tion on this score. But we did send such a letter to the 
staff—not to all teachers, but I believe we addressed it to 
some of the staff at Central in following up the action of 
the Board in this matter.

—153—
Q. Well now, when was this action of the Board taken, 

Mr. Teachey? A. April 8, 1965. At the conclusion of dis­
cussion, the Board authorized the Superintendent to write 
to the teachers who were presently employed and to inform 
all other instructional personnel, which we did by announce­
ment rather than writing. We wrote those—this was it: 
“Henceforth all pupils will be assigned to school by geo­
graphic areas and teachers will be employed on the basis 
of qualifications for any position which is open; and that 
the Board proposed to handle all assignments of pupils 
and teachers without reference to race and to continue its 
efforts to provide for this community the best possible 
school system staffed by the most competent professionals 
available.”

Q. That action was taken in April 1965? A. April 8, 
1965.

Q. When was the plan for desegregation adopted, Mr. 
Teachey? A. February 11, 1965.

Q. And this lawsuit was started about June 9th, was it 
not, 1965; sometime in June, was it? A. Mr. Anderson, I 
can’t answer that; I can’t tell whether that’s the 11th. It 
looks like June the 11th. It was signed by Mr. Chambers 
on the— No, this is something else.

Q. Well, the record of course will speak for itself. A. 
I don’t know.

Deposition- of Guy B. Teachey



Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

—154—
Q. Now there was some discussion concerning the possi­

bility of hiring Mr. Murphey as head coach. Who is the 
head coach now, Mr. Teacheyf A. Mr. Lee Stone is head 
coach and has been head coach and director of athletics 
since 1948.

Q. In fact, I believe our High School stadium is named 
in his honor, is it not? A. Lee J. Stone Stadium.

Q. Has he been rather successful in the coaching field 
in high school athletics? A. Quite successful; quite suc­
cessful.

Q. Now are there other assistant coaches other than Mr. 
Murphey? A. Several.

Q. Can you think of any offhand? A. Yes. Mr. Smith, 
Mr. Morgan—Mr. Smith is William J. Smith, and Mr. Max 
D. Morgan—Mr. Morris B. Whitson, Mr. Donald Thomas— 

Q. Mr. Morgan, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Murphey are con­
sidered the three top assistant coaches, are they not, sir? 
A. They are the three assistant football coaches. Now we 
have probably a dozen in other areas.

Q. Yes, sir. And I believe their pictures, together with 
Coach Stone’s picture, are the ones run in the football pro­
grams, are they not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. They appear there, given approximately equal billing,
- 1 5 5 -

are they? A. Yes, sir.

(A document hereinafter referred to was marked 
for identification as: Defendant’s Exhibit No. 
1.)

By Mr. Anderson:

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, in your direct testimony you indi­
cated that Mrs. Marietta Foster was the subject of a re­



203a

port from a supervisor from the State Department of Pub­
lic Instruction. I hand you a document which has been 
marked for identification as Defendant’s Exhibit Number 1 
and ask you if you can tell us what that is, sir? A. Yes, 
sir. This is a report by Mrs. Marie C. Moffit, Assistant 
State Supervisor, Home Economics Education, on her visit 
to Central High School home economics department March 
11, 1965.

Mr. Anderson: I want to offer that. Do you want 
to stipulate that we can use a copy in lieu of the 
original?

Mr. Chambers: I’ll stipulate that; but I want to 
offer an objection to it. But I’ll stipulate that you 
can offer a copy of this in lieu of the original.

By Mr. Anderson:

Q. All right, sir. Now you indicated that Mrs. Foster, 
together with Mrs. Earline Palmer and Miss or Mrs. Janie 
A. Brooks, were not rehired because of inefficiency or poor

—1 5 6 -
preparation—or something to that effect. Were there any 
white teachers who were not rehired because of inefficiency 
or poor preparation? A. Yes.

Q. Is there any tenure in the teaching profession in 
North Carolina? A. Contract is one year only, Mr. Ander­
son.

(A document hereinafter referred to was marked 
for identification as: Defendant’s Exhibit No. 
2. )

Q. I hand you a document which has been marked for 
identification as Defendant’s Exhibit Number 2 and ask

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



204a

you if you can tell us what that is? A. The Contract for 
Instructional Service used generally by the North Caro­
lina Public School System.

Mr. Anderson: I ’d like to offer that into evidence. 
Mr. Chambers: I’ll stipulate to that. I would like 

to get a copy of that, a copy of the contract.
The Witness: You can get that from our office. 
Mr. Anderson: That’s all I have.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, I have a couple of questions here. You 
stated that prior to the plan adopted by the School Board, 
the School Board had granted all applications by Negro

- 1 5 7 -
students to transfer, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. And you had had a total of six? A. That’s correct. 
Q. And that you had on no previous occasion notified the 

parents by any official policy of the Board that the Board 
would consider application for a transfer? A. This was 
fairly well publicized several years ago; there was no con­
tinuing and regular announcement made, but it was gen­
eral knowledge.

Q. Do you mean publicized by the newspaper because of 
the passage of the North Carolina Pupil Enrollment Act? 
A. Yes, and later when our plan—local plan—-was adopted, 
probably ’56 or ’57; I don’t remember the exact time.

Q. Your local plan provided for initial assignment back 
to the school the students attended the previous year and 
then permitted them to transfer according to the criteria 
set up in the North Carolina Pupil Enrollment Act? A. 
Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



205a

Q. And your plan also provided for initial registration 
is the schools the particular racial group attended the previ­
ous year? A. No.

Q. What was the— A. This was not covered.
—158—

Q. It was not covered. What really happened was that 
all Negroes initially registered in the Central School? 
A. I can think of no exception at this time.

Q. And the first time you had any integration at all in 
the school system was the previous year, 1964-65? A. Yes.

Q. And that was the six that you referred to a moment 
ago? A. Yes.

Q. Now you stated your plan was amended after it was 
initially adopted. Why was it amended? A. Now you are 
speaking of a different plan now?

Q. Yes, the plan for compliance with Title VI. A. In 
February, we adopted a reorganization plan as described 
in our minutes. On the basis of that plan, we assured the 
Office of Education that we would comply under a form 
known as HEW 441, which simply was an assurance of 
compliance. This was done on the basis of the action 
February the 11th and actually authorized on February 
the 11th.

Now approximately thirty to forty-five days later, we 
were informed that the Office of Education would not 
accept from a southern school system any such assurance. 
I can’t offer any explanation for this but this was a fact.

Therefore we had to write it out according to an out­
line provided by the Office of Education. There was no 
difference essentially but we described it in somewhat out­
lined detail.

—159—
Q. Do you have a copy of the initial plan, the one

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



206a

adopted February the 11th! A. Yes, that’s in our copy 
of the minutes.

Q. May I see that?
Has your plan for compliance been approved by the 

Department of HEW? A. Not finally. It has been ap­
proved in principle. I—

Q. Do you have— I’m sorry. A. “The plan for de­
segregation of your school district has been reviewed by 
the staff of the Office of Education and has been deter­
mined to be adequate to meet the requirements of the 
Office for compliance with Title VI of the Civil Eights Act 
of 1964.” This is signed by acting Commissioner Henry 
Loomis—it looks like.

Now I omitted the one exception which he takes.
Q. May I see that letter? A. “Except for the question 

of possible discriminatory dismissal of teachers.”
Q. May I see that letter?

Mr. Anderson: We’re going to chase rabbits in 
this if we’re going by the HEW because I ’m going 
back to February on it.

Mr. Chambers: Well, we just want to get what 
has taken place.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. You stated that the lines adopted for the elementary

- 160-

grades had been publicized? A. Yes, made available and 
described in some detail. The map is available for anyone 
who cares to view it in the front hall of this building.

Q. And you have adopted a provision that permits trans­
fer after initial assignment? A. Yes.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



207a

Q. And this transfer provision was available to the 
white students originally assigned to Central Elementary 
School! A. Yes.

Q. So that now we have only Negro students in Central! 
A. That’s right, sir.

Q. You stated also that assignments were made the first 
week of June. Is that assignment for the elementary 
grades! A. All grades.

Q. All grades, the first week of June! A. Yes.
Q. And students had fifteen days after that to request 

transfer! A. Yes. Well, actually they have much longer 
than that to request transfer. But our plan, as approved 
in principle, only provides fifteen days. But in addition 
there is a statement that beyond that date consideration 
will be given for any request for transfer submitted after 
fifteen days from the date on which notice of assignment 
is made, but this will be done without regard—but the

- 1 6 1 -
approval will not be automatic. It’s automatic up to that 
point but after that it has to be considered on the basis of 
crowding.

Q. Mr. Teachey, you stated that you did consider Mr. 
Newberry for other positions! A. Yes.

Q. Besides counseling! A. Just as all teachers were 
considered.

Q. What to you mean by “just as all teachers were con­
sidered” ! A. Any teacher is always considered whether 
his contract is renewed or not; there is a consideration.

Q. To what extent did you consider Mr. Newberry’s ap­
plication! A. To the extent that we decided that the 
only position we would have available for him would be 
in counseling; and we had no vacancy.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



208a

Q. Did you not state that he had a certificate in science 
and social studies? A. I did state that he had science 
and social studies listed on his certificate, which subjects 
he is eligible to teach.

Q. And did you not employ Mr. Magruder for social 
studies— A. We did.

Q. -—this year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. First year in the system? A. Yes, sir.

—162—
Q. He has only a B certificate? A. He has an A cer­

tificate.
Q. He has an A certificate and a BA Degree? A. That’s 

right.
Q. A Bachelors Degree. And Mr. Newberry has a Mas­

ters Degree, a Bachelors Degree in science and social 
studies? A. A Bachelors Degree in science and social 
studies. At least he has enough in each area to get it on 
his certificate.

Q. He had enough in each area; that’s both science and 
social studies? A. In his undergraduate—

Q. To qualify to teach either science or social studies? 
A. Presumably.

Q. And did you not also employ Mr. Archie Fairley for 
social studies and science? A. Yes. Mr. Archie Fairley 
has almost completed his Doctor’s Degree; he is Director 
of Secondary Science Instruction, for which Mr. Newberry 
would have been wholly inadequate.

Q. He is Director of Secondary Science Instruction? A. 
Yes.

Q. Did you employ another science instructor? A. Yes. 
We employed Mr. James A. Hayworth, who earned his 
Masters Degree at the University of North Carolina after 
leaving us. He was in our service for a couple of years; and

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



209a

Ms performance is considerably beyond that which Mr. 
Newberry has shown.

—163—
Q. You have other science instructors! A. Yes.
Q. Who have only Bachelors Degrees! A. Yes.
Q. How many years has Mr. Newberry been in the— A. 

Two years.
Q. Two years. Did you compare Mr. Newberry so far 

as his science qualifications— A. Yes.
Q. —were concerned with the other science teachers! A. 

Yes.
Q. You did! A. Yes.
Q. What sicence teachers did you compare him with! 

A. All of them.
Q. All of them! A. Informally.
Q. What do you mean by “informally” ! A. As we gen­

erally do, by observation and subjective evaluation.
Q. Subjective evaluation! A. Much of it—much of a 

teacher’s evaluation has to be subjective.
Q. Isn’t Mr. George Bridges new to the system! A. Yes,

—164—
Mr. Bridges is new.

Q. And he’s in science! A. Mr. Bridges is in science- 
math.

Q. And Mr. Ernest Jordan! A. Yes.
Q. And you employed Mrs. Linda Mylan in language arts 

and social studies! A. Yes.
Q. You stated that you had also refused to employ some 

white teachers because of inefficiency! A. That’s correct.
Q. Could you name those teachers! A. I can name two 

or three of them. As I indicated in earlier testimony, quite 
often this type thing is resolved in conference rather than 
a refusal to sign a contract—or to offer a contract. But

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



210a

Mrs. Margaret M. Atkins, we requested her resignation 
even prior to the close of school last year. Another one— 

Q. Was that because of inefficiency? A. Inefficiency; in­
efficiency.

Q. What degree does she hold! A. She holds a Masters 
Degree and a graduate certificate.

Q. Was there another teacher! A. Yes. We had to re­
quest a resignation from Mrs. Faye Dean Kirk.

—165—
Q. Who? A. Faye Dean Kirk.
Q. Does she hold a Masters Degree also? A. No, she 

holds a Bachelors Degree and an A certificate.
Q. She had an A certificate? A. These are the only two. 

I ’m sure there was one more, but the name—I would have 
to look in the record.

Q. How many years of experience did they have? A. 
Mrs. Kirk had sixteen.

Q. And the other teacher? A. Nine.
Q. Mr. Teachey, you stated—according to your interroga­

tories—that Miss Sarah McLaurin was offered a contract? 
A. Miss Sarah McLaurin was under contract until her res­
ignation in July or June.

Q. She was under contract to teach in the school system 
this year? A. Yes, this year.

Q. And Mrs. Elizabeth Garner is still in the school sys­
tem? A. Yes.

Q. Likewise Mrs. Lucille Barrett? A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Teachey, in the first plan you adopted in Febru­

ary 1965, did you provide for non-racial employment and 
assignment of teachers ? A. I don’t recall; I ’ll have to read

—166—
it ; I don’t remember whether it was stated. If not, it was 
definitely implied. I don’t see anything about employment 
in the original one, but in April this was included.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



211a

Q, It was included in the provision in April but not in 
the February provision? A. I don’t see it. Now in Febru­
ary, the Board did go on record right here (indicating) 
that it would assure the Office of Education that it would 
comply with the Civil Bights Act of 1964. And if employ­
ment practices are included in the Civil Bights Act of 1964, 
then this was done in February.

Q. Did it say in there that it was? A. Not specifically, 
but only the Civil Bights Act of 1964.

Q. Did it make any reference at all to the teachers, re­
garding the non-racial employment of teachers? A. I don’t 
see any reference but my statement that there is reference 
to the Civil Bights Act of 1964. If there is any reference 
to employment practices in that Act, it does thereby refer 
to it.

Q. Did you receive a form of compliance from the Depart­
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare prior to the meet­
ing in February? A. This question puzzles me.

Q. Did not the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare send forms of compliance or regulations regard­
ing compliance with Title VI of the Civil Bights Act? A.

—167- 
No.

Q. It did not?

Mr. Anderson: They sent guidelines, I’m sure. 
That may be what you’re talking about, this guide­
line?

Mr. Chambers: Yes.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. They did send out guidelines, did they not? A. The 
guidelines came much later.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



212a

Q. Than February! A. We didn’t receive the guidelines 
until after a meeting in Ealeigh and our meeting was soon 
thereafter.

Q. Was anything said at the Board meeting on February 
11th regarding non-racial employment and assignment of 
teachers? Your minutes do not reflect anything? A. Our 
minutes do not reflect it ; and you ask me to give an answer 
which I cannot. My recollection is that the problem or the 
situation was discussed but I could not pinpoint it.

Q. Certainly your minutes do not show any affirmative 
policy by the Board, expressed policy? A. Yes, that it 
will conform and comply with the Civil Eights Act of 1964.

Q. But no expressed policy to the effect that it will em­
ploy and assign teachers on a non-racial basis? A. Other 
than that which is included in the Civil Eights Act of 1964,

- 1 6 8 -
no, sir.

Q. Which might be implied, according to you, in the 
Civil Eights Act. But there was no expressed reference?' 
A. Well, I ’m not sure it’s implied.

Q. But there is no expressed reference in the provisions 
of the Board—February 11th—that the Board will assign 
teachers on a non-racial basis? A. In those words, no.

Q. Now to go back for just a moment to make sure that 
we have included in the record, you stated that you did not 
consider Mrs. Palmer for any position? A. Yes, if I stated 
this. She wasn’t considered for any position after we dis­
covered that her National Teacher Examination score was 
so low. She was told at the beginning that if she could get 
that up to a reasonable score, we would employ her as a 
librarian, probably an itinerant librarian.

Q. She was told that if she brought it up that you would

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



213a

employ her? A. Her score was—I don’t remember what 
her score was. But it was very, very small.

Q. Did she not have an A certificate? A. Yes.
Q. Which would have been good for this year? A. It 

would have been good for one more year; and if she gets 
her score on up, of course, it will become good for three

—169—
more years after that.

Q. And because you say she did not have a certificate, 
you did not consider her? A. We could not take the risk, 
that’s right.

Q. You did not consider her for any position? A. Not 
after that term.

Q. After which term? A. After the term that we found 
out that her score was still in the mid-400’s or whatever.

Q. You didn’t know that it was in the mid-400’s before? 
A. No. She took the exam over.

Q. She took it over? And when did you discover it was 
in the mid-400’s? A. Well, a probationary certificate-— 
Usually we don’t get certificates on beginning teachers un­
til after school opens in many cases; and in Mrs. Palmer’s 
case, her institution had given her a good recommendation 
but they failed to send us the National Teacher Examina­
tion. So accordingly when we got her certificate, we found 
that we had a teacher who had a two-year probationary cer­
tificate.

Q. And because of this, you didn’t consider her for any 
position as librarian? A. That’s right.

Q. Now Mrs. Brooks, you didn’t consider either for— 
A. Mrs. Brooks, we didn’t consider for any position in our

- 1 7 0 -
system.

Q. The reason for that was? A. Ineffective teaching.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



214a

Q. According to whose report! A. According to the 
Director of Elementary Instruction and my own observa­
tion.

Q. And Mrs. Foster, you didn’t consider for a position 
because of the report you received from the— A. That 
was one of the prime considerations.

Q. That was one of the prime considerations! A. That’s 
right.

Q. Mr. Teachey, is this a true copy of the letter that was 
sent to the teachers at Central! A. It is.

Mr. Chambers: Will you stipulate that this is a 
copy!

Mr. Anderson: Yes.
(The document above referred to was marked 

for identification as: Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 
A.)

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, is this the original copy of the— A. 
Yes, but you can’t have that one.

Q. —of the letter that you received from the Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare regarding the plan of 
compliance of the Asheboro City Board of Education! A.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

Mr. Chambers: We proffer that as Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit B and we would like to substitute a copy.

Mr. Anderson: We’ll stipulate that a copy can be 
substituted in lieu of the original but we don’t admit 
the admissibility of this letter.



215a

(The document above referred to was marked 
for identification as: Plaintiff’s Exhibit No.
B.)

Mr. Chambers: No further questions.

Recross Examination By Mr. Anderson:

Q. Mr. Teachey, concerning the office of Health, Educa­
tion, and Welfare, did you attend a meeting in Raleigh, 
North Carolina in January of 1965, at which time two 
representatives of this office talked to you and other school 
administrators? A. Yes.

Q. State whether or not they told you that the only thing 
necessary to send in at that time was a certificate of assur­
ance? A. Yes.

Mr. Pearson: We’re going to have to object. This 
is hearsay.

—172—
Mr. Anderson: Well, you brought this stuff up. 

By Mr. Anderson:

Q. Did this School Board send the certificate of assurance 
to Health, Education, and Welfare? A. It did.

Q. What response was received from Health, Education, 
and Welfare? A. After some time, thirty or forty-five 
days approximately, we simply had a notice that our plan 
was not acceptable and at the same time we received from 
the State Department of Public Instruction information 
that no such assurances would be accepted from southern 
school systems.

Q. Did you and I go to Washington in June of 1965 and 
talk with Mr. Robert Janover of the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare? A. We did.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



216a

Q. Were you and I told by Mr. Janover that our plan 
would not be approved because the NAACP had objected 
to what they considered wholesale firing of teachers?

Mr. Chambers: We object to that.

A. We were.

Mr. Chambers: We withdraw the objection.

Q. Did you and I later see Doctor Ring of the Depart­
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare? A. We did.

Q. Do you recall what month this was in? A. July.
—173—

Q. State whether or not he told us that our plan had 
been marked for approval since April of 1965?

Mr. Chambers: We object to that.

A. He did.

Mr. Anderson: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, isn’t it true that the 441 plan of compli­
ance with the HEW requires that a school system be com­
pletely integrated? A. Our school system is completely 
integrated.

Q. Doesn’t the 441 form require that school systems be 
completely integrated?

Mr. Anderson: The 441 form—we’re going to ob­
ject here—will speak for itself, if you want to put it 
in evidence.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



217a

Q. You can answer the question.

Mr. Anderson: I think the question, as pro­
pounded, calls for a conclusion.

A. Form 441 requires a School Board to assure the De­
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare that it will 
comply—not has complied, but will comply—with the Civil 
Bights Act of 1964, with the provisions of the Civil Bights 
Act of 1964.

Q. You are not getting the forms mixed up, are you,
—174—

Mr. Teachey? A. I don’t think so. HEW form 441, is this 
what you’re talking about? 441 is simply a one-sheet as­
surance of compliance. That’s the one to which I refer.

Q. That the School Board has complied? A. No. That 
does not so state. It states that we will comply; and this is 
our contention.

Q. Mr. Teachey, at the time you submitted that form, 
were not all the school teachers in the school system as­
signed on a racial basis? A. No.

Q. Were not all Negro teachers assigned to the Central 
School? A. Yes.

Q. Were not all white teachers, with the exception of the 
floating teacher you mentioned earlier, assigned to white 
schools? A. Yes.

Q. And that was the status of the school system at that 
time ? A. At that time.

Q. And you stated earlier that in the plan adopted Feb­
ruary the 11th there was no reference at all—expressed 
reference—to non-racial employment and assignment of 
teachers? A. Except in that it assured compliance with 
the Civil Bights Act of 1964, that is correct. The only 
thing, sir, that 441 states, “hereby agrees that it will com­
ply” ; it does not state that it has.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



218a

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

—175—
(A document hereinafter referred to was marked 

for identification as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 
3.)

Recross Examination by Mr. Anderson:
Q. Mr. Teachey, I hand you a document that has been 

marked for identification as Defendant’s Exhibit Number 
3. Can you tell us what that is? A. This is a statement of 
assurance of compliance with the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare regulation under Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Q. Does it bear a form number! A. Yes, HEW-441.

Mr. Anderson: I ’d like to introduce that into evi­
dence.

Mr. Chambers: No objection.
Mr. Anderson: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, one more question: Did the Board sub­
mit a plan with that form? A. No.

Q. It did not? A. No.
—176—

Q. The only thing that the Board submitted is that form? 
A. That’s right.

Mr. Chambers: No further questions.
Mr. Anderson: That’s all.
(Whereupon, at the conclusion of the taking of the 

deposition of Mr. T. Henry Redding, the witness was 
recalled and testified further as follows:)



219a

Redirect Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, did the Board list students or require 
listing by teachers of race during the 1965-66 school year? 
A. No.

Q. They did not? They were not listed by race in the 
register? A. Perhaps some teachers may have done so 
because the registers we received from the State Depart­
ment possibly still carry race; but the principals were in­
structed that this was not a requirement.

Q. The registers do list the students by race? A. Prob­
ably so; not all teachers have done it but some of them may 
have.

Q. Don’t your registers in 1965-66 require listing of stu­
dents by race? A. Frankly, I haven’t examined it; but a 
principal called me the other day and said, “A few of my

— 1 7 7 -
teachers have listed students by race. Now shall I make an 
issue and ask them to erase it?” I said it was not required, 
“We’ll leave it at that for the time being” . The other teach­
ers, he said, did not list race.

Q. You didn’t require it? A. Didn’t require any teacher 
to list race, that’s right.

Q. How did you determine how many students you had 
by race? A. We had to count them. Yesterday when I 
was preparing these figures for HEW, we had to send a 
communique to each school and ask them to count them.

Q. And your teachers are listed by race? A. No.
Q. Wii\n they apply, they have to submit a photograph? 

A. No.
Q. The form requires a photograph. A. The form re­

quests a photograph.
Q. And they have to send in one? A. No.
Q. You require one, don’t you? A. No.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



220a

Q. Do you have any applicant now who has not submitted 
a photograph? A. Many.

Q. You do? In your files? A. Teachers who did not sub-
—178—

mit applications and there are probably some applications 
who did not have photographs.

Q. Do you still have the file of the applications by the 
teachers? A. We still have some applications on file.

Q. And they would be in the files of each teacher? A. 
No, they would be in the files of applicants.

Q. Of applicants? Those who are hired? A. No, they 
would be in the folders.

Q. Of the teachers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Each application? A. Yes, sir. Not a hundred per­

cent ; generally—generally, this would be true.
Q. When did you stop requiring a picture? A. We never 

have required a picture.
Q. You never required a picture? A. We only request 

one, if possible.
Q. How would you determine that a Negro applicant was 

making application? A. We wouldn’t have any way of 
knowing.

Q. Does that mean you hire people without considering 
the race? A. Usually we have personal interviews, if pos­
sible.

Q. And that’s the way you determine whether they were 
Negro or white? A. That would be obvious.

—179—
Q. How many Negro applicants did you have for em­

ployment this year? A. I can’t answer that question.
Q. Are their applications on file? A. Yes.
Q. Did you employ any new Negro teacher this year?

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



221a

A. No teacher of the Negro race who was not in our system 
last year.

Q. You employed no new Negro teacher for the 1965-66 
school year. And you don’t recall the exact number of ap­
plications by Negroes? A. No.

Mr. Chambers: No further questions.
A nd f u r t h e r  d e p o n e n t  s a i t h  n o t .

—1 8 0 -
CERTIFICATE

State of North Carolina 
County of Guilford

I, Chester L. H ollifield, Court Reporter and a Notary 
Public duly appointed and qualified in and for the County of 
Guilford, State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that 
pursuant to notice there came before me on the 21st day of 
September, 1965, in the Asheboro Schools Administration 
Building, Asheboro, North Carolina, the following named 
person, to wit: Guy B. T eachey, who was by me duly sworn 
to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of his 
knowledge touching and concerning the matters in contro­
versy in this cause; that he was thereupon carefully ex­
amined upon his oath and his examination reduced to writ­
ing under my supervision, and that the deposition is a true 
record of the testimony given by the witness.

I further certify that on the 12th day of October, 1965, I 
placed in the United States mail at Greensboro, North Caro­
lina, the ribbon copy of this deposition, addressed to Hugh 
R. Anderson, Esq., Lawyers Row, Asheboro, North Caro­
lina, for the signature of the witness.

I further certify that I am neither attorney or counsel 
for, nor related to or employed by, any of the parties to the

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey



222a

action in which this deposition is taken, and further that I 
am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel

—181—
employed by the parties hereto, or financially interested in 
the action.

I n  w i t n e s s  w h e b e o e , I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my official seal this 12th day of October, 1965.

Deposition of Guy B. Teachey

Notary Public, County of Guilford 
State of North Carolina 

My Commission expires October 25, 1966.



223a

Memorandum of May 9, 1966

This matter came on for trial before the Court, sitting 
without a jury, in the United States Courtroom, Post Office 
Building, Greensboro, North Carolina, on Tuesday, May 3, 
1966, and was concluded on Wednesday, May 4, 1966.

J. Levonne Chambers, Esquire, appeared as counsel for 
the plaintiff; Hugh Anderson, Esquire, and Hal H. Walker, 
Esquire, appeared as counsel for the defendant.

The plaintiff introduced evidence and the defendant of­
fered no evidence. At the conclusion of the case, the defend­
ant moved for a dismissal on the grounds, among others, as 
more particularly appearing in the record, that upon the 
facts of the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. 
The Court declined to render any judgment until proposed 
findings of fact and conclusions of law are submitted to the 
Court.

The plaintiff is directed to file with the Court, on or be­
fore the 25th day of May, 1966, proposed findings of fact 
and conclusions of law, with brief in support of such find­
ings. The defendant is directed to file with the Court pro­
posed findings of fact and conclusions of law on or before 
the 6th of June, 1966, with brief in support of its proposed 
findings. At the time of filing such proposals and briefs 
with the Court, copies thereof will be mailed to counsel of 
record.

Both parties waive oral argument.



224a

Transcript of Hearing May 3, 1966

The Court: Gentlemen, the case for hearing is that 
of North Carolina Teachers Association vs. Asheboro City 
Board of Education. Is the plaintiff ready!

Mr. Chambers: The plaintiff’s ready, Your Honor.
The Court: Is the defendant ready?
Mr. Walker: The defendant’s ready.
The Court: All right. It’s usual that we have in cases 

an opening statement. That I find is always helpful to me. 
I have read through the file and am familiar with the file, 
but would be glad to hear any opening statement that you 
desire to make. Mr. Chambers, are you desirous of making 
an opening statement?

Mr. Chambers: Just briefly, Your Honor. This is an­
other school case involving the dismissal of Negro teachers 
in the Asheboro School System following reorganization 
of the school system. The School Board in Asheboro has 
operated a school system under which Negro students and 
teachers have been assigned to Negro schools and white 
students and teachers have been assigned to white schools. 
At the close of the 1964-65 school year, the School Board 
decided to reorganize the school system, converted the all- 
Negro Central High School, consisting of grades 1 through 
12, into an elementary school and dismissed the Negro 
teachers teaching in the high school and some of the Negro

—4—
teachers teaching in the elementary school. It is our con­
tention here that the School Board in doing so discrim­
inated against the Negro teachers and followed a proce­
dure which denied the teachers of their rights under the 
due process and the protection of laws of the Fourteenth 
Amendment. We are praying here in this suit for an in­

—3—



225a

junction enjoining the School Board to reinstate the Negro 
teachers, for an injunction requiring that the School Board 
cease operating a system under which teachers are de­
prived of their rights under the due process of an equal 
protection of laws, and for an order enjoining the School 
Board for continue to make assignments of teachers in the 
school system according to race.

The Court: This involves, as I read it, solely the matter 
of teacher assignment and has no involvement with pupil 
assignment.

Mr. Chambers: No involvement with the pupil assign­
ment.

The Court: All right. Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker: May it please the Court, very briefly, the 

defendant, Asheboro City Board of Education, categorically 
denies that any teachers who were dismissed—the position 
of the defendant is that certain teachers were not reem­
ployed but states that this was done for reasons other

—5—-
than race. The defendant contends that the sole question 
is as to whether or not anyone’s constitutional rights have 
been violated, and the position of the Court and the posi­
tion of the defendant is that this Court should determine 
only one issue, and that is whether or not any rights have 
been violated, whether the Asheboro City Board of Edu­
cation has been either arbitrary, unreasonable, or has de­
prived anyone of their constitutional rights. That very 
briefly is our position, sir.

The Court: All right. The case is with the plaintiff.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, initially, we’d like to in­

troduce some exhibits. I would like to have them marked 
for purposes of identification. Again we request the per­
mission of the Court if the exhibits are admitted, to sub­

Colloquy



226a

stitute copies that we have. We would like to have marked 
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, answers to interrogatories 
filed by the defendant on July 23rd, 1965.

The Court: Let me inquire, Mr. Chambers, at this 
juncture. Mr. Everhart, will it be more convenient if 
I give you the file and get the original out and you can 
mark it now?

The Clerk: Your Honor, we went through the file and 
none of them seem to be in our official court records.

— 6—

Mr. Chambers: Except the third exhibit.
The Court: Here are some.
The Clerk: I presented it to Mr. Chambers, and I believe 

he only found one.
Mr. Chambers: One set.
The Court: One set of interrogatories? Well, of course, 

you run into the problem that you can’t substitute the 
original which isn’t in here. Now, is this one we have the 
original of?

Mr. Chambers: No, that would be the third one that 
you have there. I didn’t know whether there were any other 
copies of the interrogatories in the Clerk’s file besides 
those.

The Court: Have you already looked through these?
Mr. Chambers: We’ve gone through that and didn’t 

find them there.
The Court: Is it possible that there is another file?
The Clerk: No, sir.
The Court: We will have to work that out and maybe 

make copies of them. Now, Exhibit 1, that is our inter­
rogatories filed what date?

Mr. Chambers: July 23rd, 1965.
The Court: All right.

Colloquy



227a

Colloquy

(The document above referred to was marked Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)

Mr. Chambers: Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2, we’d like to 
have marked, the answers to interrogatories filed by the 
defendant January 20,1966. This, too, Your Honor, I know 
is missing from the file.

(The document above referred to was marked Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 2 for identification.)

Mr. Chambers: As Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3, we like to 
have marked as answers by the defendant and interroga­
tory on March 5, 1966, and I think that there is a copy of 
that in the file.

(The document above referred to was marked Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 3 for identification.)

Mr. Walker: Your Honor, we have—I’m sure if I had 
just a moment I could find the other one also, but here is 
a copy of what has been proposed as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, 
marked “Received March 7th” in the Clerk’s office, so we 
could certainly substitute one for these.

The Court: All right. Maybe when we get through 
maybe in the files would be copies. After we get through 
here, when the Clerk—if you would all go through—and 
maybe available copies are here that we could substitute. 
All right.

Mr. Chambers: Our third exhibit was answers to inter-
— 8 —

rogatories filed by the defendant on March 5th, 1966. Our 
fourth exhibit, I ’d like to have marked, would be the depo­
sitions of Mr. Guy B. Teachey. I think the Court does have

— 7—



228a

the original copy of this. And the fifth exhibit would be 
the depositions of Mr. T. Henry Redding.

The Court: Would there be, Mr. Chambers, more than 
one deposition of Mr. Teachey or Mr. Redding?

Mr. Chambers: One of each, sir. In the fourth exhibit, 
there is a letter of May 14th, from Mr. Guy B. Teachey to 
teachers at Central High School, which we had marked 
there as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A, and we would like to note 
for the record that we would like that attached to the 
fourth exhibit of the plaintiff.

The Court: Is that letter available ?
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.
(The documents above referred to were marked Plain­

tiff’s Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 for identification.)
The Court: When the exhibits are all numbered and 

they are offered for evidence, I will inquire and hear any 
objection that the defendant has to the exhibits, but if we 
may wait until that time.

Mr. Anderson: May I inquire what is missing, pre­
cisely!

— 9 —

Mr. Chambers: From the files?
Mr. Anderson: Yes.
Mr. Chambers: The first and second answers to inter­

rogatories filed by the defendant, one on June 23rd, and 
I think the one on March the 5th—July 23rd and March 5. 
The Court has the third set of interrogatories. It’s the 
second set.

Mr. Walker: May it please the Court, here is a copy 
marked “Filed January 21, 1966” of the interrogatories, 
an extra copy that we have.

The Court: Is that the answers, Mr. Walker!

Colloquy



229a

Mr. Walker: Yes, sir.
The Court: Could that be used as the exhibit, Mr. 

Walker, and leave you with a copy for your file?
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. Would you examine it and maybe 

right at this juncture we might substitute his, Mr. Cham­
bers, and resolve that situation. I have an idea that we 
will locate the others here in the court files someplace, 
but at the time being, unless we not be able to locate 
those interrogatories, if we could get copies now it would 
be helpful.

Mr. Chambers: This is all right. A copy of the second 
exhibit.

The Court: All right. Mr. Everhart, how about marking
— 10—

that as Exhibit 2 rather than the one you had. That will 
leave us then only with Exhibit 1, the July 23rd. Do you 
have an extra copy of that?

Mr. Walker: We have it, but not an extra copy, may it 
please the Court.

The Court: During the noon hour, if you will lend 
that to one of the law clerks, he can have a copy made 
upstairs.

Mr. Walker: I beg your pardon, sir. We have an extra 
copy.

The Court: All right. That is not an extra copy?
Mr. Chambers: Just one section is missing, and we will 

have to Xerox that copy.
The Court: Mr. Everhart, would you get one of the 

ladies to do that during the noon period?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. I believe we can do it. It would 

be a copy of a copy, but I think it will pick it up.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we’d like to call at this time 

Mr. Guy B. Teachey.

Colloquy



230a

Whereupon, Guy B. Teachey was duly sworn, and testi­
fied as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you state your name, please! A. Guy B.
— 11—

Teachey.
Q. Mr. Teachey, you are superintendent of the Asheboro 

City Schools! A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been superintendent! A. Since 

1947. Forty-seven from sixty-six—nineteen years approxi­
mate.

Q. Would you state to the Court, Mr. Teachey, the func­
tion of the superintendent in the employment of school 
personnel in the Asheboro School System! A. The super­
intendent recommends personnel to the Board of Educa­
tion. If approved, individuals are then employed.

Q. That is, approved by the Board of Education! A. 
Yes.

Q. Would you state the procedure which you followed 
through 1964 in employing or considering for employment 
teachers in the Asheboro School System! A. Upon ap­
plication of the teacher, we investigate it as thoroughly 
as possible, made a decision as to the qualifications and 
abilities of the individual. Actually, in most cases, for 
teaching personnel, we then executed a contract under 
policy of the Board which had delegated this authority 
to the Superintendent of Schools. At the next regular

- 12-

meeting of the Board of Education, this contract was 
approved.

Q. How did one make application to the Board! A. 
The Board made application through the administrative 
office, the office of the superintendent.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



231a

Q. You mean the teacher applicant would make applica­
tion to the superintendent? A. That’s right.

Q. No application was made to the principal? A. Gen­
erally, no. If they were made to the principal, they came 
to the superintendent. Occasionally, a teacher would apply 
to a principal, a candidate would apply to a principal. This 
is perhaps due to the fact that in many systems, especially 
county systems of education, the custom is to make ap­
plication to the principal. And in city units, city admin­
istrative units, the responsibility rests with the superin­
tendent.

Q. Is it true that through 1964 all Negro teachers in 
the Asheboro City School System were assigned to one 
school? A. The year, please?

Q. Through 1964. A. Yes.
Q. Is it also Hue that they were assigned to this one 

school through the school year 1964-65? A. State your
-—13—

question again and let me be sure I have it.
Q. Were all Negroes assigned to the one school through 

the school year 1964-65? A. Yes.
Q. And that school was the Central High School? A. 

Central High School. Central High School was a union 
school, of course.

Q, Let me ask this. Was Central the only high school 
then operated for the Negro race? Just the one school? 
A. Just one school.

The Court: Was that elementary?
The Witness: It was grades 1 through 12. That 

determined union involved, grades 1 through 12.
The Court: All right.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



232a

Q. Were all white teachers through the 1964-65 school 
year assigned to the white schools?

Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: Just a minute.
Mr. Walker: White school.
Mr. Chambers: I ’ll rephrase the question.
The Court: Sustained. Rephrase your question.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, is it true through the 1964-65 school 
year, white students were assigned to schools different 
from those to which Negro students were assigned? A.

—14— 
No.

Q. What exception was there, Mr. Teachey? A. In at 
least two schools, there were Negro and white pupils.

Q. What were those two schools, Mr. Teachey? A. Ashe- 
boro High School and Lindley Park School.

Q. Now, did any white students attend the school, Cen­
tral High School? A. No.

Q. And all white students were assigned to the other 
school in the school system? A. The year again, please?

Q. Through 64-65? A. Yes.
Q. Now, is it true that these schools that these white 

students were assigned were staffed entirely by white 
teachers and school personnel through the 1964-65 school 
year? A. Does your question include professional per­
sonnel only?

Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. I ’m talking about teachers—well, professional school 

personnel. Only white teachers and such personnel were

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



233a

assigned to the schools to which the white students were
—15—

assigned! A. Yes.
Q. How did the School Board proceed in employing and 

reemploying teachers and the school personnel through the 
school year 1964-65! A. I believe, generally, I believe I 
have responded to that question in depositions, but please 
state it again so that I may be sure.

Q. You did reemploy the teachers and school personnel 
in the school system, say, following 1963-64 school year. 
You reemployed the teachers for the 1964-65 school year? 
A. Some of them, yes.

Q. Now, had did you proceed in employing these teach­
ers? A. Upon recommendation of the superintendent to 
the board.

Q. Now, how did the superintendent come about making 
his recommendation? A. Through various means of evalu­
ation.

Q. Would you describe those various means? A. Well, 
yes, I don’t know how much detail you wish, but a teacher 
who has been in the system a good number of years, has 
been observed and teacher evaluations have been made year 
after year presumably. For a teacher who has been in 
the system a shorter period of time, evaluations are made

—16—
from the beginning, many times informally but occa­
sionally formally, evaluations by principals, evaluations by 
superintendents, by the superintendent, assistant superin­
tendent, supervisors, these quite often—conferences be­
tween principals, and occasionally even between superin­
tendents, and the individual teachers are held in connec­
tion with performance. Out of all these, a decision is made 
concerning the contract for the following year.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



234a

Q. How did you proceed in determining whether a teacher 
wanted to be reemployed! A. We asked the staff in the 
spring. I normally inquire of all staff members if they 
wish to be considered.

Q. How do you inquire! A. In duplicated—in a dupli­
cated kind of a form letter which gives them option to indi­
cate if they wish to be considered, if they wish to resign, 
if they wish to retire, or I think maybe there is another 
option, at least one other option, which I don’t recall right 
now.

Q. When is this letter sent out! A. At varying times.
Q. What would be the normal time that the letter would 

be sent out! A. February through April 1 to 10.
Q. And when were the forms to be returned! A. Nor­

mally we ask them to return them as early as is con-
—17—

venient. There is no deadline usually set.
Q. A teacher on this form would indicate that he or 

she wanted to remain in the system or wanted to resign! 
A. That’s correct.

Q. And etcetera. Was it necessary for the teacher to 
make a new application for employment! A. If you mean 
by a written formal application, it was not usually neces­
sary.

Q. I ’m talking about the same application a teacher made 
when the teacher first came into the system! A. This 
form was not required.

Q. And the only thing the teacher had to do was to 
execute this intent as shown on the letter that was sent to 
the teachers! A. That’s correct.

Q. From this, then, you would consider the teacher for 
reemployment for the next school year! A. That’s cor­
rect.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



235a

Q. Now, you say determination would be made whether 
to recommend to the Board. Is that determination made 
by the superintendent ? A. The final determination is made 
by the superintendent.

Q. Would you—strike that. Did you have a number of 
people that you generally employed each year, new teach­
ers to the school system? What was your normal turn-

—18—
over rate? A. Five to eight, perhaps occasionally to ten 
percent.

Q. Five to eight to ten percent? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the number of teachers in the school 

system in the high schools for the 1964-65 school year? 
A. No. I believe that’s in my earlier deposition.

Q. Do you know now the number that you had in the 
school system? A. No.

Q. Do you know the number of high school teachers you 
have for the 1965-66 school year? A. No, unless I refer 
to records.

Q. Do you have those records with you? A. I may have 
something which will give me an answer to that question, 
if I may have the time. Would you like to have it?

Q. We’d like to have the number, if you know. A. All 
right. The number of teachers in the high school during 
the present term?

Q. The present school term. A. I have here the in­
formation on Asheboro High School. Is this your ques­
tion?

Q. That is the only high school that you have in the 
system for the 1965-66 school year? A. The only high

—1 9 -
school. Now, if you distinguish between  ̂the term “high

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff—Direct



236a

school” and “secondary school” , it is not the only secondary 
school.

Q. Do you have in your school system a junior high 
school? A. Yes.

Q. What are the number of students in the high school 
as distinguished from the junior high school? A. I don’t—

Mr. Walker: Students?
Mr. Anderson: Students or teachers!
Mr. Chambers: Students.

A. The number of students?

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. The number of teachers, I ’m sorry. A. Thirty-nine 
full-time teachers, one part-time, one principal, one librar­
ian, and one guidance counsellor, and thirty-nine, forty- 
two—let’s see—forty-one plus one part-time—

Q. What is the part-time teacher? A. Art.
Q. Does this teacher teach in the junior high school? 

A. No.
Q. Does the teacher teach anywhere else besides the high

— 20-

school? A. The teacher is a part-time supervisor of art 
in all the elementary schools.

Q. Do you have the number of teachers in the junior 
high school? A. I think so.

The Court: Let me get this right before you move 
to that. You said you had 39 full-time teachers, one 
principal, one librarian, one guidance counsellor, and 
one part-time instructor.

The Witness: Yes.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff-—Direct



237a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct 

The Court: All right.

By the Witness:

A. Now, the question please! Junior High School?

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Yes. Junior High School. A. Twenty-nine full-time 
teachers, two part-time, one librarian, and one guidance 
counsellor—did I mention one principal?

Q. What are the two part-time teachers doing-at the 
junior- high school? A. One is in special education in a 
program for exceptionally talented youngsters; the other 
is in music, band, perhaps. Please, if I may, I can’t be 
sure what that second part-time position is. One I am 
certain is in talented program. The other I would have to 
be back at the office to tell you exactly.

— 21—

Q. Do you have the number of teachers in the elementary 
school for the 1965-66 school year? A. By schools?

Q. The total number. A. I f I may have time to add 
them.

Q. Could you give it to us by school, then? A. All 
right. Fourteen—

The Court: Just a minute. Let me catch up here. 
All right. Now.

A. Teachers and principals?

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Yes. A. And librarians, and so on. Balfour School— 

The Court: Which school is that?



238a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct 

The Witness: B-a-l-f-o-n-r School.

By the Witness:

A. Fourteen full-time teachers, one principal, two part- 
time instructors, two part-time people, one is a librarian, 
the other is music. Central, ten full-time teachers, one 
principal, two part-time, one is a librarian, the other is 
music. Charles W. McCrary, nineteen full-time teachers, 
one principal, one full-time librarian, two part-time teach­
ers, one is in music and frankly, I don’t recall the other 
part-time position. Donna Lee Loflin School, eighteen full­
time teachers, one principal, one librarian, and again, two 
part-time instructors, one of which is music, certainly, and 
this other eludes my memory at this time.

— 22—

The Court: And that school, Mr. Teachey, what’s 
the name of that school!

The Witness: The name is Donna, D-o-n-n-a, Lee 
Loflin, L-o-f-l-i-n.

By the Witness:

A. The Fayetteville Street School, fifteen full-time teach­
ers, one principal, one full-time librarian. The Guy B. 
Teachey School has twenty full-time teachers, one prin­
cipal, one librarian, two part-time teachers, of which one 
is definitely music.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you know the other one? A. No. And finally, 
Lindley Park School, sixteen full-time teachers, one prin­
cipal, one librarian, and again, two part-time instructors, 
of which one is music. Now, this other one perhaps is a



239a

teacher, an itinerant teacher provided by our churches and 
other organizations in the community to teach Old and 
New Testament.

Q. Is this teacher provided to teach Old and New Testa­
ment paid through the Board of Education? A. Yes. 
Would not—well, she’s a member of the staff but paid 
entirely by private subscription.

Q. But the checks are written by the Board of Educa­
tion? A. Yes.

Mr. Anderson: We’re going to object to that and 
move to strike.

—23—
The Court: You’re objecting to the form of the 

question? His question was this is paid through the 
Board of Education, and I didn’t recall that you 
answered. Hid you answer? Don’t answer if you 
haven’t. Did you answer it?

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: What was your answer?
The Witness: The answer was yes, the Board of 

Education handles the funds.
The Court: Overruled. Go ahead.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, was it a former practice or it is the 
practice of the school board to rehire teachers the follow­
ing year unless there is some objection by the principal 
of the school or some administrative personnel evaluating 
the teacher? A. I am not sure I follow the intent of your 
question. Yes.

Q. Is it a practice to rehire teachers year after year 
unless there is some objection by the principal or person

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



240a

in the administration who might deal in the evaluation of 
the teacher! A. The answer is yes, of course, except that 
retirement age—this is a quite natural thing if there’s no 
objection, if there’s no reason a person should not be 
employed and the position is there, certainly we consider

— 24—

them and employ them if there’s a position available.
Q. Do you recall the number of Negro teachers hired 

at the Asheboro School System and the Central High School 
for the 1964-65 school year! A. Twenty including prin­
cipals—twenty-four, I believe. It may be twenty-five. 
Twenty-four is the number. I can also check that if you 
want it.

Q. I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 and ask you 
to examine this exhibit which is the answers to interroga­
tories filed by the defendant.

The Court: Mr. Chambers, your question was how 
many Negro teachers were hired at the Central 
School in the ’64-65 school year. Is that it!

Mr. Chambers: That’s the question.

By the Witness:

A. Do you mean, Mr. Chambers, employed or hired!

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. The number of teacher employed by the school board 
as professional staff personnel for ’64-65 season. A. I 
apologize for my question, but I interpret hired to mean 
employed now at a particular time. A teacher employed 
is one who was on the job, is the way we look at it.

Q. I was talking about the 1964-65 school year. A. On 
the job?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



241a

Q. Yes. A. Twenty-four.
—25—

Q. Do you know the number of teachers employed there 
at that school for the 1965-66 school year? A. This year?

Q. This year. A. At the beginning of the year, eleven. 
We have added one or two, at least two professional 
people in a pre-school program since that time.

Q. What kind of pre-school program is that, Mr. Teachey? 
A. Kindergarten and nursery.

Q. Is the pre-school program part of the regular pro­
gram of the school system? A. It is part of the regular 
program of the school system. However, it is financed 
differently.

Q. How is it financed? A. It’s financed through a grant 
from the Office of—the United States Office of Education.

Q. The teachers in this pre-school program are employed 
entirely by the school board? A. Yes.

Q. Again referring to Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, which I 
would like for you to examine, would you look at Schedule 
B of that exhibit—

Mr. Anderson: You’re going to offer this now?
—26—

Mr. Chambers: Yes. We’d like to offer it.
The Court: That is Number 1 ?
Mr. Chambers: Number 1. While we’re at it, Your 

Honor, we’d like to tender all the plaintiff’s exhibits.
The Court: All right. He has had identified and 

marked Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. What says the de­
fendant?

Mr. Walker: We have no objections, may it please 
the Court:

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff-—Direct



242a

The Court: All right. Let the record show that 
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 through 5, inclusive, are re­
ceived into the evidence.

(The documents above referred to, heretofore 
marked Plaintiff’s Exhibits Nos. 1 through 
5, inclusive, for identification, were received 
in evidence.)

Mr. Walker: This is off the record. Mr. Chambers 
seems to be using our copy that we loaned to the 
Court, and I don’t have one.

Mr. Chambers: What’s this?
The Court: Of Exhibit 1?
Mr. Chambers: That’s my copy of Exhibit 1, 

that’s the one I introduced to the Court.
Mr. Walker: It’s the one I gave you.
Mr. Chambers: No, I left it over there.
Mr. Walker: Well, it’s not here now.

—27—
The Court: Well, let’s see if we can get another 

one. He’d be entitled to one.
Mr. Walker: I gave the only one I had of that. I 

had an extra one of 2, and I would like to follow 
along. That’s the only thing.

The Court: That is one that’s missing from the 
Court file, isn’t it?

Mr. Walker : Yes, sir.
The Court: Would you have another one, Mr. 

Teachey?
The Witness: I will see, sir.
The Court: Number 1 is the interrogatories filed 

July 23rd.
Mr. Walker: We have found a copy, sir.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



243a

The Court: All right. He has located a copy, 
then. All right, Mr. Chambers. I believe you had 
addressed a question to Mr. Teachey, something 
along this line, again referring to Exhibit No. 1 
on Schedule “B” . Would you proceed, then.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you examine that exhibit and explain to the 
Court the numbers or designations indicated in that sched­
ule? A. Yes. This is a listing of all professional and 
some other personnel in Asheboro City Schools during 
1964-65. We have an answer to interrogatories as a part

—28—
of our—as to our reply to interrogatories indicated on this 
listing in four columns, as follows: Column One indicates 
the individual’s degree, the individual’s certificate, and total 
experience. Column Two is only the teacher’s or prin­
cipal’s or the person’s name. Column Three indicates— 
apparently I ’ll have to look at the question on that one, 
Mr. Chambers. Let me see what question two is.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. I believe if you refer to the answer to question five, 
you might find your explanation of that, Mr. Teachey. A. 
The name, training, years of experience. The teachers 
whose contracts were renewed for the 1965-66 school year 
indicated on attached Schedule B, Column Three, by an 
“X” .

The Court: Column Three, then, indicates what, 
Mr. Teachey?

The Witness: The teachers whose contracts were 
renewed. This is, in fact, a misstatement, because

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



244a

contracts are in fact not renewed contracts, are new 
contracts each year, but the intent is the same.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. These are teachers who were reemployedf A. That 
is correct. And Column Four indicates teachers who re­
tired, resigned or were not reemployed for other reasons. 

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, look at Column One on the first
—2 9 -

page of Schedule B. What is this “D” beside the name of 
Mr. Keith C. Hudson? A. That indicates a doctor’s de­
gree.

Q. Now, the number two would indicate what? This is 
“ADM” and “ADV”, I think it is. A. Administrative, ad­
ministrative certificate advanced.

Q. And number three would indicate what? A. The 
number of years of experience.

Q. Now, would that be the number of years of experience 
in the school system? A. No, total experience.

Q. On this schedule, do you have the total number of 
years in the school system? A. Not on this one.

Q. Now, the “RET” appearing beside the name of Helen 
Bostick, also on that first page of Schedule B, would indi­
cate what? A. Retirement.

Q. What would the arrow following the name of Warren 
D. Beaufort, Jr. indicate? A. Resigned.

Q. Turning to the third page of that schedule and Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit No. 1, the top righthand corner has the name 
Mrs. Brenda S. Dayle. What does the “RP” in Column

- 3 0 -
Four indicate? A. These questions are all answered in 
number five of the answers to the interrogatories, and I ’ll 
read from that.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



245a

The Court: Now, let me ask this. The matter of 
the abbreviations. Is that also answered?

The Witness: “RP” , Your Honor, resigned for 
pregnancy.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Is that a permanent resignation? A. Yes.
Q. Is the teacher generally reemployed the following year 

or following some terminal period? A. Not necessarily.
Q. Is it the general policy to reemploy the teacher fol­

lowing this pregnancy? A. The general policy is that 
the teacher will be considered upon another application.

Q. Is it necessary for the teacher to file a new applica­
tion for employment? A. That’s right.

Q. Turning to the next page, Mr. Teachey, we have an 
“RR” in parentheses, “RET” following the name of Mrs. 
Lena T. Jackson. What is the explanation for that? A. 
Resignation is indicated by capital “R” . Resignation re­
quested is indicated by an abbreviation “RR” .

Q. What des the “RET” in parentheses— A. This is
—31—

an additional, in this particular teacher’s case, an addi­
tional bit of information, that upon request for resigna­
tion, the teacher applied for retirement benefits.

The Court: Now, is that abbreviation described 
and explained in your interrogatory five?

The Witness: The “RET”, Your Honor, may not 
be. That is an additional thing in parentheses under­
neath the regular code.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



246a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Now, turning to the school, Charles W. McCrary, 
also in Schedule B of Plaintiffs Exhibit 1, the bottom 
lefthand corner has the name Mrs. Mary M. Andrews, 
teacher aide. Now, does this person have a college degree 
or certificate1? A. No.

Q. What is a teachers aide? A. A teachers aide is a 
non-professional person who assists in non-professional 
duties.

Q. And what would these non-professional duties gen­
erally consist of? A. Record keeping, handling moneys, 
lunch moneys. There are dozens of details which go on in 
the classroom which an aide can do when available.

Q. How was this teacher paid? A. This particular posi­
tion is provided as a part of a project known as a “ Com­
prehensive School Improvement Project,” in which we have

—32—
been experimenting with team teaching.

Q. Is the teacher employed by the school board? I mean 
the person? A. He is an employee of the school board.

Q. And is paid through the school board? A. Yes.
Q. Now, turning to the school, Gluy B. Teachey School. 

We have the name Mrs. Mary Jo Durham, special ed. in 
parentheses, day center, and also in parentheses, attendant. 
A. This is a non— Excuse me.

Q. Ho ahead. A. This is a non-professional position 
also. This day center is for retarded children, seriously 
retarded children. We have in this school or in this part 
of a school one instructor and one attendant. Mrs. Durham 
is a non-professional attendant.

Q. Now, is Beatrice S. Crisco? A. She’s a professional 
instructor.



247a

Q. Does she have a degree? A. No.
Q. This “B” in number two in column one would repre­

sent what? A. A “B” certificate, Class B certificate.
Q. What kind of certificate is that? A. It is a certificate 

that is based originally on a normal school—graduation
—33—

from a normal school. A normal school was a two-year 
teacher preparation course which is no longer in vogue. 
Presently a “B” certificate is issued only on the basis of a 
degree, but the fact that this particular teacher received a 
degree earlier, she still holds a Class B certificate, and 
she has had considerable study in working with trainable 
children.

Q. Is this teacher employed by the school board? A. 
By the school board.

Q. And paid through the school board? A, That’s cor­
rect.

Q. Both Mrs. Crisco and Mrs. Durham? A. That’s cor­
rect.

The Court: Mr. Chambers, would you give me 
just a moment? Mr. Smith, would you approach 
the bench?

(A discussion was held off the record.)
The Court: All right, Mr. Chambers.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, again going back to Schedule B of Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit No. 1, would you turn to the list of teachers 
in Central High School. What does the “OR” following 
Mr, Charles N. Holley’s name indicate?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



248a

The Court: Let me ask this before you get into 
that. Are those abbreviations in some interrogatory 
that is on file?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
—34—

The Court: All right. I ’m not objecting to your 
question. I just want to be sure I have all of the 
explanations. Before you get into that, what inter­
rogatory answer is that, Mr. Teachey?

Mr. Chambers: That’s the first set, July the 23rd, 
1965, and I think the explanation of the board is 
given is questions four and five of those inter­
rogatories.

The Court: All right. Go head.

By the Witness:
A. “OB” indicates that the individual was offered a posi­
tion and declined.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. What does the “PR” indicate following the name of 

Mrs. Elizabeth Jones? A. A principal’s recommendation.
Q. What does the “NY” following the name of Gaines 

Price indicate? A. No vacancy in his field.
Q. What does the “RR” following the name of Mrs. 

Janie Brooks indicate? A. Resignation requested.
Q. The “NV” following the name of Mr. Lewis New­

berry would indicate no vacancy also? A. That’s cor­
rect.

Q. Turning to Schedule C of those answers, would you 
state what that schedule shows? A. Schedule C was a 
response to this question: Please state for each school

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



249a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—-Direct

—3 5 -
in the Asheboro School District for the 1965-66 school 
year: (a) the name of each teacher, administrative and 
professional personnel whose contract was renewed for 
the 1965-66 school year; the name, educational training 
and years of experience—this is (b)—and course or courses 
to be taught by each teacher, administrative or profes­
sional personnel who was employed for the first time by 
the board for the 1965-66 school year; the reason or rea­
sons for not renewing the contract of each teacher, admin­
istrative, or professional personnel who was employed by 
the school board during the 1964-65 school year and not 
during the 1965-66 school year. Schedule C is in answer 
to five (b).

Q. Which is the name— A. Name, educational training, 
years of experience, courses to be taught by each teacher, 
administrative or professional personnel who was em­
ployed for the first time by the board for the 1965-66 
school year.

Q. Mr. Teachey, turning to the plan of compliance at­
tached to this set of interrogatories, would you refer here 
to the provision in this plan regarding teachers and state 
how that plan has been implemented during the 1965-66 
school year? A. The plan of compliance with the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, attached as a part of the answer, states

—36—
under “Policy Governing Employment and/or Assignment 
of Staff and Professional Personnel,” as follows: Employ­
ment and/or assignment of staff members and profes­
sional personnel shall be based henceforth on factors which 
do not include race, color, or national origin, and shall 
be on a non-discriminatory basis. Factors to be considered 
would include training, competence, experience and other



250a

objective means of making evaluation. I believe, sir, this 
speaks for itself in that the Asheboro City Board of Edu­
cation has implemented to the best of its knowledge this 
part of its plan.

Q. Is it true, Mr. Teachey, that during 1965-66 school 
year, Negro teachers in the school system were again re­
turned to Central High School or Central School! A. 
Some—

Q. With the exception of three teachers! A. Some of 
them were.

Q. Is it true, Mr. Teachey, that only Negro teachers and 
one white principal are now teaching at the Central School! 
A. No.

Q. How many other teachers, Mr. Teachey, white teach­
ers! A. One other full-time.

Q. Who is that! A. Her name is—I can only give you 
her surname. It’s a lady named Mrs. Sanford.

—37—
Q. When was she brought into the school system, Mr. 

Teachey? A. During the winter. She is a kindergarten 
instructor.

Q. She is a kindergarten instructor? A. Yes.

The Court: She is a white teacher?
The Witness: Yes.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Is there another white teacher besides the principal? 
A. Not another white teacher. We have another white 
aide in this school.

Q. And who is this white aide, Mr. Teachey? A. Again, 
her name is Everhart, Mrs. Everhart.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



251a

Q. What does she do at the school? A. She is an aide 
in the pre-school program.

Q. In the pre-school program? A. Yes.
Q. In the pre-school program you have a white teacher 

and a white aide? A. And a Negro nursery teacher.
Q. And a Negro nursery teacher? A. That’s right.
Q. Who directs that pre-school program? A. The prin­

cipal.
—38—

Q. And is the principal white or Negro? A. The prin­
cipal at Central School is white.

Q. Are all of the personnel in that school system Negro?

The Court: Did you say the principal is Negro or 
white ?

The Witness: White.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Are all other staff personnel in that school Negro 
or white, Mr. Teachey? A. Including part-time instruc­
tors, there are at Central ten Negro, eleven Negro persons, 
three white persons.

Q. Eleven Negro persons and three white persons? A. 
Yes.

Q. And those three white persons are the two nursery 
personnel and the principal? A. That’s right.

Q. Did you not state earlier in depositions, Mr. Teachey, 
that it was your practice to return teachers to the school 
in which they formerly taught? A. Perhaps. I would have 
to review my statement. But it is generally done unless 
there is some reason for doing otherwise.

Q. The teachers are returned to the same school in which 
they taught the previous year? A. Teachers are given

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



252a

an opportunity to request on the same form which we
— 39—

mentioned earlier. There is another section which gives 
them an opportunity to indicate preferences.

Q. Is it not generally true, though, Mr. Teachey, that 
teachers are returned to the same school in wThich they 
taught the previous year? A. Does it apply-—ninety per­
cent?

Q. Whatever percentage you think necessary. A.Ninety 
percent, yes.

Q. Ninety percent of the people are generally returned 
to the same school they taught in the previous year? A. 
Yes.

Q. This means that the Negro teachers assigned to 
Central School who were reemployed for the next school 
year would generally be reassigned to the same school?

Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Is it not true that the teachers reemployed in Central 
School for the 1965-66 school year were returned with 
the exception of three teachers to Central School? A. 
Yes.

Q. Is it also true, Mr. Teachey, that teachers employed 
in the predominantly white schools who were reemployed 
for 1965-66 were returned to the same school?

—40—
Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: Just a minute, Mr. Teachey. Over­

ruled. Go ahead. You may answer.
Mr. Walker: Your Honor, might I state, the rea­

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



253a

son for that assumes that we have white and Negro 
students. We do not.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I said predominantly 
white.

Mr. Walker: That’s the same thing, sir.
The Court: Overruled. Go ahead, if you can an­

swer.

By the Witness:

A. I think I can answer. Schools which were formerly all- 
white had assigned generally the teachers who were em­
ployed in those schools the prior year.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, I think you’ve answered this yes or no. 
Isn’t it true that teachers employed at the Guy B. Teachey 
School during the 1964-65 school year who were reemployed 
for the 1965-66 school year were returned to the Guy B. 
Teachey School? A. I can’t answer.

Q. Mr. Teachey, I show you answers that were filed by 
the defendant to interrogatories of the plaintiff, which is 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3, Schedule A of that exhibit, and I 
ask if you would examine the teachers of the Guy B. Tea­
chey School for the 1965-66 school year. Is the “S” follow­
ing the names of those teachers an indication that these 
teachers are in the same school they taught in for the 1964-

—41—
65 school year? A. I don’t have the key to this schedule, 
but I assume this is correct. “S” would indicate.

Q. Do you see any exception in that schedule, Mr. Tea­
chey, for persons who were not returned to the Guy B. 
Teachey School who taught there during the 1964-65 school

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



254a

year? A. This is not necessarily the case. There may be 
some people at other schools who were at Guy B. Teachey 
School the prior year.

Q. Did you have a reduction in the number of teachers 
at the Guy B. Teachey School during 1965-66 school year? 
A. I ’m not sure. There could have been some transfers.

Q. Did you have a reduction in the number of teachers 
from what you had last year? A. We did have fewer ele­
mentary positions. This is correct.

Q. Mr. Teachey, I show you Schedule B of Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit No. 1 and tell you to compare the teachers at Guy B. 
Teachey School in 1964, doing that with the teachers in 
1965 and see if you see a loss of teachers. A. May I state, 
sir, that a loss of teachers is unit-wide, not per school. We 
quite often transfer teachers from one school to another 
with shifts in population.

Q. Mr. Teachey, would you read the names of teachers
— 42-

appearing in Schedule B of Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 at the 
Guy B. Teachey School? This is Schedule one.

The Court: How many teachers are there, approxi­
mately?

The Witness: About twenty.
The Court: Are you asking him to read aloud those 

names ?
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. I was just trying to show 

that the same teachers were returned.
Mr. Anderson: We object to testimony by counsel. 
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think the record it­

self will speak for itself on that.
The Court: How about letting him examine—let 

him examine them and then you ask the question, 
then, rather than him to read all those names in.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



255a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you examine that list of teachers in Schedule 
B of Exhibit No. 1 and compare it to the list in Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 3? A. All right.

Q. Do you see a change in the teachers in the school for 
the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes.

Q. And who is that changed? A. There were several 
different persons.

Q. Several different persons? A. Yes.
—43—

Q. Would you name them, Mr. Teachey? A. Mrs. Re­
becca H. Scott.

Q. And what was the reason for Mrs. Rebecca H. Scott 
not returning to Guy B. Teachey? A. I didn’t so indicate. 
She was not at that school the year before.

Q. Is she new to the school? A. She is new to the school.
Q. So she was recently hired for the 1965-66 school year? 

A. She was employed for this term.
Q. That is why she was not there last year? A. That’s 

correct.
Q. Did you see another name? A. Yes. Mary S. 

Hughes.
Q. Why was she ? A. She was a new person.
Q. She was a new person hired for the 1965-66 school 

year? A. Yes.
Q. Is there another exception, Mr. Teachey? A. There 

are two or three others.
Q. Would you name those, Mr. Teachey! A. Maureen 

D. Dunn.
—44—

Q. Is she new to the system? A. Same reason.
Q. Are the other two also new to the system, Mr. Tea­

chey? A. Yes.



256a

Q. With the exception of the new teachers at the Guy B. 
Teachey School, were all of those teachers hired there for 
the 1965-66 school year there during 1964-65 school year? 
A. Yes, sir, in this particular school.

Q. Would it not be true, also, Mr. Teachey, for all the 
other schools in the school system? A. It may or may not 
be.

Q. Mr. Teachey, I will show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 
2, and ask you to examine that exhibit. You state in answer 
to question No. 1 on that exhibit that constant review was 
made of teachers by the principal. Do you mean that the 
principal observed the teacher all the time? A. This is 
not my interpretation of constant.

Q. What is your interpretation, Mr. Teachey? A. Regu­
larly.

Q. How frequently is regularly? A. To some extent, al­
most daily.

Q. Almost daily? Does a principal check each class daily, 
each teacher in the school system? A. No.

—45—
Q. He does not? A. We don’t consider this essential 

for observation.
Q. What would be essential for observation? A. There 

have been quite a few professional works on this line which 
are extensive.

Q. How is it practiced in your system, Mr. Teachey? A. 
The principal is in close contact with each teacher daily in 
our schools. None of our schools have more than the num­
ber of teachers which permits this. Therefore, my interpre­
tation that observation and informal evaluation goes on 
constantly.

Q. You do not mean that the teacher actually has contact 
with the teacher? A. The teacher has contact with the 
teacher—

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



257a

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Just a minute, now. Let’s get the ob­

jection. All right, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker: As I understood the question, you 

don’t mean that the teacher has constant contact with 
the teacher. I don’t know how anyone could possibly 
answer that question.

Mr. Chambers: I agree, Your Honor.
The Court: You are withdrawing that question, 

then. All right. Sustain the objection.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. You do not mean, Mr. Teachey, that the principal has
- 4 6 -

constant contact with the, actual physical contact with the 
teacher?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

Mr. Walker: I object to that.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Does the principal have physical contact with the 

teacher each day!

Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. What kind of contact are you referring to, Mr. Tea­
chey? A. Professional contact.

Q. Would you describe the professional contact? A. 
Yes. As a member of the team carrying on the educational 
process of the school.



258a

Q. And how would that be carried on, Mr. Teachey? A. 
Through conferences, through staff meetings, through in­
dividual associations.

Q. How frequently are the conferences? A. Variable.
Q. How variable? A. I think variable has very little 

other definition.
Q. How frequently does the teacher have conference with 

the teacher and the school system? A. My only answer 
can be that this is a varying process.

— 47—

Q. You do not have a set procedure, a set number of con­
ferences that the principal is to have with the teacher? A. 
No.

Q. Now, how frequently does the principal evaluate the 
teacher? A. Constantly.

Q. And how frequently is he required to evaluate the 
teacher? A. The principal is required to report to the su­
perintendent at least once per year on all teachers, and at 
any other times when it seems in his judgment to be neces­
sary.

Q. That does not answer the question, though, Mr. Tea­
chey. My question is how frequently does your school board 
require that the principal evaluate the teacher? A. The 
superintendent handles this part of the evaluation process.

Q. How frequently does the superintendent require the 
principal evaluate the teacher? A. At least once per year.

Q. Is there a set requirement that the principal evaluate 
the teacher more frequently than once a year? A. As a 
matter of professional practice, yes. As a matter of written 
regulations, no.

Q. Now, is this professional practice communicated to 
the principal? A. Yes.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



259a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

Q. When is it communicated to the principal! A. At 
many times during the relationships between the principal 
and the superintendent.

Q. By whom is it communicated to the principal! A. By 
the superintendent.

Q. Now, how frequently does your office advise the princi­
pal to have this communication, evaluation of the teacher? 
A. I am not sure I understand the question.

Q. Did you state that as a matter of professional prac­
tice, the superintendent advised the principal to have maybe 
more than one evaluation of the teacher during the year? 
A. No. I expect them to have constant observation and 
make the evaluation constantly.

Q. Did you state that you advised the principal to make 
more than one evaluation of the teacher during the year?

A. No, I advised him to keep this in mind constantly. 
Not once, constantly.

Q. Do you advise the principal to make more than one 
evaluation a year for each teacher? A. I require one writ­
ten report of evaluation.

Q. Do you require the principal to make more than one 
evaluation of the teacher during the year? A. The matter 
of requirement becomes somewhat hazy.

—49—
Q. You do not, then, require the principal—

Mr. Anderson: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you require the principal to make more than one 
evaluation? A. If I may be permitted to explain that in a



260a

professional relationship between a principal and a teacher 
and the administrative office, in cases in which it is ob­
served that the principal isn’t constantly on the alert for the 
things that go on in his school, then immediately we begin 
to question the effectiveness and efficiency of this principal.

Q. Would your answer then be yes or no, Mr. Teachey? 
A. I don’t believe I can answer it with either. I believe I ’ve 
given the answer in the best form I can phrase it.

Q. You cannot say yes or no to the question? A. I can 
say yes to a requirement for one written report of evalua­
tion. I cannot say yes or no definitely and categorically to 
a requirement for many formal evaluations.

Q. Can you say yes to a requirement that is in writing 
that the principal make more than one evaluation per year? 
A. I can’t answer that.

Q. Is there a written requirement that the principal make 
more than one evaluation per year? A. I believe we have 
been through this.

—50—
Q. What was your answer? A. I made it rather exten­

sively in that in the professional relationship between a 
teacher, a principal, and a superintendent, we expect con­
stant observation and evaluation.

Q. Is there a written requirement by your board or by 
your office? A. There is a professional requirement if not 
a written requirement. I can’t be sure that this is in any 
definite written statement.

Q. You do not know of a written requirement? A. I do 
not know of one. There probably is.

Q. But you do not know of one? A. No.
Q. You mentioned something about constant observation. 

Do you mean by observation, evaluation? A. It is a part 
of the process.

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff—Direct



261a

Q. Observation is evaluation? A. No. Observation is a 
part of the process of evaluation.

Q. So by constantly observing teachers, as you refer, 
this would not be constantly evaluating teachers? A. It 
would enable one to keep the evaluation process going on 
constantly.

Q. I see. Now, would you look at answer 1(b) and 1(c) ?

Mr. Walker: Of what?
—51—

Mr. Chambers: Of Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2.

By the Witness:

A. 1(b)?

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. 1(b) and 1(c). A. Yes.
Q. Would you state the main heading of 1(b)? A. Ob­

servation of progress made by pupils.
Q. And the sub-heading, main heading of (c)? A. Ob­

servation of teacher-pupil-parent relationships.

The Court: Mr. Chambers, let me inquire. Will it 
take some considerable time further on this witness?

Mr. Chambers: Not of this.
The Court: Of this witness? Is your examination 

going to last some while yet? I was just thinking 
about our morning break. It is past the time we usu­
ally take one. If you were going to conclude your 
examination in just a short while, we’d continue. If 
not, we might at this point—seemingly it is a good 
time, a convenient time to take a break since you are 
moving into another exhibit.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



262a

Mr. Chambers: I think it would be, Your Honor. 
The Court: All right. We will take an unan­

nounced recess of about five minutes. You may come 
down, Mr. Teachey.

(A brief recess was taken.)
The Court: All right, Mr. Chambers.

—52—
By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, would you turn to 1(b) and (c) in Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 2? What do these provisions indicate, Mr. 
Teachey! A. The procedures normally used in the evalua­
tion, in the process of evaluation of teachers.

Q. How~ are procedures—how do the procedures differ 
from the criteria! What is the criteria? A. These pro­
cedures—

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: If Mr. Teachey can answer, maybe 

that is a question kindly in education circles. If he 
can answer, overruled. The question is how do pro­
cedures differ from criteria.

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.

By the Witness:

A. Procedures generally are the activities, the things which 
one undertakes to do to enable him to reach a decision based 
on criteria. There is a distinct difference between proce­
dures and criteria.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



263a

Guy B. Teachey—f  or Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. The criteria would be the things that you would con­
sider in evaluating a teacher! A. Generally.

Q. And the procedure would be how you would go about 
using these criteria? A. That’s correct.

—53—
Q. Now, why in questions (b) and (c) which refer to ob­

servation and progress of pupils and observation of 
teacher-pupil-parent relationship do you not have some cri­
teria would connect with this procedure ?

Mr. Anderson: Object. Pm not sure that I under­
stood that question. I seriously doubt if the witness 
can.

Mr. Chambers: If the witness does know.
The Court: Mr. Teachey is a very intelligent wit­

ness. Mr. Teachey, if you do not understand, you 
simply say so. Overruled.

By the Witness:

A. Would you state it again, sir?

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Where in the criteria do you make use of the pro­
cedures stated in (b) and (c)? A. One of our most im­
portant basis for judgment of the effectiveness of a teacher 
is that which would indicate successful teaching classroom 
processes, that which goes on in the classroom, whether the 
pupils actually learn. Now, in item (b), observation of 
progress made by pupils, certainly would be an indication 
of the success or lack of success of being an individual 
teacher. For example, a teacher constantly has pupils who



264a

fail to make what appears to be reasonable progress. We 
would assume that this criterion is not being made.

Q. Following what you said, Mr. Teachey, where in your
—5 4 -

criteria do you make use of this procedure you just de­
scribed? A. In determining, placing a value on the class­
room performance of the teacher.

Q. Would you refer to the criteria you’ve listed here in 
Roman No. II in answer number one, and point out this 
criterion you have referred to which makes use of these 
procedures (b) and (c)? A. Yes. Chiefly in (a), class­
room presentation.

Q. This refers to classroom presentation? A. Generally.
Q. Now, in (c), you refer to teacher-parent-relationship? 

A. Yes.
Q. And you refer in (c)(1) to discipline problems, (c)(2) 

to parent and pupil reaction, (c)(3) to enthusiasm of pupil, 
and (c)(4) to community inter-relationship. Now, where in 
Roman Numeral 11(a) do you have a criteria that would 
cover these items? A. Let me state it this way. (l)(e) 
helps the one who has a responsibility for making an evalu­
ation to make judgment in several of these areas, in class­
room presentation and in understanding of pupils. It is not 
a cut and dried thing that this procedure does this thing.

Q. You state, though, that your criteria of the standards 
by which you evaluate teachers— A. These are the gen-

—55—
eral standards by which we make our final evaluation.

Q. And you state that your procedures are how you go 
about considering these criteria? A. How we get informa­
tion, that’s correct.

Q. But you have nowhere in your criteria standards that

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



265a

you refer to in your procedures (b) and (c) f A. Yes, we 
do.

Q. Now, would you refer to that! A. (a), (b), (c), (d) 
and (e).

Q. Now, would you show me specifically in the criteria 
where procedure (c) is made use of? A. Discipline prob­
lems, (c), understanding of child growth and development.

Q. Now, where in the criteria? A. That’s just one. That 
same thing could apply to various other items in two.

Q. Where do you consider in the criteria the teacher- 
pupil-parent relationship? A. Professional attitude, pro­
fessional interest, understanding of pupils, classroom pres­
entation.

Q. Does this not consider only the classroom perform­
ance of the teacher? A. It does what not?

Q. This criterion (d)? A. This observation of progress
—56—

made by pupils as indicated by marks on subjects?
Q. I ’m talking about criterion (d). You refer to profes­

sional attitude and professional interest. Is this not just 
the criteria concerning the teachers’ classroom perform­
ance? A. Oh, no.

Q. Where do you get into the community there? A. 
Number five, especially, number three to some extent, num­
ber four to a considerable extent.

Q. Now, turning to (b) of Number 1, observation of prog­
ress made by pupils. Where in the criteria do you make 
use of (b)? A. (c) in particular, ability to excite pupils, 
to create enthusiasm, would certainly be indicated by excel­
lent progress of pupils.

Q. What about success in next higher grade? A. This 
would also be chiefly a procedure for determining how well 
the matter had been presented in the first place.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



266a

Q. How well the matter had been presented? A. Yes.
Q. I’d like to show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, which is the 

deposition, Mr. Teachey, page 52 and 53, page 53 of that 
exhibit, and I ask if you would read—

—57—
Mr. Walker: Did you say three?
Mr. Chambers: Yes. I’m sorry. Four. Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit No. 4.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. And I ask if you would read the fourth answer on page 
53 ? A. Except—

Mr. Walker: We object, Your Honor.
The Court: Just a minute, Mr. Teachey. All right. 

I’ll hear you.
Mr. Walker: I don’t want him introducing a part 

of a deposition now by reading certain answers when 
we have stipulated that the entire deposition may be 
introduced.

Mr. Chambers: We have introduced the exhibit, 
the entire exhibit.

Mr. Walker : Yes, so the entire exhibit—to take 
certain questions out of context, I don’t think would 
be a fair presentation.

Mr. Chambers: I’m not proposing to take any 
question out of context. I’m just calling Mr. Tea- 
chey’s attention to one statement in the exhibit.

The Court: I presume, without deciding, that the 
counsel expects to show some conflict in Mr. Tea- 
chey’s—you know—testimony. I am not concluding 
that that can be shown or that it is. Overruled. Go 
ahead.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



267a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

—58—
A. Now, may I be sure what you want read!

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. I believe it’s the fourth answer on page 53 of that 
exhibit. A. We were discussing at that time, Your Honor, 
bases for making judgments on evaluations of teachers, 
and the answer I gave was acceptance of authority, loyalty, 
of course, I’m reading, “Acceptance of authority, loyalty 
to the administration and school system,” and here’s the 
part that Mr. Chambers, which he has underscored, I as­
sume this is what you want, and I jotted a new one down 
a few days ago which I came across in some of the read­
ings on the qualifications of the teacher. This is what you 
wished, I believe. Now, if I may—•

Q. Would you read that complete sentence, Mr. Teachey! 
A. Oh, the rest of it?

Q. Yes. The complete answer. A. This portion pointed 
out that a good teacher is one who can excite pupils, who 
can create enthusiasm among them, and this kind of thing. 
Now, may I explain it? This answer in my deposition did 
not indicate a new thought, simply a new way of expressing 
things which had been done all the time.

Q. I see. But you did state there that that was a new 
one you just jotted down the other day? A. New words, 
yes. This, of course, is a result of an inexperienced wit­
ness, perhaps.

—59—
Q. Now, would you refer to the Roman Numeral 11(c) of 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2? A. 11(c), yes.
Q. What is that provision there, Mr. Teachey? A. Un­

derstanding of pupils. I have just quoted that one a mo­
ment ago.



268a

Q. Now, would you read (c)III in that exhibit? A. 
Ability to excite pupils and create enthusiasm.

Q. Now, is that not the same language you said that 
you used here on page 53 of the Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4? 
A. Yes, and I gave credit that this was not original lan­
guage. I did not intend to plagiarize.

Q. Is it not true, Mr. Teachey, that this criteria were 
supposedly used by the principal during the 1964-65 school 
year?

Mr. Walker: Object to the use of the term “sup­
posedly.”

The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Were these criteria used by the principals during the 
1964-65 school year, Mr. Teachey? A. Yes.

Q. And this (c)III was also used by the teachers? A. 
Yes.

Q. By the principals? A. Yes.
—60—

0. And there came as an after-thought to you on page 
53 of your deposition that this was a new one you jotted 
down the other day?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. In wording only.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. In wording only? A. Yes.
Q. Is it not the same words that you use here? A. Oh, 

yes.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



269a

Q. As a criteria which you said that you used in 1964-65? 
A. Yes. Ability to excite pupils would simply be ability 
to create in pupils a desire, a burning* desire, perhaps, even 
a serious desire to learn. I could have stated it in several 
other ways.

Q. It is, however, the same language you say you used 
which you jotted down the other day? A. It was the same 
language and it was not originally mine.

Q. Mr. Teachey, I call your attention to Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit No. 3, which are answers to interrogatories filed by 
the defendant, and ask if you will examine those, Mr. 
Teachey? A. I am familiar with them generally.

Q. Now, in answer to question number one, you state
— 61—

that the procedures were not in writing? A. Answer num­
ber one, yes. No, as outlined in earlier interrogatories.

Q. Would you refer to the earlier interrogatories spe­
cifically that you are talking about, that is in writing? A. 
What is the date, sir, of this one?

Q. That one was March the 5th. A. And of this one? 
I think the reference is apparent that you are referring to 
the earlier.

Q. This is Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2 and the date in this 
one is January 20, 1966. And this is March, 1966, so the 
reference is certainly to this.

Q. To Exhibit 2? A. Or Exhibit 1 if there were any 
reference to this in Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 4 to some of the 
earlier interrogatories.

Q. Now, would the writing part of this exhibit be the 
procedures and criteria you referred to in answer number 
one of Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2? This is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 2 and you have outlined here in answer to number one, 
procedures and criteria? A. That’s correct.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



270a

Q. Is that what you’re talking about that’s in writing? 
A. At the time this interrogatory was prepared, yes. These

—62—
were not in writing until they were requested.

Q. They were not in writing before? A. Not in this 
form.

Q. Oh. Are they in writing at all? A. In various pub­
lications.

Q. What publications?

The Court: When you say “they” , are we talking 
about criteria?

The Witness: Criteria and procedures, I assume. 

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. What are they, Mr. Teachey? A. Oh, there are 

numerous publications on teacher evaluation. I can’t at 
the moment give you any. I have some with me.

Q. When are these made available to the principal? A. 
They are available to them at their request or as they sub­
scribe or purchase the publications in which these studies 
are made.

Q. Now, how are they made known to the principals 
that these are the ones that they are to use in evaluating 
teachers? A. Through their professional study.

Q. What professional study? A. That what is nor­
mally expected of school administrators.

Q. Are all of the principals in your school system
— 68—

exposed to the same criteria and procedure? A. Exposed, 
yes.

Q. Do they know that this is the procedure and criteria 
they are to use in the Asheboro City School System? A.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



271a

Yes, except they kno w that they are permitted to use inno­
vations of their own.

Q. They can use innovations of their own? A. Yes. 
This is normal procedure.

Q. Now, this set of criteria and procedures you have 
given us, is it made available to the principals through 
your office? A. Yes, it is.

Q. When is it made available? A. In various confer­
ences and discussions and private conversations.

Q. You advise the principals that these are the criteria 
and procedures they are to use in the school system? A. 
Formally, 1, 2, 3, 4, perhaps no, but generally yes.

Q. And you tell them that these are the only ones that 
they can use? A. No.

Q. They can use others? A. Yes.
Q. They can ignore these altogether? A. No.

—64—
Q. They cannot ignore these? A. Oh, certainly they 

can, but if they do, then the professional status of the 
principal may be questioned.

Q. And these are not in writing? A. They are now.
Q, They were not in ’64-65? A. That’s right.
Q. So in evaluation in ’64 and ’65, they might have used 

anything in evaluating? A. Well, I think the literature is 
freely available to our personnel.

Q. You certainly cannot state that they used these pro­
cedures and criteria? A. Yes, I can.

Q. Can you state that they used no other? A. No.
Q. How do you know that they used these? A. Out of 

my conversations with them, I have reached this opinion.
Q. You have reached that opinion. I see. Now, the first 

time these criteria procedures were put in writing, was in

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff-—Direct



272a

answer to the interrogatories of the plaintiff! A. In this 
form?

Q. In this form. A. Yes. In other forms, no.
—65—

Q. What do you mean in other forms? A. They are in 
writing in substantially this form in various publications 
of the profession.

Q. Does the professon use these criterions? A. These 
are general ones, yes.

Q. Do they use others? A. Perhaps.
Q. Do they use these procedures only?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Sustained. You are asking him what 

somebody else would use.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, he testified to that. 

He said they were in various publications.
The Court: Yes, but the question was did they 

use other ? I doubt—do you mean in the publications, 
do they have criteria other than that he has listed 
in the interrogatories? Is that what—wasn’t it?

Mr. Chambers: I was trying to find out, Your 
Honor. He testified that these things were in other 
publications, and I was trying to find out what pub­
lications and in what form.

The Court: Let me sustain the objection and you 
ask another question.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Teachey, can you name one publication that these

- 66-

criteria are in? A. I would be at a loss to name any par­
ticular publication where you can find these, but I am sure

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



273a

the old Bible of school administration and Dr, Reuter’s 
publications on public school administration has chapters 
including essentially these same criteria and procedures.

Q. When did you make this available to the principal? 
A. They have to study this or similar publications in order 
to be eligible for a principal’s certificate.

Q. You’re talking about at school? A. At school, yes. 
Q. You don’t know exactly what publications they might 

use at school? A. Different schools of education have dif­
ferent textbooks, of course.

Q. Would these different schools also set up different 
criteria and procedures? A. Essentially, no.

Mr. Walker: Just a moment. Object.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, this witness is testi­

fying, though, as he knows of these publications, 
etcetera.

The Court: The question was would the school 
set up different criteria. There’s no indication to 
strike that answer-—that he would know what Colum-

—67—
bia sets up or Harvard or Duke—I don’t see how he 
could know. All right.

Mr. Chambers: He has testified that these proce­
dures are available in these schools.

The Court: All right. I sustain the objection. 
Let’s proceed.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, your answer, however, is that these 
procedures were first put in writing in answer to the inter­
rogatories of the plaintiff? A. No, in this form.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



274a

Q. In this form? A. Yes.
Q. Now, have these procedures in this form been made 

available to the principals of the school? A. Yes.
Q. When were they made available? A. I can’t answer 

that.
Q. You can’t answer? A. No.
Q. By whom were they made available? A. They are 

available at our office.
Q. At your office? A. That’s right, and they were made 

available immediately after they were requested.
Q. In writing? A. They are in writing, yes.

— 68—

Q. To the principals? A. Addressed to the principals— 
I can’t answer.

Q. By whom were they made available to the principals ? 
A. By the superintendent.

Q. By the superintendent? A. Yes.
Q. But you don’t know— A. I don’t know how many of 

them have studied them carefully, because there’s essen­
tially no difference in the way we find them here in brevity 
and the practices which have been carried on year after 
year.

Q. Do you know when they were made available? A. As 
to a date?

Q. Yes. A. Sometime after the date-—
Q. How were they made available? A. By being placed 

—they were made available in our office for their observa­
tion and consideration.

Q. Y"ou mean they just might come in and look at them? 
A. That’s right.

Q. They were not mailed to the principal? A. No.

The Court: Now, you say the date—you keep 
referring to after this date.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



275a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

—69—
The Witness: The date we replied to this set of 

interrogatories.
The Court: Might I ask which interrogatory you 

have before you? Exhibit Number which?
The Witness: This is Exhibit No. 2.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: The date on that was March—no, 

January 20, 1966.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, going to question number two, on Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit No. 3, would you state for the Court how 
these criteria are made available to the teachers? A. I 
think the answer I gave probably will stand. Trained 
teachers are made aware of the criteria during their prep­
aration for teaching and thereby have the normal proce­
dures and criteria available at all times.

Q. Are they made available by the school board or by 
your office to the teachers? A. They are available to the 
teachers by the school board and by my office, yes.

Q. When were they made available by the school board 
or your office? A. They are constantly available.

Q. When were they made available specifically to each 
teacher in the Asheboro School system by your office?

—70—
A. I don’t believe my response was that we have communi­
cated directly with each teacher, but they are available at 
any time upon request and at all times when conferences 
and so on for evaluation are held.

Q. They are not made available when a teacher first goes 
into the school system? A. We have generally a handbook 
for teachers which does point out most of these points.



276a

Q. Do they point out these exact points you referred to? 
A. Not these exact words.

Q. Do they point out only these criteria procedures? A. 
No, there are other things in the handbook.

Q. I mean the criteria you listed in your book. Do you 
list only these ? A. No. We have never listed them in this 
form.

Q. Are these procedures and criteria which you refer 
to made available—are these supposedly the normal pro­
cedures and criteria used? A. Please, the question again.

Q. The procedures you have listed in Exhibit 2 and 
criteria, are these supposedly the normal procedures and 
criteria that you say that are made available to the teach­
ers in the institutions that they attend? A. These are the 
normal procedures and criteria which have been used for

- 7 1 -
years in our school system and are available to the teachers.

Q. Are these the normal procedures which are really 
made available to the teachers in the institutions they 
attend?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

Mr. Walker: I object.
Mr. Anderson: I object. I don’t know how this 

witness could know what these teachers learned in 
college.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I rephrase the 
question?

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers :

Q. Mr. Teachey, do you know whether these are the 
normal procedures that are used in the institutions in this 
country?



277a

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. To my knowledge, I know that procedures and criteria 
very similar to these are the normal and probably these 
are the normal.

Q. Do you know whether these are the normal procedures 
used by the institutions in this country teaching teachers 
or preparing teachers for the teaching profession? A. Not 
entirely I don’t know, sir. May I add that I do know that 
many institutions would consider these normal.

—72—
Q. Many institutions would consider these normal. I see. 

These only, or would they have additions? A. There may 
be additional or there may be variations.

Q. I see. Now, you state in answer to question number 
three that one written evaluation is made each year. Is 
this the first year that any evaluations were made ? A. No.

Q. When were any evaluations— A. Written evalua­
tions. I am sure you mean written reports of evaluation.

Q. No, I ’m talking about the answer. Look at the answer 
to number three in Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3. A. State 
how long the present procedures and criteria in evaluating 
teachers have been used in the school system. The present 
procedures and criteria had been used by the school at 
least twenty years except required written evaluation by 
the principals only one year.

Q. This has been the first year of a written evaluation? 
A. No. This response does not include a group evaluation 
which has been required by our principals for at least 
twenty years.

Q. What do you mean by a group evaluation? A. We 
use a somewhat different form now, as our staff has grown.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff-Direct



278a

We have found it necessary to use a form for individuals
—73—

rather than permitting teachers, principals to give in a 
singie statement evaluations, evaluation reports on many 
teachers.

Q. Would you look at question number eleven also on 
that exhibit, Mr. Teachey! Would you give your answer, 
read the answer to that question! A. Copies of written 
evaluation of each teacher in the school system included 
the Negro teachers who were not re-hired, and so on. The 
answer in 1963-64 not available.

Q. Now, where were these not available! A. They were 
not available in the form for teachers because they were 
not required.

Q. Why were not the group evaluation that you state— 
A. They had been discarded after two years, I believe, 
usually two years, they were put away.

Q. Now, this 1963-64 evaluation would be discarded after 
two years! A. Well, we no longer require the group eval­
uation.

Q. The what? A. We no longer require the group eval­
uation, when we began using a simple form for a report 
on each teacher.

Q. And you threw away the group evaluation ? A. There 
are probably some in the files, but they are not kept. I am 
not sure how complete the file is.

Q. I see. But they were not supplied? A. Well, they
—74—

actually were not available.
Q. Now, look at the answer to question number four in 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3, Mr. Teachey. A. All right.
Q. It is stated in the answer that the supervisor directly 

makes observations of teachers two to six times yearly and 
indirectly constantly? A. Yes.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



279a

Q. Why doesn’t the supervisor make a written evaluation 
of the teacher ? A. There are various professional reasons 
for this. A supervisor—we in our system do not depend 
upon a supervisor to make recommendations concerning 
employment.

Q. You do not? A. No. We depend on the supervisor 
as a professional person to a resource person to teachers, 
and once the relationship becomes that of employer and 
employee, much of the benefit from this relationship is 
broken down.

Q. Why doesn’t the superintendent keep a written eval­
uation? A. The superintendent in some cases may do so, 
but since the final decision is made by the superintendent, 
it has never been thought necessary that he keep a file of 
his own on these. He keeps a file on the others, and then 
as occasion demands, he can review either from the writ-

—7 5 -
ten reports now or partly through conferences with prin­
cipals and others.

Q. The only written evaluation that you have is that of 
the principal? A. The only one required.

Q. Going to question number five, you state that the 
frequency in observing teachers differ in according to the 
performance of the teacher. Is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. Now, what extra observation or efforts did you make 
with respect to the Negro teachers in the school system?

Mr. Walker: Objection to the form of the question.
The Court: Just a moment. Don’t answer. The 

question is what exception did you make with refer­
ence to the Negro applicants?

Mr. Chambers: The Negro teachers.
The Court: Why would that be objectionable?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



280a

Mr. Walker: I understood him to say what extra—
The Court: Did you say extra!
Mr. Chambers: I said extra, Your Honor.
The Court: I will sustain it in that fashion, and 

you may phrase it again. I think it’s competent.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. What exception did you make then, Mr. Teachey, with 
respect to the Negro teachers! A. Exception to what!

Q. In connection with your frequency in observing
- 7 6 -

teachers and school personnel! A. To my knowledge, 
none.

Q. None. Were they observed more frequently! A. In 
some cases.

Q. By whom! A. Supervisor, principal.
Q. And you state that the supervisor does not figure in 

the evaluation of a teacher? A. Not a written evaluation, 
which is correct, and we try to keep him aloof from enter­
ing the final decision on employment.

Q. So that he does not appear in the recommendation of 
a teacher for reemployment! A. Only indirectly.

Q. Would you turn to number six in that exhibit, Mr. 
Teachey! How does the answer to that question figure in 
the evaluation of teachers when it does not appear in the 
rating chart that is attached to the exhibit? The rating 
chart is the chart that you utilize in evaluating the teachers’ 
written report— A. I ’m familiar with that now. Your 
question!

Q. How does this answer figure in when the rating chart 
makes no reference to this particular procedure! A. I 
must have one of those charts here somewhere. If I could

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

see one—



Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

— 77—
Mr. Walker: Your Honor, could I give him—

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, you have a copy there under the exhibit. 
A. Here’s one, Your Honor.

The Court: All right. He seems to have one.

A. This number six would be directly involved with (a) 
and (b) and (c).

Q. With (a) and (b) and (c) ? A. That’s right.
Q. Would you read for the record your answer in num­

ber six? A. Observations are made and measured directly 
from pupil records. Marks, promotions, future success of 
pupils are compared with measurable aptitudes as possible 
and more favorable levels of performance are considered 
indications of greater teacher effectiveness.

Q. Would you read the headings that you have there for
(a) and (b) and (c) ? A. Certainly, (a) is classroom 
presentation, (b) is knowledge of subject or subjects, and 
(c) is understanding of pupils. If a teacher lacks these 
three items, observations of pupil records will largely re­
veal that lack.

Q. Mr. Teachey, how does the principal know that he is 
to do what you have described in answer to number six 
when it does not appear on the rating chart?

— 7 8 -—

Mr. Anderson: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. Sir, these are factors which enter into the principal’s 
evaluation of the work of a teacher more or less at all



282a

times. It appears obvious that a teacher who doesn’t teach 
is a poor—well, is a liability probably rather than an asset 
to a school system. It becomes necessary for us to know 
what the results are. A tree is known by its fruits.

Q. When do you describe to the principals in the school 
system, Mr. Teachey, that they are to follow this sixth 
in making this rating? A. Follow number six?

Q. Yes. A. At various times.
Q. Is it described orally? A. Yes.
Q. And in the exact language you have here in six? A. 

I did not intend to so testify.
Q. Would you turn to question number seven in Plain­

tiff’s Exhibit No. 3? Would you state where your answer 
here figures in the rating chart? A. (a), (b), (c), (d) and 
(e).

Q. Can you point out specifically in (a) how this was 
used on the rating chart? A. In (a)?

—79—
Q. Yes, in (a). A. Classroom presentation. Observa­

tion by persons in supervisory position measure the teach­
er’s effectiveness in dealing with pupils. Certainly there 
is a very direct relationship between dealing with pupils 
and classroom presentation.

Q. What about patrons in community? A. Professional 
attitude and appearance, in particular.

Q. What about patrons in community? A. I pointed to 
(d) and (e) particularly.

Q. Professional attitude and appearance? A. Yes. To 
some extent, the others, of course. I simply am selecting 
those which are most obvious on the face of it.

Q. Now, how do they figure in with (b) and (c) and the 
procedures you described in answer to number one of 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



283a

Mr. Walker: Could I have that repeated, please!
The Court: Do you want it off the record!
Mr. Chambers: I’ll repeat it.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you return to (b) and (c) in Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit No. 2! A. There are two “b’s” and two “e’s” , at 
least.

—80—
Q. I ’m talking about questions and answer number one, 

Roman Numeral number one. How does your answer in 
number seven we were just discussing figure in with (b) 
and (c) in the Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.
The Witness: Your Honor, this confuses me a 

little bit.
The Court: If you do not understand the question, 

you might call for a clarification of it, and you are 
not required to know all the answers. If you don’t 
know, you simply say so. Now, you say you are 
confused! Would you make an inquiry that might 
clear up your—

The Witness: I lose the question.
The Court: 1 see. All right. How about—we can 

get it read back, Mr. Chambers, or you can repeat it.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. How is question number seven used in determining 
whether a teacher will be retained in the school system!

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



284a

A. I believe—this was not my understanding at least of 
the question in the first place, but—

Q. I rephrased it. How was this used? A. I can prob­
ably use this a little more readily. Number seven is used 
for the guidance chiefly of the superintendent.

— 81—

Q. And where is this shown in the rating chart? A. (a),
(b ) , (c), (d) and (e).

Q. And this is the only information yon have about what 
you described in answer to number seven? A. I didn’t 
follow your question there.

Q. Would you look at one of the rating charts that you 
have there in Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3? A. Yes, I  have it.

Q. Now, the only information you have in reference to 
answer to number seven would be, what would be the super­
visor or principal would say in this list of things that 
you’ve named here, (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)? A. The 
supervisor does not.

Q. The principal. A. I would have this from the princi­
pal, yes.

Q. You would not be able to state, though, in (a), (b),
(c) , (d) and (e) what you would be able to determine— 
rather—let me rephrase that. You would not be able to 
determine from (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) whether the 
teacher was effective in dealing with pupils, patrons in 
community and youth, whether the teacher was effective 
in dealing with pupils, patrons in community. Do you 
understand that question? A. Perhaps. Yes, if a teacher 
uniformly has a high rating down the scale, one or two, 
this would be an indication that that teacher is effective in 
practically all areas.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



285a

Guy II. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

— 82—
Q. In all areas? A. Yes.
Q. Now, if it were a low rating, would you be able to 

determine it? A. This would indicate that the teacher was 
ineffective probably in most all areas or all areas.

Q. Could it also be that the teacher would be ineffective 
in some areas and effective in others? A. A variable 
rating would indicate strength in classroom presentation, 
perhaps, but weakness in professional attitude is quite 
possible.

Q. So it could indicate high rating in some areas and 
low ratings in others? A. That’s true.

Q. Now, looking for this on the rating charts, Mr. 
Teachey, some of the rating charts do not indicate that 
the principal had any conferences with the teachers. Why 
would the principal fail to indicate such a conference? A. 
I can think of one case in which this might be the situation. 
A principal of a school for seven, eight, ten years, a teacher 
in the school for the same seven, eight, ten years, the 
evaluation process going on constantly, however no dis­
cussion of weaknesses, no formal conferences have been 
held, the principal probably interpreted this as meaning 
a formal discussion particularly as related to some weak­
ness.

— 83—
Q. Do you advise the principal that the conference re­

ferred to in the rating chart is to be a formal conference? 
A. No. We recommend that the teachers’ procedures, the 
teachers’ work, be discussed generally better in an informal 
situation. Generally we prefer an informal discussion 
rather than calling the teacher in and saying, “Now, look 
here, this has to change.”



286a

Q. Do you advise the principal to indicate that that is to 
he a conference on the rating chart! A. No.

Q. Do you advise him it is not to he a conference! A. 
No. That’s up to our judgment.

Q. You do not advise him either way! A. That’s right.
Q. Do you advise him what to indicate when they have 

had a conference! A. Our rating chart simply asks, if 
you recall, have you discussed teaching difficulties. We don’t 
ask them to indicate any other conferences.

Q. Do you ask them to indicate when they had some dis­
cussion with the teacher about difficulties? A. About dif­
ficulties? Yes.

Q. Do you ask them to indicate when they have done that? 
A. This chart asks for that. Have you discussed teaching

—84—
difficulties. If there is no response, we assume of course that 
the response will be no.

Q. Do you advise them to have a conference when the 
teacher is having difficulty in one of the areas you de­
scribed? A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Teachey, why aren’t records kept of the confer­
ences or discussions with teachers about their difficulties?

Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: All right, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker: May it please the Court, that assumes 

two things. First of all, that he would have to know 
about a discussion of two other people that he had 
not heard. There would be no testimony that he’d 
be—the superintendent, and that secondly, either the 
teacher or the principal must come to him and state 
that there had in fact been a conference. It would 
be impossible for the superintendent to keep a record

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



287a

of something he did not know about until after it had 
occurred.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I respond just 
briefly. Answer number nine of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 3, the question was state whether records are 
kept of conferences concerning performance of 
teachers and if same are made available to the teach­
ers following or during the conferences. The answer, 
generally no records are kept of such conferences.

—85—
The Court: I think the question is why are no 

records kept. The question assumes that Mr. Tea­
chey, being the superintendent, I mean that there is 
an aid in this situation—I’m going to let him answer. 
Overruled.

Mr. Walker: All right.

A. This goes back, sir, to a small school system, a growing 
school system, in which administrative details of this type 
are constantly in change. When there were fifty teachers 
in a system, for example, a superintendent knew each of 
them personally, knew of their work personally, probably 
visited each one of them two or three times in the year in a 
classroom. As it has grown from a small system to still a 
small system but probably doubled in size, maybe in some 
cases records have not kept up, especially with an adminis­
trative budget of about three percent of the total budget. 
This is an administrative difficulty. I believe generally, we 
have said no such records are kept, and the response cer­
tainly dealt with our central office. I am under the impres­
sion that most of our principals do keep an antidote of 
records of difficult situations. However, I have no—we 
haven’t required it.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



288a

Q. And yon have no record in the office of the superin­
tendent? A. That’s right. Well, we do have some. The 
word was generally. We have those which get, which be-

— 86—

come serious.
Q. Do you rely, then, Mr. Teachey, primarily on the rec­

ommendation of the principal? A. We rely heavily on the 
recommendation of the principal. This of course would be 
tempered with our evaluation of the principal.

Q. Now, would you refer to question number ten? In an­
swer to that question, it stated that the evaluation and rec­
ommendation are used to provide some of the information 
necessary for decisions concerning contracts. What other 
information is used by the school board or your office, 
rather, in determining whether to retain a teacher? A. 
There are various other subjective and objective items 
which enter into our final decisions.

Q. Would you state the objective items? A. I can think 
of one, immediately. I doubt if I could give you a listing 
because they are so varied.

Q. What would one be, Mr. Teachey? A. Irresponsi­
bility in private affairs which reflect on the credit of the 
profession and the school. I am thinking particularly about 
financial obligations, and others.

Q. That would not be covered in the criteria? A. It 
would not be covered in this check sheet.

Q. What about the criteria you set up? A. Yes, rela­
tionship to the community, certainly would cover that.

— 87—
Q. So in evaluating the teacher, the principal is to con­

sider that factor? A. Well, the principal and/or the su­
perintendent.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



289a

Q. So then— A. Most complaints and items of this 
nature come to the superintendent rather than the principal 
in the system the size of ours.

Q. I see. So that would not be an item, that would be an 
addition to the evaluation that you would consider? A. 
Not necessarily, but it has some significance.

Q. My question is, though, it would have been considered 
in evaluating the teacher in the first instance? A. In some 
instances, the principal has not all this information, and 
possibly may not have been considered.

Q. What would be another item, Mr. Teachey? A. Social 
behavior.

Q. That would not be covered in the criteria! A. It is 
covered briefly in professional attitudes and relationship 
with the community. However, I am thinking of something 
which goes a little beyond that type thing. Irresponsible 
social behavior, let me say this.

Q. Would you know another one, Mr. Teachey? A. Let 
me be sure that I understand what I ’m trying to give you. 
It’s my impression that I am giving you items which a su-

— 88—

perintendent might consider, which might not be considered 
by the principal.

Q. The answer to the tenth question of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 3 was that the evaluation and recommendation are used 
to provide some of the information, and I was trying to 
find out what other information you would use. A. In some 
cases, the principal might not be thoroughly familiar with 
all of the academic and scholastic qualifications of the in­
dividual. The superintendent has this information. Those 
are three or four.

Q. Mr. Teachey, would you look at one of the rating 
charts? A. Yes, I have one.

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff—Direct



290a

Q. Does it not show that the rating chart requires that 
information! A. It is on the rating chart, yes, but we don’t 
require that to be completed.

Q. And this is the first year you’ve used that rating 
chart? A. No, we’ve used it two years. This was the first 
year, yes.

Q. And when was this chart prepared? A. In the fall of 
196—, this particular one, the fall of 1964.

Q. And was used during what year? A. We did not use
—89—

it that year. We used it the following year.
Q. What year would that be, Mr. Teachey? A. Perhaps 

we did, the fall of ’64. We used it for ’64, ’65, which would 
be the fall—we used it for that school term.

Q. And it was prepared in the fall of ’64? A. That’s 
right.

Q. Did you list these items on here in the fall of ’64? A. 
Yes.

Q. Like school, date, name of the teacher, teacher’s cer­
tificate? A. Yes.

Q. But you did not use them? A. We didn’t use the 
first section. The only thing we required was the name of 
the teacher, because our records—and we, by that time, had 
completed somewhat an improved system of personnel rec­
ords, and we had all that in other records, but we simply 
adopted the form and continued to use the lower section.

Q. Why did you decide to use these forms for the ’64-65 
school year? A. There were several reasons. I doubt if 
I could indicate a particular single reason. The feeling that 
witli—since the time had come that we were no longer deal-

— 90—
ing with fifty teachers, that we were dealing with two hun­
dred, we needed a more flexible system, one which could be 
filed indivdually.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



291a

Q. Did you not have more than two hundred the previous 
year? A. Well, we had reached two hundred in the last 
year or two. I don’t recall exactly when it was.

Q. Why didn’t you use this in the previous years! A. 
Probably tradition.

Q. You have been in the system eighteen years! A. Yes. 
No. I have been there since 1945.

Q. Since 1945! For a while as principal and then as 
superintendent, and you are stating that 1964-65 was the 
first year that you’ve used this form? A. This form, yes. 
Let me make it clear that I am referring to this type of re­
port on evaluation.

Q. This is the individual report? A. I don’t intend to 
testify that we haven’t had evaluation practically as com­
plete.

Q. How were they, Mr. Teachey? A. How were what?
Q. The previous evaluations? A. I explained that ear­

lier.
Q. Group evaluations? A. No, individual evaluations,

—91—
but report made in groups.

Q. Are you stating that you had individual evaluations 
in previous years? A. Certainly.

Q. By each principal? A. Yes.
Q. Of each teacher? A. Yes.
Q. And these were oral? A. Yes.
Q. Oral evaluation? A. And written in group reports. 
Q. Now, how were they written in group reports, Mr. 

Teachey? A. Usually in the form of a letter to the super­
intendent.

Q. Recommending that all the teachers be reemployed? 
A. This could happen.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



292a

Q. Now, liow were these individual appraisals or evalua­
tions? A. In the same form.

Q. What do you mean? A. You mean when we were us­
ing the group technique?

Q. No, the individual evaluation. A. This one?
—92—

Q. The previous individual evaluation. A. You’ve lost 
me.

Q. What form were the individual evaluations prior to 
the use of this form you’ve attached to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 3? That’s the data sheet or appraisal sheet, the teacher 
evaluation record. How were the evaluations in prior years 
reported to the superintendent? A. I have just testified 
that this was usually done in the form of a letter to the 
superintendent.

Q. In a group letter? A. In a letter which covered prob­
ably all the teachers in the system in one letter, not in a—

Q. You were referring to each individual teacher? A. 
Referred in many cases, may I say, to each individual 
teacher.

Q. It named each individual teacher? A. Not in every 
case. In many cases, yes.

Q. In some cases it might have named every teacher in 
the school system? A. In most cases, it did.

Q. Are you stating that a principal of Central High 
School wrote you a letter in the spring of 1963 advising 
you, appraising you of each teacher in the Central High 
School? A. That was common practice is what I’m stating.

—93—
Q. Are you stating that the principal, say, of Central 

High School did that for the ’63-64 school year? A. Again 
I so state at this time.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



293a

Q. Are you stating that the principal of Asheboro High 
School did that? A. I ’m stating that this was the general 
practice, and it is presumed that he did so.

Q. Can you state, Mr. Teachey, that the principal of 
Asheboro High School wrote you a letter in the spring of 
1963 appraising each teacher in the Asheboro High School? 
A. I did not so state.

Q. Who prepared the criteria and procedures to be fol­
lowed by principals in evaluating teachers? A. Now, does 
your question imply, intend to elicit the information as to 
who wrote this response?

Q. Who prepared the list of criteria and procedures that 
you state were followed in the Asheboro School System? 
A. The listing was done by the superintendent. The prepar­
ation has been done through years of professional study.

Q. Who assisted the superintendent in preparing this 
list of material? A. Various professors, teachers, authors.

Q. What professors? A. I can’t give you the informa­
tion at this time. That has been in the course of a profes­
sional career which extends over a goodly number of years.

—94—
Q. Are you stating that you prepared this through re­

search? A. I prepared it through experience, study and 
some research.

Q. Did any person assist you, Mr. Teachey? A. Yes.
Q. Who was that person? A. Dr. Charles Weaver, for­

merly assistant superintendent in particular.
Q. When did he assist you, Mr. Teachey? A. He left us 

in 1965 in July, June 30th. He assisted, in fact it is my 
recollection that the teacher evaluation record, the report, 
probably was put in this form by Dr. Weaver. Dr. John A. 
Parker, presently our superintendent, has assisted in all 
such details over the past three or four years.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



294a

Q. What years were those! What year did Dr. Weaver 
assist you? A. He was—ending in June 30th, 1965.

Q. In June 30, 1965? A. Yes, through 196—, back for 
three years prior to that.

Q. He assisted you from 1965 back through the three 
years? A. ’62 to ’65. That is my recollection.

—95—
Q. And he assisted you in drawing up these procedures, 

criteria? A. He did, as I just stated, substantially he put 
this in this form, substantially, and certainly assisted—

Q. What year did he put that in that form? A. 1964.
Q. 1964? A. I believe I gave that testimony a little while 

ago.
Q. Did you not testify earlier that this was the first year 

that these things were written up in this form? A. No.
Q. You mean they were written up earlier, the criteria 

and procedures? A. We are talking, sir, I believe about 
two different things. The teacher evaluation record, which 
is a report of evaluation, was prepared in this form in the 
fall of 1964, used for the first time by principal during 
the year 1964-65. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No.—

Q. Two. A. Two, was prepared by the superintendent 
upon request by the attorneys for the plaintiff for a state­
ment of procedures and criteria used in evaluating teachers 
in the Asheboro City School System.

Q. And this was in January, 1966? A. This was in 
January.

—96—
Q. You are stating that this was the first time that these 

procedures and criteria were listed? A. In this form.
Q. Or brought together from any source to be placed in 

this form?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



295a

The Court: Haven’t we gone over this, Mr.
Chambers?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, there has been some 
confusion here.

Mr. Walker: We will stipulate to that.
The Court: I thought we had gone through that. 

He said that he thought it was written down in 
various books and periodicals and publications, and 
there was some understanding that that was the 
first time it was ever written.

Mr. Chambers: Or brought together. This is the 
thing we are trying to establish.

The Court: Let me ask you this. Do you believe 
it will be some while yet before you will be through 
examining Mr. Teachey?

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. We usually take a noon 

recess at twelve-thirty unless—is there some part of 
this that you feel you should develop right now?

Mr. Chambers: No, sir.
—97—

The Court: All right. Let’s take a recess until 
two o’clock, then.

(Whereupon the hearing was recessed, to recon­
vene at 2 o’clock p.m., the same day.)

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



296a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

A fternoon Session

-98—

The Court: All right, Mr. Teachey, if you will 
come hack to the stand, please, sir. All right, Mr. 
Chambers.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Teachey, I don’t know whether we removed Ex­

hibit 3. We were examining. Would you look there at 
question and answer number fourteen? Would you state 
how the staff, teachers and others participated indirectly 
in the preparation of these criteria and procedures? A. 
Chiefly through conferences, group sessions, conversations, 
in-service study over a number of years, not at any one 
stated time or at any particular request of any individual.

Q. Mr. Teachey, were these procedures and criteria used 
by your school board changed during the twenty-year 
period you referred to in the answer to these interroga­
tories? A. To the extent that they might have been de­
veloped in greater detail only.

Q. Now, when were they first set out in any kind of 
detail? A. I believe my former response to the same type 
question would indicate that the written form was done 
recently at the request of the attorneys for the plaintiff. 
The details, however, of the evaluation have been used 
and known quite commonly for a number of years.

—99—
Q. You state in answer to question three on this Exhibit 

3 that the procedures and criteria have been used at least 
twenty years except required written evaluation by princi­
pal only one year. I am trying to find out the date when 
you had some general conception of what procedures and



297a

criteria you would follow in evaluation. A. Which I per­
sonally?

Q. Your staff or your unit or your office. A. I would 
say 1947.

Q. Now, could you describe to the Court generally what 
you had in 1947 in the way of procedures and criteria?

Mr. Walker: Objection. That’s very remote, Your 
Honor.

The Court: I doubt the relevancy of it, but I’m 
going to overrule the objection. As to what he would 
do in ’47, Mr. Chambers, I don’t quite see what that 
would do, but go ahead.

By the witness-.

A. In 1947, we were using procedures similar if not exact 
in all details to those which we use now. One detail, of 
course, which was different was that we had not the indi­
vidual record, written record of evaluation. Another de­
tail that there was probably more direct contact of the 
superintendent with the individual teacher, eighteen years 
ago, twenty years ago.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. My question, though, Mr. Teachey, is this. I ’m try-
— 100—

ing to find out when you got to the point of some general 
conception or criteria and procedure as you have outlined 
in the answer to number one of Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. Walker: Objection. The form of the question, 
some general conception.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



298a

The Court: Well, it seems to me he has answered 
this question. He said that the criteria was first set 
out in detail in writing when counsel for the plain­
tiff requested it, hut that the details had been used 
first for many years, but your question is that you 
are trying to get him to state a particular year ?

Mr. Chambers: A particular year.
The Court: I ’ll sustain the objection. Rephrase 

your question and go along that line, if you wish.
Mr. Chambers: We will go to something else, 

Your Honor.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Teachey, I show you an evaluation sheet of Plain­

tiff’s Exhibit No. 3, and ask you if you will state what that 
is? A. State what, sir?

Q. State what that is. A. This is a teacher evaluation 
record.

Q. Of what teacher? A. Lee J. Stone.
— 101—

Q. Who made that evaluation? A. Keith Hudson.
Q. And who is Mr. Keith Hudson? A. Dr. Keith Hud­

son is principal of Asheboro High School.

The Court: What was the first name of Stone?
The Witness: Lee. L-e-e.
The Court: All right. Go ahead.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Is Mr. Hudson still with the school system?? A. Yes, 

he is.



299a

Q. Do you consider him a very well-qualified principal! 
A. Yes. Dr. Hudson is eminently well qualified academi­
cally.

Q. Do you consider him well qualified to make evaluations 
of teachers! A. Yes, with this exception. He would be 
much better qualified in 1965-66 than he was in ’64-65 for 
his reason. He accepted the principalship of Asheboro High 
School in November, 1964, and these evaluation records 
had to be made early in the late winter, rather in 1965. At 
this time he had had opportunity to observe the teachers 
on his staff.

Q. How long had he been an assistant! A. None before.
— 102—

Q. He had not been an assistant before! A. That’s 
correct.

Q. ’64 was his first year in the system? A. Yes, Novem­
ber of ’64 was his beginning employment with us. It could 
have been late October. At any rate, the fall of ’64. He 
didn’t begin the term ’64-65. He came to us upon comple­
tion of a doctoral program and the resignation of a prin­
cipal who was at that time on the job.

Q. Now, the eight years’ experience would refer to what? 
A. Eight years’ experience would refer to experience in 
other places.

Q. Now, would you state what Mr. Hudson had to say 
about the subject?

Mr. Walker: I object.
The Court: Because it speaks for itself? That is 

true, Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers: Well, let me rephrase the question.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



300a

Guy B. Teacliey—for Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Teacliey, was there a favorable evaluation of the 

subject1?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: That would be construing what he has 

on there. Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Did you follow the recommendation of Mr. Hudson.?

—103—
Mr. Walker: Object to that.
The Court: Overruled.

By the witness:
A. The recommendation of Dr. Hudson in this instance 
was not followed. The decision of the superintendent was 
the deciding factor.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Now, what was the factor that the superintendent 

considered? A. Performance in other areas.
Q. What other areas? A. Let me state that better than 

other areas before you interrupt, sir, if you will. Per­
formance in areas which were not well known to the princi­
pal on the job at that time.

Q. What were those areas? A. Especially in dealing 
with young men in athletic programs.

The Court: Might I see that just a moment?
Mr. Anderson: That has been introduced?
Mr. Chambers: Yes.



301a

The Court: This is part of what exhibit!
Mr. Chambers: Part of Exhibit 3.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, could you explain the evaluation here 
of the principal, Dr. Hudson, in reference to the leadership 
of the subject?

Mr. Walker: Object.
—104—

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I respond?
The Court: Yes. You are asking him to state what 

was in somebody else’s mind, Mr. Chambers, is what 
is bothering me about it.

Mr. Chambers: My understanding is that the 
principal—I mean, the principal makes his evalua­
tion and the superintendent acted on these evalua­
tions, that is stated in the interrogatories, in con­
nection with other matters that he might know of, 
decides whether or not to recommend the teacher. 
Now, I think that the superintendent would have to 
know something about the recommendations by the 
principal in order to make a recommendation of the 
teacher, and this is what I was asking here in refer­
ence to this comment by the principal.

The Court: I’m going to overrule the objection, 
and I’ll be glad to hear from you.

Mr. Walker: May it please the Court, as I under­
stood him, he asked him could you please explain 
this evaluation of the principal. Now, that’s asking 
him to objectively state what some third party who

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



302a

is not in court today and not a party to this action 
has done.

Mr. Chambers: I’ll rephrase the question, then.
The Court: Sustained. I think he is right, Mr. 

Walker, if they use this as one of the factors to
—105—

arrive at an evaluation, that is, the evaluation of the 
principal. The general tenor of the question is com­
petent, and you are probably right in the way it was 
put. Maybe it is somewhat objectionable. He says 
he will withdraw it and rephrase it. All right.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. How did you interpret that evaluation, Mr. Teachey, 

by Mr. Hudson of that subject? A. My interpretation of 
this particular one was that the principal, new on the field, 
had had some opportunity but probably insufficient oppor­
tunity to evaluate properly the work of this individual. 
Now, this is not intended to indicate any lack of confidence 
in the ability of the principal or in the judgment of the 
principal, simply an indication that an athletic coach quite 
often in the beginning of a new school administration has 
misunderstandings and even some conflicts, perhaps occa­
sionally a matter of philosophy. There are varying things 
that entered into my interpretation of this evaluation.

Q. Would you look there on that date sheet, Mr. Teachey, 
at the evaluation of the subject as a teacher. Now, would 
your same appraisal follow there of this Hr. Hudson’s 
evaluation of that subject? A. Coach—hardly. It wouldn’t 
be greatly different. It would be somewhat different and 
more favorable, but in this particular instance, the evalua­

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



303a

tion as a teacher is not entirely valid in that first and above
—106—

everything else, this person is an athletic coach.
Q. Does the subject also teach, Mr. Teachey? A. Per­

haps a class or two in physical education.
Q. Does he not teach more than a class or two, Mr. 

Teachey? A. That’s practically all. That’s right.
Q. What is your appraisal of the other references here 

by Dr. Hudson about that subject? A. You’ll have to ask 
again.

Q. Would your appraisal of Dr. Hudson’s evaluation of 
that subject be the same with reference to the other com­
ments he has made on that date sheet? A. As an athletic 
director, no. It would not. He has—

Q. Did Dr. Hudson have an opportunity to make an 
appraisal of the subject as athletic director? A. A. lim­
ited opportunity.

Q. Would you question Dr. Hudson’s evaluation there? 
A. In that particular instance, yes.

Q. In other words, you question Dr. Hudson’s evaluation 
throughout that report? A. Sufficiently at that time to 
make a different decision.

Q. Did Dr. Hudson make such comments about any other
—1 0 7 -

teacher in his school? A. I would have to review them.

The Court: Do you have some specific ones, Mr. 
Chambers, that you would like to call his attention 
to?

Mr. Chambers: No, sir.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



304a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, let me call your attention to the teacher 
evaluation records of Mr. Howard J. Hurst.

The Court: Now, all these evaluation records are 
part of Exhibit 3?

Mr. Chambers: Three.
The Court: All right.

By the witness:

A. You wish me to—

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. No, sir. I just want to ask if that doesn’t show that 
Dr. Hudson has made a thorough investigation of the 
teacher.

Mr. Walker: Object to that, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you find a Hurst evaluation certificate? A. Yes. 
Q. What is your appraisal of that evaluation, Mr. 

Teachey? A. This is probably—now, let me point out 
that I have the advantage of knowing both of these indi-

— 108—

viduals to which you have referred for a period of eight, 
from a period of from eight to eighteen years.

Q. I just want to know, though, your appraisal of that 
evaluation. A. I’m giving this as an introduction to my 
statement that in each of these instances—in one instance, 
I think, the appraisal, the evaluation is too severe on the



305a

weakness side, the other one too favorable on the strength 
side.

Q. Okay. Would you turn to the evaluation of Mr. 
Morgan? A. We have two Morgans.

Q. Mr. Max B. Morgan. A. Yes.
Q. What is your appraisal of Dr. Hudson’s evaluation 

of that teacher? A. I concur pretty generally with this 
one, and again, I have known this teacher for several years.

Q. Now, does the evaluation sheet show that Dr. Hudson 
had some knowledge of the teacher’s coaching ability?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: All right. Overruled. It does speak 

for itself. Does it show that he has some knowledge 
of it? I think it’s a valid objection, but I ’m overrul­
ing it.

— 109—
By the witness:

A. He has so indicated it.

The Court: All right.
By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you turn to Mr. Joe Trogden? How would you 
appraise Dr. Hudson’s evaluation there in light of his 
knowledge of the subject? A. Knowledge of the subject?

Q. The teacher. A. Knowledge of the teacher or knowl­
edge of the subject which he teaches?

Q. The knowledge of the teacher. A. And the question 
is?

Q. How would you appraise Dr. Hudson’s evaluation of 
the teacher in the light of his knowledge of the teacher? 
A. In this case, on the basis of limited time for observa­

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



306a

tion, in my opinion he came, he gave a very close—at least 
his evaluation is not quite different from that which I would 
have given personally.

Q. Would you turn, now, to the evaluation of Mr. John 
Allen? A. All right.

Q. How would you appraise Dr. Hudson’s evaluation of 
Mr. Allen in light of his knowledge of the teacher? A. I 
am unable to answer that because the one I have here, 
unless there is another one, was done by a different prin­
cipal.

— n o —
Q. Done by a different principal.

The Court: What school is Dr. Hudson the princi­
pal in?

Mr. Chambers: That is true, Your Honor. It was 
done by a different principal.

The Court: What school was Dr. Hudson in?
The Witness: Asheboro High School, Your Honor.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you recall, Mr. Teachey, whether Dr. Hudson 
recommended all other teachers? A. I don’t recall, but 
these records have a check for that item.

Q. Whether he recommends or not recommends? A. 
That’s right, and I believe, my recollection is, that even 
those who were not—were most highly rated, were recom­
mended for a contract for another year.

Q. Did that include Mr. Stone? A. Did his recommen­
dation include Mr. Stone?

Q. Yes. A. I believe not.
Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, when were the teachers advised, 

the principals advised about the weight to be given to

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



307a

these various criteria set out in the date sheet? A. I am 
unable to give you a date on that, Mr. Chambers.

Q. Was it in 1964? A. I don’t know.
—I l l —

Q. Was it in 1965? A. I can’t give you an answer.
Q. Were they ever advised? A. Yes.
Q. They were? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have before you the evaluation by Miss 

Loflin of Judith Gray and Miss Gallimore? A. Yes.
Q. Would you state there from the weight that you 

stated were given these various criteria in Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 3, question number sixteen, the average that 
Miss Loflin should have found there in reference to Miss 
Gallimore ?

Mr. Walker: Object.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, these are all posi­

tive—
Mr. Walker: We’ve objected, Your Honor.
The Court: You said the weight that he would 

give to the various criteria. Is there something in 
this interrogatory that he states the weight that 
will be given to the various criteria?

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. In answer to question 
number sixteen. All of the criteria weights are set 
out.

Mr. Walker: No, sir. That’s not true. His state­
ment was that the criteria do not carry equal weight,

—112—
the approximate weights are—and this is not done 
by the person he requested but by superintendent 
Guy Teachey, assistant superintendent Weaver, and 
director of elementary instruction, Johnny Parker,

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



308a

various principals and teachers and not this par­
ticular principal.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I will get at the 
question another way then.

The Court: You withdraw the question!
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, would you refer to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 3, question number sixteen. A. I have it.

Q. You have it? A. Yes.
Q. What is meant here by the approximate weights of 

the criteria? A. These approximations indicate the rela­
tive importance which we consider each of these items has 
in a teacher’s proficiency, in determining a teacher’s pro­
ficiency.

Q. Did you state that this information was conveyed to 
the teacher? A. To the teacher?

Q. To the principal. A. Generally yes.
—113—

Q. When is it conveyed? A. I can’t answer that.
Q. When was it conveyed? A. I told you I couldn’t—
Q. You don’t know? A. No.
Q. It was conveyed? A. Generally known.
Q. Do principals use this set of weights in making their 

evaluation of teachers ? A. They have not been instructed 
that this is a definite requirement.

Q. They have not? A. No.
Q. Would you look at one of the data sheets of the 

evaluation of a teacher? A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you state there in the use of a scale about 

superior, above average, and so forth, whether these

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



309a

weights are to be used there? A. They may be used as 
approximate weights.

Q. They may? A. Yes.
Q. They do not have to be used? A. Yes, that’s correct.

— 114—

Q. They do not have to be used? A. As far as I can 
remember, there is no definite requirement that a principal 
use any exact set of weights in making these evaluations. 
Now, generally, I believe in our system these are pretty 
well accepted. If there are exceptions by any principals, I 
am unable to point to it in detail.

Q. Now, do the principals make the evaluation accord­
ing to these weights if they are used? A. I believe I just 
answered that question.

Q. Would you say yes or no to the question? A. I can’t 
answer yes or no.

Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. He said there’s no definite 

requirement that teachers use any exact set of 
weights in making the evaluation, and then you 
follow with that question.

Mr. Chambers: He also states in his system that 
they do.

The Witness: No.
The Court: Then you followed with what question 

that they objected to?
Mr. Chambers: Whether the principals made 

these evaluations according to these weights.
— 115—

The Witness: Your Honor, I intended to say, I 
believe I did say that there is no requirement that 
these approximations be used, but I do believe that

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff—Direct



310a

generally these are well known and fairly commonly 
used, but to state that there is a requirement or 
that any individual principal uses it, is beyond my 
realm of knowledge at this time.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Are they instructed to use it, Mr. Teachey? A. Not 
definitely, no.

Q. What do you mean by not definitely? A. Just what 
it says.

Q. Are they instructed to use these weights? A. They 
are offered as a suggestion.

Q. They are not instructed to use them? A. Not re­
quired to use them.

Q. Are they instructed to use them, Mr. Teachey?

Mr. Walker: Your Honor, I object to this. The 
harassing of this witness.

The Court: All right.
The Witness: If I may make a statement—
The Court: I am going to overrule it and let you 

answer it now, and we’re going to move on to some­
thing else.

The Witness: I think he’s toying on a matter of
- - l i e -

semantics probably. Instructed and required, to me 
they are the same.

The Court: I rather think he’s answered it. The 
question was have you instructed them to use it. 
Now, will you answer that question. Maybe it’s 
repetitious, probably is.

The Witness: We have discussed it—we have dis­
cussed and we do quite often in professional meet­

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



311a

ings this type of thing, but to say to a professional 
person, this must be done this way, is beyond— 
well, it’s out of the realm of our philosophy of ed­
ucation.

The Court: As you say, you have not done that, 
as I understand it.

The Witness: Instructed that this must be used.
The Court: That is your answer as I understand 

it.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right. That ought to answer it. 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, what steps did you take at the close of 
the 1964-65 school year in reference to the Negro teachers 
at Central School in advising them of their consideration 
for employment for the 1965-66 school year? A. Do you 
wish this in detail?

Q. Let me rephrase the question. Did you take any 
steps at the close of the 1964-65 school year to advise the 
Negro teachers at Central about their consideration for

—1 1 7 -
employment for the 1965-66 school year? A. During the 
school term and near the end, at the close of the term, yes.

Q. What steps did you take? A. We had staff meet­
ings and written communications.

Q. With whom did you have staff meetings? A. With 
the staff at Central School.

Q. Was anyone with you in your meetings? A. Do you 
mean was I alone ?

Q. Let me rephrase the question, Mr. Teachey. Did any­
body from your staff, the superintendent’s staff, accompany 
you to these meetings? A. To one at least.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



312a

Q. Who was that? A. As I recollect, the other profes­
sional members of the administrative staff, whether there 
were one or two, I don’t recall, but I know at least one, 
and my recollection at this time is Dr, Charles Weaver.

Q. Dr. Charles Weaver? A. Yes. And Dr. Johnny 
Parker might have been present there also. I ’m not sure 
of that.

Q. Dr. Charles Weaver, on your staff? A. Was on our 
staff.

Q. Was he on your staff at the close of the ’64-65 school 
year? A. Yes.

'— 118—

Q. And he accompanied you to one of the staff meetings 
at Central? A. Yes.

Q. When was that? A. I can’t answer.
Q. Was it in May? A. Probably earlier. I can’t answer. 
Q. Now, you say you had some written communications? 

Was that a letter to the teachers at Central? A. It was.
Q. Is that the letter referred to in the exhibit, Plaintiff’s 

deposition of Mr. Teachey? A. If I may see it?

The Court: This may be what you’re looking for.

By the witness:

A. This is a copy of the letter, yes.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. And that letter went only to the teachers at Central 
School? A. This particular letter, yes.

Q. Was another letter sent to the teachers at the other 
schools? A. All of our teachers received a letter prior 
to this term concerning employment for the following 
school term.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



313a

Q. Was that the letter in which the teacher indicates 
whether he or she wants to return to the school system1?

— 119—

A. That was an attachment.
Q. That was an attachment? A. If I may add just a 

little more. The letter to which you have referred in this 
exhibit is a letter which went only to people for whom 
there appeared at that time uncertainty as to the avail­
ability of positions.

Q. And those persons were all Negroes? A. The per­
sons who received this letter were all Negroes. There 
were white persons who had already been so informed.

Q. They did not receive that letter then? A. Not this 
particular letter.

Q. Mr. Teachey, would you look at the teacher evalua­
tion of Mr. Burns by Mr. Harrell in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 3? A. Yes, I have it.

Q. How did you appraise Mr. Harrell’s evaluation of 
Mr. Burns?

Mr. Walker: Your Honor, could I be heard just 
a moment before he answers that question?

The Court: All right.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Chambers has a perfect right to 

do this, because this is a matter that’s in the record, 
but he is seeing fit now to ask about individual 
teachers who are currently employed and some of 
them not employed in Asheboro but throughout the 
State of North Carolina. Some of the remarks are

— 120—

not too flattering. I am wondering if there is some 
way that we could keep it, as has been done in these 
other cases that have been tried in this state, within 
this Court.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



314a

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I would be glad to 
do that. We have no intention here to have any 
embarrassment whatever to come to any of the 
teachers, and if we could change any alphabets or 
anything else, we’d do it.

Mr. Walker: If they want to do it, I want to say 
right now that we have some questions that we 
wish to ask, too, concerning other teachers.

The Court: I should think it is a proper inquiry, 
and I can appreciate your concern about the fact 
that somebody could be damaged through this pro­
cedure. I ’m not indicating any intent on the part 
of counsel to do that, but such could naturally flow 
from this sort of thing. I inquire as to how much 
further we will go with these certificates.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, this is our last ques­
tion, I think.

The Court: I think that we could devise a plan 
by having an index made up and having it referred 
to as “A” , “B” and “ C”, and do it that way. If we 
were to go on indefinitely—

Mr. Walker: Your Honor, here’s what I had in
— 121—

mind, specifically, that all of these some two hun­
dred teachers, what their immediate supervisor 
thought about them in writing would be made a 
matter of public knowledge for each teacher to 
compare with the other teacher. It would almost be 
humiliating in some cases.

The Court: He says this would be the last one.
Mr. Walker: I realize this is all a matter for the 

Court. We have made avilable to him and tli,i.s Court 
complete records of every teacher we have, every 
single one.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Direct



315a

The Court: All right. Well, this particular name 
is already in, so you may go ahead on this one.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you recall the question? A. Only the name. I 
recall the name.

Q. What is your appraisal of Mr. Harrell’s evaluation 
of that subject? A. This particular person? Probably 
my personal evaluation would have been slightly more 
favorable, not all the way to the top of the scale, perhaps, 
but somewhat between the point at which Mr. Harrell has 
evaluated the individual and the top.

Q. Did you so appraise that at the time that you con­
sidered this individual for employment? A. Yes.

Mr. Chambers: No further questions.
— 122—

The Court: What school is Mr. Harrell principal, 
was he at the time?

The Witness: Asheboro Junior High School.
The Court: You said that you had finished?
Mr. Chambers: We’re through.
The Court: All right. The witness is with the 

defendant.

Cross Examination by Mr. Walker:

Q. Mr. Teachey, where did you receive your undergradu­
ate and graduate training ? A. At Wingate Junior College, 
the University of North Carolina, and the University of 
North Carolina Graduate School at Chapel Hill.

Q. What degrees do you hold? A. An AB Degree and 
a Master of Arts Degree.

Q. Have you done other work, other graduate work? A. 
Some.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



316a

Q. Where was that? A. Chiefly and entirely, I believe, 
at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Q. Are yon a member of any professional societies? A. 
If you mean by that learned societies, probably not. Pro­
fessional societies, yes. Phi Delta Kappa, Phi Beta Kappa, 
American Association of School Administrators, National 
Education Association, North Carolina Education Associa-

—123—
tion, Division of Superintendents of the North Carolina 
Education Association, and this about does it, I guess.

Q. And I believe you stated that you had been the super­
intendent of the Asheboro City System since 1947? A. 
Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. And you were there some two years or three years 
before that as a principal? A. Two years as principal of 
Asheboro High School.

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, is the entire Asheboro City School 
System accredited by any agency? A. By the North Caro­
lina Department of Instruction and the Southern Associa­
tion of Colleges and Schools.

Q. When was the Asheboro High School accredited by 
the Association of Southern Schools and Colleges? A. 
1951, I believe, ’51, ’52—’51 I believe.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to how many entire sys­
tems in the State of North Carolina either city or county 
are accredited by either the State or Southern systems?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’d like to object to 
that on the basis that it’s irrelevant.

The Court: What is the relevancy, Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker: To qualify this witness, may it please 

the Court, as to his qualifications as an administra­
tor.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



317a

The Court: All right. Go ahead. Overruled. Pro­
ceed.

—124—
Mr. Chambers: But, Your Honor, I still would 

object on the basis of whether he knows that there 
are one hundred or none besides the Asheboro School 
System accredited wouldn’t have any relevancy to 
this litigation.

The Court: I take it that the inference the Court 
is asked to take, Mr. Chambers, is that he has an 
accredited school and I assume that maybe there is 
a limited number. I don’t know what he’s going to 
ask, but let’s say he came up with one other, then 
that I guess would be an inference that he is con­
ducting a good school system. All right. Go ahead. 
Proceed. Overruled.

By the witness:

A. There are a number of systems that are fully accredited 
by the State Department of Public Instruction, but those 
which are accredited, elementary and secondary, by the 
Southern Association are limited in number. Probably, I 
can’t give an exact number, but of 165 to 70, probably 15 
and maybe 18 systems.

Q. In the entire state? A. In the entire state.
Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, you have been asked about Lee 

Stone. How long has he been head coach at Asheboro High 
School? A. Mr. Stone became head football coach at Ashe­
boro High School in 19— I’ll have to have a year’s variation 
—’48 or ’49.

—125—
Q. What is the name of the stadium at Asheboro? A. 

Lee J. Stone Stadium.

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff—Cross



318a

Q. Do you have an opinion as to how many champion­
ship football teams Asheboro has turned out under the 
tutorship and guidance of Lee Stone? A. Three to five. 
A. contender perennially.

Q. In the past five years, would you estimate as to how 
many football scholarships have been awarded by colleges 
to students who play on the Asheboro High School Foot­
ball team? A. Probably an average of five to eight per 
year.

Q. At what schools? Would you state some of the col­
leges ? A. State schools, and those in several of the neigh­
boring states.

Q. Well, this year, the 1965-66 year, did the Asheboro 
High School team under the leadership of Coach Stone win 
anything? A. The championship.

Q. Of what? A. Western North Carolina High School 
Activities Association, probably. At least one of the strong­
est two football conferences in the state.

Q. Well, do you know whether or not the Asheboro High 
School team this past year was not listed generally as

—126-
number one of the Three “A” teams throughout the entire 
State of North Carolina? A. It was.

Q. And was Coach Lee Stone head football coach last 
year? A. Yes, he was.

Q. And this year? A. He was.
Q. Now, are you familiar with the evaluation of J. R. 

Snipe who is principal at Central School in 1964 of R. E. 
Murphy? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Mr. Snipe was then principal of Central High. 
Is that right? A. He was.

Q. And was he and is he a Negro? A. He is.
Q. Is Mr. R. E. Murphy a Negro? A. He is.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



319a

Q. Will you please look at the evaluation of R. E, Murphy 
by J. R. Snipe! A. I have it.

Q. Did Mr. Snipe recommend Mr. Murphy for reelection 
for the next year! A. He did not.

—127—
Q. Was he in fact employed the next year by the Ashe- 

boro School Board system! A. Yes, he was.
Q. In what capacity! A. Mr. Murphy is presently a 

teacher and assistant coach.
Q. And where is he a teacher! A. In the Fayetteville 

Street School, which is the seventh grade section of our 
Junior high school organization.

Q. Is he serving presently in a coaching capacity else­
where? A. He is.

Q. What! A. You mean other than football?
Q. Yes, sir. A. In addition, too, he is assistant in foot­

ball at Asheboro High School, he is also head track coach 
at Asheboro High School.

Q. Is that at the present time? A. At the present time.

The Court: Let’s see. You say he’s assistant coach 
at Fayetteville Street?

The Witness: He teaches at Fayetteville Street 
School, Your Honor. Mr. Murphy, if I might ex­
plain, is certificated as an elementary school instruc­
tor. His certificate is in the elementary area. He

—128—
therefore has to be assigned to grade eight or below. 
He is assigned to teach at the seventh grade level, 
which is in his field, but he is assigned, his coaching 
duties are at the high school level, at Asheboro High 
School.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



320a

Guy B. Teachey—-for Plaintiff—Cross 

By Mr. Walker:

Q. He is assistant coach of football at Asheboro High 
School? A. That’s correct. Although, sir, he was not 
recommended by his principal.

Q. I had gathered that, thank you. Mr. Teachey, I want 
to ask you about Mr. Gaines W. H. Price. Is he a Negro? 
A. He is.

Q. Do you have some notes that you wish to use to 
refresh your recollection? A. If you are going to ask 
questions, if I may have the privilege of referring to some 
notes. I think I do have some which would help.

Mr. Walker: Would Your Honor permit that?
The Court: Oh, yes, use your notes.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. I want to ask you about Gaines W. H. Price. He was 
not reemployed for the year ’65-66, was he? A. Mr. Price 
is not with us this year. That’s correct.

Q. What was his certificate when he was with you, his 
degree and his certificate, and in what area? A. Mr.

—1 2 9 -
Price’s degree is bachelor’s degree. He held a Class A 
North Carolina Teacher’s Certificate in music and science.

Q. How many years had he taught, his total experience 
in teaching in Asheboro and elsewhere? A. Seven years.

Q. How many in Asheboro? A. Three years.
Q. What do you know of your own knowledge why he 

was not offered employed for the year 1965-66? A. I 
think so.

Q. What is that, sir? A. In reorganization of a school 
which had a band director, and Mr. Price was primarily



321a

employed by our system as a band director, into a larger 
school, there was—well, at the outset, the reorganization 
involved a transfer of a number of students, approximately 
half of the high school enrollment, to another administra­
tive unit. Now, this left relatively a small number of 
students transferring to any particular other school in the 
system. Now, Mr. Price as a band director was not re- 
employed because the other band directors both had had 
preferential qualifications as to academic background, per­
formance and some other categories.

Q. Are you referring to Joseph B. Fields and H. E.
— 130—

Harrington? A. Those are the other two who are in 
band, that’s correct, sir.

Q. Well, do Mr. Fields and Mr. Harrington both hold 
master’s degrees? A. Both hold master’s degrees.

Q. Do they both have graduate certificates? A. Both 
have graduate certificates.

Q. In music? A. In music.
Q. And how many years’ experience in teaching music 

does Mr. Joseph B. Fields have? A. Twelve years.
Q. How many did Mr. Harrington have? A. Four years.
Q. How many years in the Asheboro system did Mr. 

Fields have? A. Nine.
Q. How many did Mr. Harrington have? A. Three.
Q. While Mr. Fields was the director of the band at Ashe­

boro High School, that nine year period, how many years 
did the Asheboro band get a superior or excellent rating? 
A. It hasn’t had an excellent rating in the nine years since 
Mr. Fields has been with us. It has had superior, which 
is the top rating, each year of those nine, and this is in

- 131-

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross

state music festivals.



322a

Q. State competition? A. State competition.

The Court: Had a superior rating for how many 
years ?

The Witness: Each of the nine years, and Your 
Honor, he added another year to that string recently.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. So this current year, then, makes ten? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. Now, back to Mr. Price a moment. In addition to the 
evaluation that came to you from the principal, did you 
consider other factors in not offering him employment for 
the current school year? A. Of course, we considered be­
fore we made final decisions, we considered Mr. Price’s 
qualifications against those others in his field of preparation 
and experience, but in addition to that, we had some other 
things which entered into the final decision on Mr. Price. 
This deals with one of those extra things which I was ques­
tioned about earlier. It had to deal with delinquency with 
the Internal Eevenue Department, and this type of prob­
lem, we don’t like to be embarrassed by this type thing, 
and we have to take them into consideration.

Q. Well, did Mr. Price have some problems with the
- 1 3 2 -

Internal Eevenue Service? A. We had to deduct tax from 
his paychecks. If we did not deduct it, we had to insist 
that he pay us—we had to forward the money, let me put 
it that way, to the Internal Eevenue Service.

The Court: I think that is pretty generally prac­
ticed, isn’t it? Somebody deducts from mine.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Gross



323a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross 

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Let me ask you this. Was a levy made by the federal 
government through your office! A. Under the superin­
tendent of schools, that’s correct, sir.

The Court: I understand what you’re getting at.
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Walker:
Q. Now, Mr. Price also is listed as a music-science 

teacher, was he not! A. I failed to finish my answer to 
your former question.

Q. Pm sorry, sir. I thought you had. A. This was one 
item. Another was unauthorized purchases on several oc­
casions. In fact, some of which, for which some I have 
received bills even since his departure.

Q. What were those unauthorized purchases? In what 
connection? Do you know? A. Generally they were items 
related to—

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’d like to object to
— 133—

this testimony unless the witness here can show by 
record that he has such information. If he has that 
information that comes to his office, he should have 
some communication from it, and if he has that com­
munication, my objection will be withdrawn. But to 
sit up here and testify without this information 
would be a different story.

The Court: I would gather, if he was within his 
own knowledge about the unauthorized purchases, I 
doubt, Mr. Walker, the thing of developing exactly



324a

what they were, whether that has any great bearing 
upon it.

Mr. Walker: I won’t pursue that any further, 
Your Honor.

The Court: I would think that for instance, the 
matters that he has related, that if he has knowledge 
that came to his attention, that it would be compe­
tent for him to testify, but you’ve withdrawn—

Mr. Walker: I will not pursue that any further. 
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Walker:
Q. Now, let me go back again and ask you. Mr. Price was 

listed as a music-science teacher. Is that correct? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. Now, did you have Mr. A. B. Fairley and J. A. Hay­
worth who were employed in comparable positions at the

- 1 3 5 -
time? A. Mr. J. A. Hayworth was not employed the year 
1964-65. He was employed the year ’63-64, and left us to 
complete a master’s degree program, which he did, and 
Mr. A. B. Fairley has not been employed by us before 
1964-65, but Mr. Fairley was employed last summer as a 
director of secondary science instruction with extremely 
high qualifications, a master’s degree and a candidate for— 
at least he’s well advanced in a doctoral program at the 
University of North Carolina in science.

Q. What about Mr. Hayworth’s degree? A. Master’s 
degree in science.

Q. Is he listed as a teacher in general science and chem­
istry? A. This is his certificate area. He is teaching gen­
eral science and probably earth science. I can’t be abso­

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



325a

lutely certain. His area of certification is in chemistry, 
however.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—uross

The Court: Now, we’re talking about Fairley?
The Witness: This is J. A. Hayworth.
The Court: You say Hayworth has a master’s de­

gree in science?
The Witness: That’s right, sir.
The Court: All right. Proceed.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Going back just for a moment to Mr. H. E. Harring­
ton, going back to H. E. Harrington, is he the assistant

—1 3 6 -
band director and was he last year the assistant band 
director at Asheboro High School? A. He is an assist­
ant to Mr. Fields and has prime responsibility for band 
instruction at the junior high level. He works with wood 
winds, in particular, while Mr. Fields works chiefly in 
brass.

Q. How would you appraise Mr. Harrington as a teacher, 
Mr. Teachey? A. Personally?

Q. Yes, sir. A. I consider Mr. Harrington as consider­
ably above average, probably approaching the superior 
status as a band instructor.

Q. Now, going to A. B. Fairley again, how would you 
appraise his teaching abilities? A. We have to appraise 
Mr. Fairley’s teaching ability on the basis of former ex­
perience, because this is his first year with us, elsewhere, 
but he has taken, moved into a position of directorship of 
secondary science instruction, which involves dealing with 
curriculum, coordination of curriculum, professional im­
provement of instruction at all levels in grade seven



326a

through twelve. That’s Mr. Fairley’s responsibility, and 
he is doing an outstanding piece of work in this area, we 
believe, at this time to head up our science instruction 
program at the secondary level. Now, we had no basis

—137—
for comparison with anybody else, because this is a new 
position.

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, comparing Mr. Price with any 
others and all other teachers in comparable positions in 
the Asheboro City School System, how would you rate 
him in regard to any and all others?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I ’d like to object to 
the question.

The Court: Is it to the form of the question or 
to the solicited answer?

Mr. Chambers: First of all to the form.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: It assumes too much knowledge on 

the part of this witness. He is in a position now to 
appraise all these teachers. Secondly to the rele­
vance, because there is no point here in question of 
time when such appraisal was made, and if it’s made 
after, which we submit it has been, it has no bearing 
whatever on this case.

The Court: Let me catch up on my notes here a 
little bit. Mr. Walker, I ’m going to sustain the ob­
jection. I think it’s a personal inquiry. If you form 
your question and put it down to time and be more 
specific—I think it’s objectionable.

Mr. Walker: All right.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross

— 138—
The Court: All right.



327a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross 

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Mr. Teachey, as of June of 1965, would you compare 
James W. H. Price as a teacher with Joseph B. Fields!

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, my objection now 
would go to the relevancy. It is our contention that 
any bearing this answer that is sought here would 
have would have to show that this evaluation was 
made prior to the time that these teachers were 
dismissed from this system. For Mr. Teachey to 
sit here now and make any kind of evaluation, I 
submit would be irrelevant.

The Court: I’ll overrule it. Go ahead.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Go ahead, sir. A. I would like to go back a little 
further than June, 1965.

Mr. Chambers: I object, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Just confine it to June of 1965.

The Court: See, the reason is technically if there 
is not a question before you, Mr. Teachey, why, you 
cannot get into the record something that is not 
in response to a question. All right, you may go 
ahead.

By the witness:

A. Our opinion in June, 1965, as to the qualifications of 
Mr. Gaines Price and Mr. Joseph B. Fields can be deter­



328a

mined by the fact that Mr. Fields was employed and Mr. 
Price was not.

Mr. Chambers: Yonr Honor, I object and move 
to strike on the basis that it was not responsive to 
the question.

The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Referring to the letter that Mr. Chambers asked you 
about and says it was written to the teachers at Central 
High, as of the date of writing that letter, would you please 
compare Gaines Price and Joseph B. Fields as teachers?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I hate to keep ob­
jecting but my same objection would apply here, 
too. I can’t see any bearing that that would have 
on the issue here. We charge discriminatory dis­
charge, and this question here has some bearing on 
what might be a position looking at a time in the 
future.

The Court: You asked for injunctive relief al­
leging that this system is using discriminatory prac­
tices in its employment of school personnel, and it 
just seems to me that some comparison of the 
qualifications as between the various personnel that’s 
been hired and those that hadn’t would go to that 
point.

Mr. Chambers: We also charged discrimination 
in the discharge and calling the Court’s attention to 
Franklin vs. Giles County, where the Court found

—1 4 0 -
issue and ordered reinstatement for the next school

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



329a

term with no consideration to what this question is 
going to.

Mr. Anderson: If Your Honor please, I believe 
that is what this lawsuit is all about.

The Court: I ’m overruling the objection. You 
may go ahead.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. As of the date and writing this letter to the teachers 
of Central High School, would you compare Mr. Gaines 
W. H. Price to Joseph B. Fields as a teacher, as of that 
date! A. On that date, it was the judgment of the per­
sons responsible for employing personnel—-

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object on the basis 
that that’s not responsive.

The Court: Yes. He has asked you, Mr. Teachey, 
to make this comparison as a professional school 
man. Now, see, you have started out, it was the 
judgment of someone else.

The Witness: That’s me.
The Court: Well, put it in that sense, then.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. What is. yours? A. It was my judgment, then. I 
have that responsibility, Your Honor.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. What is your judgment? A. My judgment was that 
Mr. Joseph B. Fields was the superior teacher.

—141-—
Q. And what about as a band director, comparing Mr. 

Price and Mr. Fields? A. That Mr. Fields was the su­
perior.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



330a

Q. Now, comparing as of the date of the letter, Mr, 
Price and Mr. Harrington as a band director! A. That 
Mr. Harrington was superior.

Q. In comparing them as a teacher, do you have an 
opinion as to the comparison between Mr. Price and Mr. 
Harrington! A. Mr. Harrington was superior.

Q. All right, sir. Now, as between Mr. Price and Mr. 
A. B. Fairley as of the date of the writing of the letter, 
would you compare Mr. Price and Mr. Fairley as to their 
abilities as teachers! A. I can’t do that, sir, because at 
that time we were not in contact with Mr. Fairley.

Q. All right, sir. Would you compare Mr. J. A. Hay­
worth with Mr. Gaines W. H. Price as a teacher as of the 
time of the writing of the letter! A. Yes. Mr. Hayworth 
was selected as superior.

Q. Would you compare— A. This is my decision. Each 
of my responses is my decision.

Q. All right. Now, Mr. Teachey, Jackie E. Kilgore is
—142—

a Negro! A. Mr. Kilgore is a Negro.
Q. He was not offered reemployment or not offered em­

ployment by the Asheboro City School Board system for 
the year 1965-66, was he! A. Mr. Kilgore—that’s right. 
He was not. He accepted employment elsewhere earlier, 
at any rate.

Q. Was that before the letter was written! A. That is 
my recollection. I can’t be absolute on that. I believe so.

Q. What did Mr. Kilgore teach! A. Mr. Kilgore taught 
sixth and seventh grade, a combination group of pupils.

Q. Did he have any experience in science and teaching 
science! A. To my knowledge, none. His certificate was 
in biology, chemistry and general science. He taught science 
incidentally at the seventh grade level as a part of his 
classroom situation.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



331a

Q. Now, would you list teachers in the entire system as 
of the last of the school year of 1964-65 who were in a 
comparable position to Jackie E. Kilgore by name? A. 
I’m afraid I can’t give you that unless I go through the 
entire staff. There were very few. There were a number 
of seventh grade teachers, of course, but none with this

—1 4 3 -
particular situation.

Q. Well, did you know Merle E. Lancaster! A. Miss 
Lancaster was at the high school secondary level teaching 
biology at Asheboro High School. Now, Mr. Kilgore’s cer­
tificate is involved.

Q. But for seventh—sixth and seventh grade! A. No, 
he was teaching—a North Carolina subject certificate may 
be used in grades seven and eight without penalty.

Q. All right. Pearline L. Palmer. Where did she teach? 
A. Central High School.

Q. Was she employed for the year 1964-65? A. Yes.
Q. Was she employed for the year 1965-1966? A. No.
Q. Is she a Negro? A. Yes.
Q. What certificate—strike that. What degree did she 

hold when she was employed by the Asheboro system? A. 
A bachelor’s degree.

Q. What certificate did she have? A. A Class A cer­
tificate.

Q. In what area? A. Library and possibly a second 
field in history, I believe.

—144—
Q. How many years did she have in teaching experience 

throughout the state or anywhere? A. None until she 
came to us.

The Court: What is her first name?
The Witness: Pearline.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



332a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross 

By Mr. Walker:

Q. After she had been with you, then, one year, how 
would you personally rate her performance as a teacher? 
A. It would have to he rated below average, average prob­
ably—well, at least below average and close to poor.

Q. Who were the other teachers who had a certificate 
in library or related field in the entire Asheboro system? 
A. By name? There were seven others.

Q. Who were they? A. Judith M. Gray, Patricia H. 
Skeen, Kathleen C. Whatley, Catherine Buie, Gray K. 
Kearns, LaVerne H. Barnes—I’m sorry, the last one was 
not a library position last year. There were six others. 
LaVerne H. Barnes is a librarian for the current year.

Q. Is LaVerne H. Barnes a Negro? A. She is.
Q. Is she now working as a librarian in the Asheboro 

City School system? A. She is.
—145—

Q. Where? A. LaVerne Barnes is an itinerant librarian. 
By that I mean she is engaged in two schools that the 
enrollment of which is not sufficient to justify full-time 
library service. This is at the Balfour School and at Central 
School. She works part-time in each.

Q. Now, Patricia H. Skeen, Judith M. Gray, Swana 
Baldwin all three have bachelor’s degrees, do they not? 
A. That’s correct.

Q. What degree does Kathleen C. Whatley have? A. 
She has a master’s degree, a graduate certificate in library 
science.

Q. Catherine Buie? A. Bachelor’s degree Class A cer­
tificate.

Q. In library? A. Yes.
Q. Gray K. Kearns, what degree? A. Bachelor’s Class 

A certificate.



333a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—-Cross 

Q. In library? A. Yes.

The Court: Before you move off of that, those 
last three or four names that you mentioned, are 
they Negro or white?

The Witness: All of these who have been named 
are white except LaVerne H. Barnes, and of course

—146—
the one who is not with us this year, Pearline Palmer.

The Court: Now, did you say that Miss or Mrs. 
Palmer had a Class A certificate in library science?

The Witness: Library science and the secondary 
area of history is my recollection.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. How would you rate the performance of Patricia H. 
Skeen as a librarian for the year ending, for the school 
year 1964-65? A. Average plus.

Q. How would you rate for the same period of time 
the performance as a librarian, Judith M. Gray? A. 
Above average. Now, this is on a five-point scale. I am 
trying to think.

Q. How would you rate Swana Baldwin as a librarian 
for the school year 1964-65? A. Average.

Q. How many years has Swana Baldwin taught in public 
schools? Do you know, sir? A. Thirty-three years. Yes. 
She’s in her thirty-fourth year now.

Q. How would you list the performance of Kathleen
C. Whatley as a librarian for the year 1964-65? A. I 
would have to rate Mrs. Whatley as superior in her work 
as a librarian.



334a

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff— Cross

—147—
Q. How would you rate Catherine Buie as a librarian for 

the school year 1964-1965? A. Probably at almost the 
level of the performance of Mrs. Whatley. At least above 
average.

Q. How many years’ teaching experience and library 
work had Catherine Buie had? A. She had thirty-eight 
years of teaching experience of which probably—I don’t 
have this exact—but at least eight in library.

Q. Thirty-eight overall. Cray K. Kearns. How would 
you rate him as a librarian for the school year 1964-1965? 
A. I would rate Mrs. Kearns—

Q. Kate her. I beg your pardon. A. As above average.
Q. How many years of experience had she had as a 

librarian up to ’65? A. All of her experience has been as 
a librarian, and there were four years’ experience.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I request a five- 
minute recess?

The Court: It’s about that time. I was hoping we 
would get through with Mr. Teachey. I ’ve found 
that lawyers, when they get a little recess, they find 
more questions to ask. So I had been just hoping 
at one of these breaks, we would be able to finish 
his examination.

—148—
Mr. Walker: Your Honor, we will stipulate that 

we will sequester ourselves from each other and go 
quietly and smoke our cigarettes.

The Court: All right. Let’s take a limited recess.
(A short recess was taken.)
The Court: All right. You may proceed.
Mr. Walker: Thank you, sir.



335a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross 

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Mr. Teachey, going back just a moment to Pearline 
L. Palmer, did you receive any correspondence from 
Pearline Palmer relative to a position in the Asheboro City 
School system recently? A. Recently-—

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object to that 
question on the basis of irrelevancy.

The Court: Overruled.

By the witness:

A. Recently we wrote Miss Palmer asking if she cared 
to be considered for a position which we anticipated to be 
open in library work. Now, we did this in spite of the 
fact that her record of performance with us was only poor, 
but to be sure that we didn’t overlook any application 
which she might wish to make, and I did receive a response.

Q. What did she say? A. Miss Palmer replied—in the 
communication which we sent to Miss Palmer, I had it in 
the letter at the bottom of the page, two items which could

—149—
be checked and give a response. One, I wish to be con­
sidered as an applicant for the position noted above, the 
other, I do not care to be considered for the position avail­
able in the Asheboro City System.

Q. Which did she check? A. She cheeked the “I do not 
care,” and added a letter.

Q. Would you read the letter, please? A. Yes, she ad­
dressed it to me. This is dated April 2nd, 1966.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I would like to ob­
ject here on the basis that the letter itself would be 
the best evidence of what she stated.



336a

The Court: I think so.
Mr. Chambers: I ’d like the statement—
The Court: I didn’t understand your last state­

ment, Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers: I think that both the letter that 

Mr. Teachey stated he sent to Miss Palmer and the 
letter she sent to Mr. Teachey would be the best 
evidence for the statements he is now referring to.

The Court: Well, the other went on in there and 
was received, so without objection at that time— 
so I will let that stand as it is. However, on the

- 1 5 0 -
matter of this letter, I think the letter will be the 
best evidence, and I sustain that objection.

Mr. Walker : We can’t introduce it at this time.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Now, would you go to Sara I. Peterson?

Mr. Chambers: We’d be glad to stipulate to its 
admission.

The Court: Well, let’s wait until that time when 
he stipulates to its admission, wait for the time for 
the defendnt to put on their evidence. All right.

Mr. Walker: It may be that we may not want to.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Walker: But I thank you for your offer.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Sara I. Peterson. Is she a Negro? A. She is.
Q. What degree does she hold? A. Class A certificate 

with a bachelor’s degree, a certificate in business education,

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross

commerce.



337a

Q. What was her total teaching experience? A. Two 
years.

Q. Was all of that in Asheboro? A. All of that in 
Asheboro.

Q. What subjects did she teach? A. Due to the size of 
the school and the small size of the school, Miss Peterson

—151—
taught business education half-time and eighth grade half­
time.

Q. How would you list—strike that, please.

The Court: Business education half-time, and 
what else?

The Witness: Eighth grade subjects half-time. 

By Mr. Wother:

Q. Was the certificate area in commerce? A. The cer­
tificate area was commerce or business education. We use 
those terms generally interchangeably.

Q. How would you rate her or evaluate her as a teacher 
as of the close of the school year, 1964-65? A. My per­
sonal evaluation of her, of course, is based on what I was 
able to observe myself and other factors which were dis­
cussed earlier, would be average.

Q. Now, who did you have at the close of the year in 
the entire school system in comparable positions and would 
you give them by name? A. We had three other persons; 
Mrs. Anne Moore—

The Court: This is the end of the ’64-65 year?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



338a

A. Mrs. Anne Moore, Mrs. Ernestine Presnell, and Miss 
Stella Walker.

Q. What degree did Anne Moore hold? A. Mrs. Moore
- 1 5 2 -

holds a bachelor’s degree with a Glass A certificate in 
commerce.

Q. How many years of teaching did she have? A. Fif­
teen years’ experience, eleven in onr system.

Q. How would you rate her as a teacher at the close of 
the year 1964-65? A. Mrs. Moore would be rated superior.

Q. Would you rate her superior? A. Yes, that’s my 
rating.

Q. Ernestine D. Presnell, what degree did she hold? A. 
Mrs. Presnell holds a master’s degree.

A. A what? A. And a graduate certificate in business 
education.

Q. How many years’ experience did she have? A. Four 
years’ experience, all with the Asheboro system.

Q. How would you evaluate her as a teacher as of the 
close of the year, the school year 1964-1965? A. Above 
average.

Q. Stella Jane Walker. What degree did she hold? A. 
Miss Walker holds a bachelor’s degree with a Class A cer­
tificate in business education.

Q. Had she been there one year? A. One year.
Q. Did you have occasion to observe her and evaluate 

her as a teacher? A. Directly I can’t recall being in Miss
—1 5 3 -

Walker’s room, but other people with responsibility did 
observe her.

Q. How was she rated?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross

Mr. Chambers: Objection.



339a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross 

By Mr. Walker-.

Q. Was she rated by others? A. Yes.

The Court: What did you say Mrs. Moore’s cer­
tificate was?

The Witness: Mrs. Moore, Class A, bachelor’s 
certificate.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, do you recall Louis H. Newberry? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is he a Negro? A. Yes.
Q. What degree did he hold? A. Master’s degree, grad­

uate certificate in counseling, and either an “A” or gradu­
ate in science and social studies. Anticipating questions, 
may I, Your Honor—

The Court: No.
Mr. Walker: No. However, I will ask you a ques­

tion right now in regard to him.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. How would you evaluate him as a teacher for the 
year 1964-65? A. In counselling, which is his prime field

—154—
as far as we are concerned, I would rate him hardly aver­
age, probably slightly below average.

The Court: You said he had his certificate in 
counselling and what else?

The Witness: He also held a certificate in science 
and social studies.



340a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross 

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, in addition to your evaluation of 
Mr. Newberry as a teacher, or a counsellor, did other facts 
that came to your personal attention influence you in 
making your decision not to offer him employment for 
the school year 1965-66? A. Yes.

Q. What were those? A. One, of course, and this in­
volves a possible assignment to other areas besides coun­
selling, was the fact that he had not had any experience 
in the other areas of certification since 1955, ten years be­
fore. All of his efforts during this decade had been toward 
counselling. All of his graduate work had been, during 
that period, had been in counselling. So his qualifications 
in science and social studies would not meet those of other 
people on our staff with whom he was compared. Now, in 
addition to that, Mr. Newberry had a very—shall I say 
annoying habit of presenting worthless checks, even to the 
school in which he was employed on at least three occasions

—155—
to the school, and on other occasions to other citizens of the 
community.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor—
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Chambers: I’d like to object to that again 

and move to strike on the basis that those things 
would be the best evidence of what the witness has 
testified to.

The Court: Mr. Chambers, 1 of course don’t want 
to commit any error or prejudice anyone in this, 
but this is information that presumably he knows 
about, and I do not take it—it would be incumbent



341a

to bring the cheeks here or that sort of thing. Let 
me hear you. What do you have in mind!

Mr. Chambers: I think it would be, Your Honor, 
incompetent for him to bring these things here, and 
I say this for several reasons which I will attempt 
to bring out on cross examination, but the matters 
that this witness is referring to now is personally 
the first time we have learned this, and we took 
discovery of this witness, and he had the opportunity 
to make these observations, and this is the first time 
that he’s made these observations, and if he has 
any information that’s come to his personal knowl­
edge, we think that he should be required to produce 
it. He sits here now and there’s no way that we 
can get checks to show that this is not true.

— 156—
The Court: Were the questions directed to this 

point, Mr. Chambers!
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir, I think so. We will refer 

to it in the depositions of Mr. Teachey.
The Court: What I’m trying to see, though, were 

questions in the depositions or interrogatories that 
were submitted directed to Mr. Teachey along this 
line and there was a failure to disclose.

Mr. Walker: No, sir.
Mr. Chambers: There is no specific question ask­

ing him whether there was a bad check or something 
like that, but I think the depositions will show that 
questions were asked about Mr. Newberry’s com­
parison with other teachers, and Mr. Teachey had 
the opportunity there to make this observation.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



342a

The Court: See, he says that cheeks were given 
to the school, you know, on that—that is a factor 
that would be within his knowledge.

Mr. Chambers: And should have been within his 
knowledge at the time these depositions were taken. 

The Court: Overruled. Proceed.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Mr. Teachey, who did you have as counselors in the 
Asheboro School System in comparable positions to Mr.

—157—
Newberry’s? A. We had two other persons in counsel­
ling positions. One at Asheboro High School and one at 
Asheboro Junior High School.

Q. Who were they? A. Mr. Reid Prillaman, M. R. 
Prillaman, and Mr. Joseph R. Burns.

Q. Now, what degree does M. R. Prillaman hold? A. 
A  master’s.

Q. What did he hold as of the close of the year ’64-65? 
A. A master’s degree and a graduate certificate in coun­
selling.

Q. How many years’ experience had he had as a coun­
sellor? A. Four years.

Q. In Asheboro. And how many had he had teaching? 
A. Oh, nine years. Nine years. I ’m sorry, sir. Nine years’ 
experience in counselling, four years in Asheboro.

Q. How would you evaluate Mr. M. R. Prillaman as of 
the close of the school year ’64-65 as a counsellor? A. As 
a counsellor, Mr. Prillaman is superior.

Q. As to Joseph R. Burns, what degree did he hold at 
the end of the school year ’64-65? A. A master’s degree, 
a graduate certificate in counselling.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



343a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross

—158—
Q. How many years’ experience did he have ? A. Eleven 

years. Two in Asheboro. Not all of the eleven have been 
in counselling. Four in counselling is my recollection.

Q. How would you represent Mr. Burns as a counsellor 
as of the close of the year ’64-651 A. Average, or slightly 
above, plus.

Q. Now, as to Blondie J. Segers, S-e-g-e-r-s. B-l-o-n-d-i-e, 
Blondie J. Segers. Is that a lady or a gentleman! A. 
That’s a lady.

Q. Is she a Negro? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What degree did she hold? A. Bachelor’s degree, 

Class A certificate in music.
Q. Was she employed by the Asheboro City School Sys­

tem in the year 1964-65? A. She was.
Q. How many years’ experience did she have as a music 

teacher? A. As a music teacher, I cannot answer. She 
taught for us, again in a half-time position, half-time music 
and half-time seventh grade.

Q. Let me ask you, how many years’ experience had she'
—159—

had as a teacher? A. A total of three.
Q. How long was she in Asheboro in the Asheboro sys­

tem? A. One year.
Q. How would you evaluate her as a teacher at the close 

of the school year ’64-65? A. Average.
Q. Now, in addition to the evaluation, things that came 

to your personal knowledge as to her teaching, did any 
other factors enter into your consideration and your fail­
ure to offer her employment for the school year ’65-66? I 
am referring specifically to anything extra-curricular that 
you may have in mind, if you have anything in mind. A. 
It is a little bit difficult for me to determine the time ele­



344a

ment on these. I do know of other factors, but I can’t be 
absolutely certain that all of them were brought to my 
attention at any particular time. This is the reason I 
hesitate. I wouldn’t want to imply that the other informa­
tion I have now was readily available at that time.

Q. All right, sir. Who, if anyone, did you have in a 
comparable position to Blondie J. Segers as of the close 
of the school year ’64-65? A. We had four other persons 
dealing with public school music.

—160—
Q. Would you please give their names? A. Louise 

Thomas, Bose Patterson, Marian Felton, and John Allen.
Q. What degree did Louise Thomas hold as of the close 

of the year ’64-65? A. A master’s degree, a graduate 
certificate in music.

Q. How many years of teaching experience did Louise 
Thomas have at the close of last year? A. Thirty, with 
nineteen years in our system.

Q. How would you evaluate her as a teacher as of the 
close of last year? A. Above average.

Q. What degree did Bose Patterson hold? A. Bache­
lor’s degree, Class A certificate in music.

Q. How many years’ teaching experience? A. Ten, all 
with our system.

Q. How would you evaluate her as a teacher? A. Su­
perior.

Q. Marian S. Felton. What degree? A. Master’s de­
gree, graduate certificate in music.

Q. Anything else? A. And Bible. We don’t use her 
in that category.

Q. Pm sorry? A. We don’t use Mrs. Felton in that 
area, but she does hold other certificates.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



345a

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff—Cross

—161—
Q. How many years’ teaching experience does she have ? 

A. Eight years, four with our system.
Q. How would you evaluate her as a teacher as of the 

close of the last year, school year! A. My rating would 
be average.

Q. John H. Allen. Now, what degree did he hold! A. 
A master’s degree and graduate certificate in music and 
history.

Q. How many years’ teaching experience? A. Seven 
years.

Q. How many years in the Asheboro School System? 
A. One year.

Q. How would you evaluate him as a school teacher? 
A. Above average, near superior.

Q. In addition to teaching music in the school, does 
he conduct any activities other than strictly teaching 
there for the school? A. Well, a part of his responsibility 
is also choral director in two schools, Asheboro High 
School and Asheboro Junior High School.

The Court: How many years’ experience did he 
have?

The Witness: He had seven years’ experience, sir, 
in school work. He has quite a number of other 
years in music work, but seven years in school work. 

The Court: All right.
—162—

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Passing now to Marietta W. Foster. Is she a Negro? 
A. Mrs. Foster is a Negro.

Q. Was she employed by the Asheboro School System 
for the year 1964-65? A. She was.



346a

Q. What was her degree? A. Bachelor’s degree, Class A 
certificate in home economics and science.

Q. How many years’ teaching experience did she have? 
A. Thirteen, four with us.

Q. How would you evaluate her as a teacher as of the 
end of the 1964-65 school year? A. At that time, our 
evaluation would have been poor.

The Court: She had been with you how long? 
The Witness: Four years.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Did anyone else rate her or evaluate her to your 
knowledge? A. In addition to the people who normally 
do this, the vocational home economies instructors are 
occasionally observed, and we are given evaluation reports 
by state supervisors of vocational education, and this was 
true in Mrs. Foster’s case.

Q. What was your information concerning Marietta W. 
Foster and her progress as a teacher during the time that

—163—
she was at Asheboro and your personal observations?

Mr. Chambers: I object to that.
The Court: Yes, you are asking for some hearsay, 
Mr. Walker: Sustained.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. What were your personal observations as to the 
progress made by Marietta W. Foster while a teacher in 
the Asheboro City School System? A. While a teacher in 
our system, the first two years Mrs. Foster was in our 
system she did what appeared to be a creditable teaching

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



347a

job. Her performance was acceptable. The last two years, 
my observation was that her interest had receded and that 
her performance progressively became poor.

Q. Now, who are the teachers in a comparable position 
to that of Mrs. Foster in the entire school system at the 
close of the school year ’64-65? A. I will have to check 
the records. At that time, there was—

Q. Let me ask you this. A. I can give you two, but 
the name for the one has eluded me right now. I can find 
it. Miss Pinkham was one, M. L. Pinkham, Mrs. 0. M. 
Smith was another, and we lost one at Asheboro Junior 
High School who was replaced by Miss Rebecca Jane 
Poole.

Q. Will this refresh your recollection, this chart right
-—164—

here, sir! A. No, I have those notes. I can refresh it on 
the directory, probably.

Q. Now, as to M. L. Pinkham of home economics, how 
many years’ experience did M. L. Pinkham have through­
out the school system or in North Carolina? A. Two years.

The Court: Are we saying M. L. Pinkham?
Mr. Walker: Yes.
The Court: Is this a male?
The Witness: No. It’s a young lady, but I don’t 

remember her name other than her initials, Your 
Honor.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Would the “L” stand for Lydia by any means ? A. 
It could have been Lydia Pinkham.

Q. Isn’t that her name, really? A. Now, Mr. Walker, 
let me correct this.

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff—Cross



348a

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object to that. It’s 
not responsive to the question.

The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Well, M. L. Pinkham is a lady, a young lady! A. 
She is.

Q. And did you have the opportunity to evaluate her
—165—

as home economics teacher! A. No, sir. She was not 
employed with us the prior year.

Q. She was not with you the prior year! A. That’s 
correct.

Q. What about O. M. Smith! A. She was with us the 
prior year.

Q. Now, is that Ola Smith! A. Ola Smith.
Q. All right.

Mr. Walker: Your Honor, I assure you I was not 
trying to be facetious when I said that, but I thought 
that was the name on here. I realize also that that 
is a patent medicine.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Is Ola Smith the same as 0. M. Smith! A. Yes.
Q. And what degree did she hold! A. Bachelor’s de­

gree.
Q. And what class certificate did she hold! A. Class A 

certificate in home economics and science.
Q. And how many years’ experience did she have! A. 

Ten years, with six years in our system.
Q. Six in your system! A. That’s right.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



349a

Guy B. Teachey—-for Plaintiff—Cross

—166—
Q. How would you evaluate her as a home economics 

teacher at the close of the year 1964-65? A. Above aver­
age.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object to that, too, 
on the basis, on the grounds that this witness doesn’t 
have a basis to form that opinion. Just the first year 
she’s been in the system.

Mr. Walker: He said that she was in the system 
six years. This was 0. M. Smith.

The Witness: Six years in our system.
Mr. Chambers: The lady from last year!
The Witness: Six years.
Mr, Chambers : All right.
The Court: It was the M. L. Pinkham who he said 

had not been in the system the prior year. He says 
this lady has ten years’ experience, six in Asheboro.

Mr. Chambers: I ’m sorry, sir.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. I didn’t understand your opinion. I’m sorry. There 
was an objection being made. I didn’t get that. A. On 
Mrs. Smith, above average.

Q. Above average? A. Yes.
Q. Now, Janie A. Brooks. Is she a Negro? A. She is.

—167—
Q. What degree did she hold as of last year? A. A 

bachelor’s degree, Class A primary certificate.
Q. How many years’ teaching experience? A. Ten 

years, five in our system.
Q. What subjects did she teach? A. Primary grades, 

first grade generally.



350a

Q. How would you evaluate her as a teacher as of the 
close of the school year ’64-65! A. Mrs. Brooks at that 
time, I would have her rated below average.

Q. Now, in addition to your observation of Mrs. Brooks 
as a teacher, did other factors enter into your decision not 
to offer her employment for the year 1965-66 ?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’d like to object to 
that on the basis that this witness has not stated 
he made observation of Mrs. Brooks, and the ques­
tion has implied that he has.

The Court: All right, sustained.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Well, I ’ll ask if you did make any observation of 
Janie A. Brooks! A. I knew Mrs. Brooks for five years 
and observed her directly and indirectly, her teaching.

Q. Now, in addition to your observations, direct and 
indirect observations of her, did anything else enter into 
your decision to not offer her employment for the year

—168—
1965-66! A. Yes, there were some other considerations.

Q. What were these considerations, Mr. Teachey? A. 
Again, they dealt chiefly with creditor’s inquiries which 
embarrassed us and the school system, inability to handle 
her own personal affairs, unauthorized purchases charged 
to the school.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object here, again, 
as to the same basis as before.

The Court: He said unauthorized purchases. Is 
that the part you object to, Mr. Chambers?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross



351a

Mr. Chambers: I’m objecting to the creditor’s in­
quiries and the unauthorized purchases, etcetera, 
that he has testified to.

The Court: Were these inquiries made of you?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Were the unauthorized purchases—
The Witness: Came to my attention from the 

creditors.
The Court: From the creditors. Overruled.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Mr. Teachey, I ask you if any purchases were charged 
to the school by Mrs. Brooks? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Unauthorized purchases? A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, as of June the 18th, 1965, were there

—169—
any white teachers who were released from the Asheboro 
City School System for cause? A. There were several. 
If you refer to the year preceding June 18th,—

Q. Yes, sir. A. 1965.
Q. Yes, sir. Will you give their names?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I fail again to see 
the materiality here.

The Court: Mr. Chambers, I just—in reading 
this, I gather that it is the contention of the plain­
tiff that the defendant is conducting a school sys­
tem whereby the employment of teachers is on the 
basis of race, and it isn’t apparent to me as to why 
this doesn’t go to that issue. And in addition, there 
is a restraining order which is an equitable remedy 
that is asked for, and it would just appear to me 
to be that this is to that point. I realize you are

Guy B. Teachey•—for Plaintiff—Cross



352a

objecting—I just don’t see why—they are practices 
in regard to white and Negro are not important on 
the issue. I’ll overrule the objection. It seems like 
I ’ve got to know that in order-—to know what their 
practices are in order to make any intelligent dis­
posal of the issues. All right. Proceed.

By the witness:
A. I can give you the names, sir, of at least four who were 
dismissed. There were probably this many more whose

—170-
names I cannot give you who resigned after conferences. 
But these four, their resignations were requested forth­
right. Mrs. Margaret M. Atkins, Mrs. Fadene Kirk, Clar­
ence L. Plant, and Lena T. Jackson.

Q. Are they all white teachers? A. These are all white 
teachers.

Q, What degree did Margaret Atkins hold that you 
released? A. A master’s degree and a primary certificate, 
class graduate certificate.

Q. What degree did Fadene Kirk hold when she was 
released? A. Bachelor’s degree.

Q. How many years’ experience did she have? A. Fif­
teen years.

Q. In the Asheboro system? A. Mrs. Kirk taught in 
Asheboro a dozen years ago, sir, and moved to the mid­
west and then returned to us. So altogether probably, five 
years with us.

Q. How many years total experience ? A. Fifteen years 
total. Only one at this time.

Q. Clarence L. Plant. What degree did he hold? A. 
A master’s degree, graduate certificate.

Q. How many years of experience did he have, if you

Guy B. Teachey—-for Plaintiff—Cross



353a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross

- 1 7 1 -
recall? A. I don’t have that at my fingertips, Mr. Plant 
was with us only for just one contract period and his resig­
nation had to be requested rather suddenly. In other words, 
there was no delay in our separation with Mr. Plant.

Q. Lena Jackson. What degree did she hold? A. A 
bachelor’s degree, Class A certificate.

Q. How many years’ experience did she have as a 
teacher ? A. At least twenty.

Q. Now—

The Court: Did you say Class A certificate?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: You say graduate certificate some­

times. Class A certificate?
The Witness: A graduate certificate, Your Honor, 

is based on a graduate certificate. This is North 
Carolina terminology. Different terms are applied 
elsewhere, but in our state, the graduate certificate 
requires at least a master’s degree. The Class A 
certificate requires at least a bachelor’s degree.

The Court: All right. All right, Mr. Walker.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Mr. Teachey, are there now employed any Negroes in 
the high school or junior high school level of the Asheboro 
City School System? A. At the secondary level, a Mr. 
Russell D. Murphy, but if you refer to Asheboro High

- 1 7 2 -
School as an institution, Mr. Murphy’s employment is 
limited to coaching.

Q. What about Charles Holly. Is he a Negro? A. Yes, 
he is.



354a

Q. Did yon offer Mm employment in the Asheboro Junior 
High School, industrial arts department, or not! A. We 
did. Mr. Holly was an industrial arts teacher, a position 
which we could not offer him at the time, at mid-May.

Q. What year are you referring to! A. 1965. But later, 
as a position became available, we offered Mr. Holly a posi­
tion. Evidently he had committed himself strongly else­
where, and he did not see fit to accept our position.

Q. Did you offer him a position this year, 1965-1966! A. 
We did, sir.

Q. Did you offer him that position before the year started, 
the school year started! A. We offered him that position 
in June, 1965.

Q. Is Elizabeth S. Jones employed as a teacher in Central 
School now! A. She is.

Q. In what capacity! A. She is a teacher, fifth grade 
teacher.

Q. Is she a Negro! A. She is.
—173—

Q. Is a Negro or a white person the principal of Central 
School now! A. The principal of Central School is a white 
person.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Cross

The Court: Where is Elizabeth Jones employed! 
What school!

The Witness: At Central School.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Who was the principal of the Central School, or as it 
was then known, Central High School, in the school year 
’64-65! A. Mr. J. R. Snipe.

Q. Where is he now! A. Mr. Snipe is principal of 
Mountain view School in Morganton, North Carolina.



355a

Q. How did liis employment cease there? Did he resign, 
or what? A. He resigned.

Q. Effective as of what day? A. As of the end of his 
contract period, ’65, approximately mid-June, ’65.

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, I want to ask you this question. 
You as the chief administrative officer of the Asheboro City 
Board of Education, have you ever hired, have you ever 
employed or have you ever discharged or assigned any 
teacher solely because of race or national origin?

—174—
Mr. Chambers: I object, Your Honor. This ques­

tion calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness, 
and the main issue that’s before the Court.

The Court: Isn’t that true, Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker: I could ask it another way,, Your 

Honor.
The Court: I sustain that objection. It seems like 

that goes to the very issue that I am to determine.
Mr. Walker: All right, sir. That’s all we have of 

Mr. Teachey.
Mr. Chambers: Mr. Teachey, I have a little cross.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Chambers-.

Q. Were you looking at a statement when you were testi­
fying a moment ago? A. I was. No, not a statement,

Q. Were you looking at some paper writing? A. Some 
notes, yes.

Q. May I see that paper writing?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: I think he’d be entitled to examine the 

notes that he is using to refresh his memory with, 
gentlemen. Am I not right in that?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



356a

Mr. Anderson: If under a witness’s own direction, 
if Your Honor please. I think that he could have any 
notes he wanted without being checked by the coun­
sel. It may not be important.

—175—
The Court: Well, if he was using—
Mr. Anderson: I withdraw the objection.
The Court: I think counsel would be entitled to 

see them, and I so rule.

By Mr. Chambers-.

Q. Mr. Teachey, in making your evaluations of teachers, 
what observation or information did you base your obser­
vation or appraisal on?

Mr. Anderson: If Your Honor please, I believe 
this has been gone over.

The Court: I wouldn’t like to get back into what 
we have gone over, Mr. Chambers. As I understand 
your question, your question is what basis does he 
use to make his appraisals?

Mr. Chambers: No, sir. I ’m talking about the ap­
praisal of these teachers he just went down a moment 
ago.

Mr. Walker: We object.
The Court: Overruled. You may start on that. 

I ’m not sure—we cannot dwell on repetition. Go 
ahead.

By the Witness:

A. The question?

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



357a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. What basis did you-—on what information did you 
base your opinion of the teachers you described in cross ex­
amination awhile ago? A. Personal knowledge, informa-

—176—
tion from superiors. These are the two primaries.

Q. Are you stating that you had opportunity to person­
ally observe all of the teachers you discussed a moment ago? 
A. To some extent, yes.

Q. To what extent, Mr. Teachey?

Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.

A. From limited—

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. How frequently did you have the opportunity to ob­
serve all of these teachers you were appraising a moment 
ago? A. This is difficult to answer categorically. I had 
probably many more opportunities than were exercised.

Q. How frequently, Mr. Teachey, if you can say, did you 
have the opportunity to observe Mrs. Peterson, Mrs. Segers, 
Mr. Patterson, Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Holly, Miss Jones, and 
their teaching in the classroom? A. Varying numbers from 
one to ten.

Q. Are you stating that you had the opportunity to ob­
serve Mrs. Brooks last year in the classroom from one to 
ten times? A. No. Varying with the teachers.

Q. Are you stating that you had the opportunity to ob-
—177-

serve Mr. Holly from one to ten times during the 1964-65 
school year? A. I didn’t indicate any length of time.



358a

Q. Now, how many times did you observe Mr. Holly 
teaching in the classroom during the 1964-65 school year? 
A. Mr. Holly had been with us several years, and probably 
Mr. Holly was observed by me personally—oh, I’m sure I 
was in his shop and classroom one or more times during 
the term.

Q. And you observed him teaching in the classroom? A. 
Yes.

Q. How frequently did you observe Mrs. Brooks in the 
classroom last year?

The Court: Let me say this to you, Mr. Teachey. 
If you need your notes on this cross examination, you 
are entitled to have them. I am not saying you do.

The Witness: My notes would not cover this type 
of interrogation, Your Honor.

The Court: All right.

By the Witness:

A. Mrs. Brooks—I have to indicate that all of these are 
approximate, my recollection at least, too.

By Mr. Chambers-.

Q. Did you make a note of the time that you visited Mrs. 
Brooks? A. I did not.

—178—
Q. Did you make a note of the times you visited Mr. 

Holly? A. I did not.
Q. Did you make a note of the time you visited any of 

these teachers? A. Mentally, yes.
Q. A written note ? A. No.
Q. Now, how do you recall the number of times that you

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



359a

visited these teachers! A. I indicated these are my best 
recollections.

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, did you have a chance to compare 
your rating of these teachers with the ratings by the princi­
pals? A. Yes.

Q. Now, does your rating of each of these teachers, is 
your rating of each of these teachers the same as the rat­
ings by the principal? A. No.

Mr. Anderson: I object, if Your Honor please. It’s 
in evidence to both witnesses—I mean the ratings, 
rather, are already in evidence.

The Court: Is it in the evidence as to the teachers? 
Let me get your question. How did it compare, Mr. 
Chambers, the teachers that were brought and dis-

—179—
cussed on examination, their rating as compared with 
whom?

Mr. Chambers: That was the question I wanted to 
get to, Your Honor. Mr. Teachey’s rating as com­
pared to the ratings of the principals of the school, 
and I might not have so phrased it. If not, I will 
withdraw that question and rephrase it.

The Court: All right. Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, if in any instance—how, if in any in­
stance, does your rating of each of these teachers differ 
from the ratings by the principal?

Mr. Walker: I object.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect

A. I can’t answer, sir.



360a

Mr. Walker: Just a moment.
The Court: Well, is the rating of the principals 

in evidence ?
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir. As a part of Exhibit 3, 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.
The Court: Do you agree with that, that it is al­

ready in evidence, Mr. Chambers!
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir, I would agree that they 

are in evidence, the ratings by the principals are in 
evidence.

The Court: And he is giving—I will sustain that.
Mr. Walker: We would like, if counsel is finished,

— 180—

the notes of Mr. Teachey, for him to have them back 
and not have them passed about the courtroom, may 
it please the Court.

Mr. Chambers: We are examining the statement.
Mr. Walker: I do not see counsel examining them, 

and that’s why I made that request.
The Court: Well, how about your examining the 

notes, Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers: We can pass them back, Your 

Honor.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, you stated that Mr. Holly was in 
employment in June of 1965? A. We did.

Q. Was not Mr. Holly sent a letter in May of 1965 advis­
ing that no employment was open as of that time? A. As 
of that time, yes, sir.

Q. And as of that time, you had determined that he was 
not to be employed in the school system? A. We had not.

Q. You hadn’t determined that he was not to be em­

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



361a

ployed? A. Hadn’t determined that any of them, hadn’t 
determined that any teacher at the Central School was not 
to be employed.

Q. Did not your letter so state? A. It did not.
— 181—

Q. May I recall your attention to your letter?

Mr. Anderson: If Your Honor please, again this 
is in evidence.

The Court: Overruled. It would not be, of course, 
Mr. Chambers, for him to construe that letter.

Mr. Chambers: This is his letter.
The Court: All right. Now, what is your question 

of him?

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Does your letter not advise the teachers in the Central 
School that no employment was open and that the board 
would consider their application if a vacancy appeared, or 
occurred?

Mr. Anderson: If Your Honor please, we object. 
That the letter itself is the best evidence.

The Court: I think you’re right, but I’m going to 
overrule your objection.

By the Witness:

A. Pursuant to action—

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Could you answer that yes or no and then explain? 

A. I can’t answer that question yes or no.

Guy B. Teachey— for Plaintiff— Redirect



362a

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect

Q. All right. Mr. Teachey, would you look at Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 1, at the schedule, Schedule A ? A. I don’t have 
1A.

Q. I ’m sorry. That’s Schedule B.

The Court: And that’s Exhibit what?
—182—

Mr. Chambers: Exhibit 1.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. You discussed Mr. Newberry. Does this exhibit, 
Schedule B, show that you have a sign saying you have no 
vacancy as a reason for not employing Mr. Newberry? A. 
That was a primary reason.

Q. Is that the reason that you stated in this interroga­
tory? A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a sign showing no vacancy as the reason 
for not employing Miss Sara Peterson? A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you not have the same thing for the reason for 
not employing Mrs. Blondie Jones Segers? A. Yes.

Q. Do you not have the same thing for not employing 
Mr. Gaines W. H. Price? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, you have no explanation for not employing—is 
that Mrs. Jackie Kilgore—Mr. Jackie Kilgore?

Mr. Walker: Object to the form of the question. 
The Court: All right. Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. What was the reason given here for not employing 
Mr. Jackie Kilgore? A. That probably was an oversight



363a

in the tabulation. The reason was that Mr. Kilgore in-
—183—

formed me that he had accepted a position elsewhere.
Q. When did Mr. Kilgore inform you of that, Mr. Tea­

chey? A. The best of my recollection, the information 
came to me through his principal in May.

Q. What part of May? A. As I remember, mid-May or 
thereafter.

Q. What would be the date in mid-May, Mr. Teachey? 
A. I think there are thirty-one days in May, the fifteenth. 

Q. The fifteenth day? A. This is not an exact date.
Q. Not an exact date. As of the 14th of May, did Mr. Kil­

gore receive one of your letters advising that no employ­
ment was open as of that time ?

Mr. Anderson: I’m going to object to the form of 
the question, if Your Honor please.

The Court: Overruled.

A. He probably did.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Now, you stated that Mr. Holly was offered employ­
ment in mid-June. A. That’s correct.

Q. Did Mr. Holly also receive one of the letters advising 
that no employment was open? A. Yes.

—184—
Q. And that was received in May of 1965. Is that correct? 

A. No employment was open at that time. That’s correct.
Q. And that letter was received by Mr. Holly in May of 

1965? A. The letter was received, I assume, by Mr. Holly.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



364a

The Court: He wouldn’t know whether he received. 
He could say whether it was mailed.

Mr. Walker: Yes. That was the grounds that we 
objected to before.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, the letter that you sent to the 
teachers in May of 1965, did it not advise the teachers that 
their applications would be kept on tile and they would be 
considered for employment if a vacancy occurred? A. It 
did.

Q. And that would apply to Mr. Newberry? A, Yes.
Q. And that would apply to Mrs. Segers? A. It would 

apply to any teacher that received the letter.
Q. These letters were mailed to these teachers? A.

—185—
That’s right.

Q. And that would apply to Miss Brooks? A. Yes.
Q. And to, as you say, all the other teachers you dis­

cussed? A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Teachey, you stated that white teachers 

were discharged for cause, and you named four teachers. 
When were they discharged? A. As I recall, Mr. Plant 
was discharged early in the school term. I would have to go 
back to the records for an exact date on this, but the first 
semester, certainly.

Q. That would be before the end of the school term? A. 
Yes.

Q. Would that be of 1965-66? A. ’64-65. Mrs. Atkins 
was discharged at the end of the term, actually having left 
earlier but her discharge was official at the end of the term, 
and the other two at the end of the term.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



365a

Q. Mr. Teachey, you stated your entire system was ac­
credited. A. Elementary schools. The entire system of 
elementary schools. If I didn’t say elementary, this is what.

Q. Was Central Elementary School accredited for ’64-65? 
A. That’s correct.

—186—
Q. It was? A. Yes.
Q. Was the high school accredited? A. The high school 

was accredited with the State Department of Instruction.
Q. Was it accredited by the committee on secondary 

schools? A. The Southern Association of Colleges and 
Schools.

Q. The high school was accredited in 1964-65, Central? 
A. No, not by the Southern Association.

Q. Was the elementary school accredited? A. Yes.
Q. By the Southern— A. Association.
Q. Association? A. Yes.
Q. In 1964-65? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. But the high school was not. A. The high school was 

not.
Q. And this school was attended entirely by Negroes? 

A. This was one of the reasons that we reorganized.
Q. Now, you made some reference to the appraisal of 

Mr. Murphy and Mr. Snipes. Did not Mr. Snipes also rate 
Mr. Murphy as average ?

—187—
Mr. Walker: Objection. That speaks for itself. 

It’s in the record, in evidence, just to reiterate it.
The Court: Sustained. There is no contrary con­

tention, Mr. Chambers, from what it is in the record, 
is there? I mean the principal’s rating?

Mr. Chambers: Well, Your Honor, there was some 
reference here by the defendant. We feel that Mr.

Guy B. Teachey-—for Plaintiff—Redirect



366a

Murphy was not recommended by Mr. Snipes, and 
we were merely pointing to a distinction here between 
the recommendation of Mr. Snipes and the recom­
mendation of Mr. Hudson.

The Court: I thought your question was about the 
principal’s rating. Now, if that is in the record and 
there is no contrary contention, I sustain the objec­
tion as to what the principal ratings, principal’s rat­
ing is.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Teachey, you stated that Mr. Newberry also had 
a degree that would qualify him to teach science and social 
studies? A. He has a certificate. I am not sure what his 
degree is. He probably has a master’s degree.

Q. Would not the graduate certificate that he has qualify 
him as a graduate teacher in both the sciences and social 
studies? A. I ’m not sure whether the graduate rating 
would apply to science and social studies.

—188—
Q. Even though he was certified in those fields?

Mr. Walker: Objection to testimony of counsel.
The Court: Sustained in that form.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would not the graduate certificate qualify him as a 
graduate person in the sciences and social studies? A. 
Not necessarily.

Q. Does the State of North Carolina qualify him as a 
graduate person with a graduate certificate? A. It does 
in counselling, I ’m certain, but I ’m not certain about the 
science and social studies. That could revert to Class A.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



367a

Q. Is your answer you do not know? A. I do not know.
Q. All right. You stated that Mr. Newberry just had 

experience only in counselling? A. No, I didn’t state that.
Q. Did he have experience in some other field? A. Not 

since ’55 as far as our records, we could determine.
Q. Was he a full-time counselor? A. Half-time. He 

taught eighth grade, yes.
Q. He taught eighth grade? A. A counselor and eighth 

grade. I thought that was clear.
—189—

Q. He taught eighth grade and he also was counselor? 
A. That’s right,

Q. Now, Mrs. Blondie Segers taught half-time music? 
A. Yes.

Q. She also taught seventh grade? A. Right.
Q. Miss Sara Peterson, was business education and also 

taught eighth grade? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, do you recall the number of new teachers you 

hired for the 1965-66 school year? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Was Mr. Newberry compared with either of these 

teachers? A. Mr. Newberry was compared with all in the 
areas of his certification.

Q. He was? A. Yes.
Q. Was he compared with the new teachers that came 

into the system? A. Yes.
Q. And the new teachers were hired over him? A. Yes.
Q. Were the other Negro teachers not rehired compared 

with the new teachers? A. Yes.
—190—

Q. They were hired over the Negro teachers? A. In 
every instance where there was a vacancy in the field of 
certification of the teachers formerly employed by us.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



368a

Q. Was there a vacancy in every field for these teachers? 
A. No, there was no counselling vacancy. There was no 
band vacancy. There were several areas in which there was 
no vacancy.

Q. But there were vacancies for each of the teachers who 
were not rehired? A. No.

Q. There were not? What exception? A. I’ve just in­
dicated two.

Q. I’m talking about vacancies in which new teachers 
were brought into the system? A. Well, certainly there 
was a vacancy when you brought a new teacher into the 
system.

Q. And the Negro teachers were compared with the new 
teachers for these vacancies? A. I said in each case we 
compare a teacher, an applicant for a teaching position in 
English with other people who are certificated in English 
teaching English. We don’t compare a biology teacher with

— 191—
an English teacher, and in this respect, every teacher who 
was formerly employed and no longer could be employed 
was compared with teachers who came into our system.

Q. My question was, if every Negro teacher not rehired 
was so compared? A. Yes. In cases where there was 
a vacancy applicable.

Q. Was there a vacancy applicable for every Negro 
teacher not rehired? A. No.

Q. There was not? A. No.
Q. What was the instance? A. I indicated two.
Q. We’re talking about new positions. We did not have 

new vocational teachers or counselors, did we, for the 
1965-66 school year? A. You’ve lost me.

Q. Did you have new counsellors to come into the school 
system? A. No. Therefore, no vacancy.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



369a

Q. I see. Was there another exception! A. Band.
Q, Band! A. Yes.
Q. That was because you had no new band directors to

—192—
come into the system! A. That’s right.

Q. Was there another exception! A. Business educa­
tion.

Q. Was there another exception! A. Now, let me be 
sure I understand your question. Was there another ex­
ception! Restate it for me. I ’m a little lost.

Q. My question is, was a Negro teacher, each Negro 
teacher not rehired for the 1965-66 school year compared 
with new teachers coming into the system for the positions 
for which these teachers were being hired? A. The answer 
is, yes, if their certificates and qualifications put them in 
the area for which we were seeking a new teacher. For ex­
ample, Mr. Russell E. Murphy was compared with all other 
candidates and placed in a seventh grade position, the 
area of his certification, after he had been informed that 
we would have no contract available at that time for him.

Q. Was Miss Sara Peterson compared for an eighth 
grade position? A. Miss Sara Peterson has a business 
education certificate and we had no eighth grade vacancies 
into which we could place her.

Q. Was Mr. Newberry compared for an eighth grade
— 1 9 3 -

position! A. The same situation applies there. The eighth 
grade is one of the least areas of turn-over in our situation.

Q. Was either of these teachers compared for the seventh 
grade? A. Yes, if there were vacancies, Mr. Russell E. 
Murphy was employed in one new position.

Q. Miss Peterson? A. Miss Peterson was compared for 
any vacancy in the area of her preparation.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



370a

Q. What vacancy was that for Miss Peterson! A. The 
area of her preparation was business education and there 
were no vacancies.

Q. What about seventh or eighth grade? A. In eighth 
grade I indicated in earlier testimony that a teacher with a 
subject area certificate may teach in eighth grade without 
penalty. Now, this doesn’t mean that that’s the best teacher 
for that position. It simply means that the State of North 
Carolina does not penalize them as to salary, nor is the 
accredited rating of the school placed in jeopardy by em­
ploying such a person in an emergency. So therefore, 
generally, we look for people who have either training and 
lengthy experience in these areas.

Q. Mr. Teachey, would you look at Schedule A of Plain-
—194—

tiff’s Exhibit No. 3? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you look at the Fayetteville Street School! 

A. Yes, I have it.
Q. What grades are taught at Fayetteville Street School? 

A. Seventh grade.
Q. Seventh grade!

The Court: Just one grade?
The Witness: That’s right, and two sections of 

what we refer to as special education for educable 
children who have no grade classification.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Now, do all of these teachers appearing here in 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3, Schedule A, have subject certifi­
cates? A. Mr. George C. Bridges has a certificate in sci­
ence and teaches a science-mathematics block. If the Court

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



371a

is unfamiliar with a block, this is an area of instruction in 
which related usbjects are grouped at the upper-elementary 
area, usually. Now, normally, we attempt to find people, 
if we have to employ a subject certificate for this level, 
we attempt to employ people who have the closest possible 
background academically, and Mr. Bridges is one who has 
a science certificate and is teaching mathematics-science at 
the seventh grade level.

—195—
Q. And Miss Dianne Taylor? A. Miss Dianne Taylor. 

She has a social studies certificate and is teaching language, 
arts and social studies.

Q. And that’s at seventh grade? A. Seventh grade.
Q. Now, turn to the Asheboro Junior High School. A. 

All right, sir.
Q. What grades are taught in the Asheboro Junior High 

School? A. Eighth and ninth.
Q. Now, do all of the teachers appearing there have sub­

ject certificates? A. I believe, yes.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we have no further 
question.

The Court: Anything further by the defendant?
Mr. Andesron: If Your Honor please, wTe would 

like to request that Mr. Teachey be released. He has 
a lot of duties to perform, and we are not going to 
finish today, I’m sure.

The Court: Will you need him any further?
Mr. Chambers: No, sir, Your Honor. I think we 

could finish today. We have only one other witness, 
unless there is some other testimony by the defen­
dant.

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



372a

Mr. Walker: We haven’t had any testimony yet.
The Court: Mr Chambers, it is now five o’clock,

— 196—
and I am presuming from the final pretrial order that 
you have at least one more witness, do you not?

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir, we have just one witness, 
and our examination of him will probably run about 
an hour.

The Court: I don’t see how we could possibly— 
we could, but we’ve got to think a little bit about some 
of the others here. Our Court Reporter, and he 
doesn’t contend this, I contend it for him, after about 
six or seven hours with that, you are pretty well— 
don’t want to inconvenience anybody—but I would 
assume that if you have direct of an hour that the 
defendant would have some questions. Unless there 
is some dire emergency, I think certainly we should 
take a recess until the morning at nine-thirty. Does 
that put you in any great bind? You must realize 
that your examination has taken the biggest part of 
this today, which I know you are a good lawyer in 
handling your case and I’m not critical of you, but 
your examination was rather lengthy, and that has 
consumed most of the day.

Mr. Chambers: I can appreciate the Court’s obser­
vation, too, and we can come back tomorrow.

The Court: All right. Let me just inquire and 
without binding the defendant, in reading the final 
pretrial order, I believe you listed one witness there

— 197—
as a possible—

Mr. Walker: We listed Mr. Snipes as an adverse 
witness. We have not subpoenaed him, and we do

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



373a

not as of now propose to call him or anyone else at 
this time.

The Court: All right. Well, that would mean that 
we would finish before too much time is consumed 
tomorrow. Now, the question, though, that Mr. An­
derson asked about was the matter of Mr. Teachey’s 
return tomorrow. Is there any known reason now 
for his return?

Mr. Chambers: We would have none. We think 
that he could be excused, Your Honor.

The Court: All right.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: Let’s take a recess until the morning 

at nine-thirty.
(Whereupon, at 5:05 o’clock p.m., the hearing in 

the above entitled matter was adjourned until 9:30 
o’clock a.m., Wednesday, May 4, 1966.)

Guy B. Teachey—for Plaintiff—Redirect



374a

Transcript of Hearing May 4, 1966
*  #  # # #

PROCEEDINGS

The Court: We had concluded the examination of Mr. 
Teachey, both direct and cross examination. Now, Mr. 
Chambers, you may call your next witness.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, in connection with the ex­
amination of Mr. Teachey and our objections to some of his 
testimony yesterday, I’d like to call the Court’s attention to 
question number five of Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, particu­
larly question five (c), asking the reason or reasons for not 
renewing the contract of each teacher, administrative or 
professional personnel who was employed by the school 
board during the 1964-65 school year and not during the 
1965-66 school year, and the answer that is given by the 
school board to this question, and those answers were pre­
pared and signed, verified by Mr. Teachey. We would like 
to call Mr. Edmund Reutter as our next witness.

The Court: All right, Mr. Reutter. You called attention, 
Mr. Chambers, so I might put it in my notes, to question 
number five and the answer on your Exhibit No. 1, and 
particularly with reference to five (c). Is that right!

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir, that’s correct. In addition, Your 
Honor, I might state—I call the Court’s attention further 
to similar testimony by school board—Chambers vs. The

—4—
Hendersonville Board of Education, for there similar 
charges were made and the school board presented written 
documents.

The Court: All right.

— 3—



375a

Whereupon, E. E dmund Reutter, Je. was duly sworn 
and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you state your name, please? A. E. Edmund 
Reutter, Jr.

Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Reutter ? A. Professor 
of Education at Columbia University Teachers College.

Q. Sow long have you been at Columbia as a teacher? 
A. I’ve been on the professional staff in the various ranks 
from 1950. I’ve been a full professor since 1957.

Q. What educational training have you had? A. I re­
ceived a bachelor’s degree from Johns Hopkins University, 
master’s degree from Columbia University, and Ph.D. from 
Columbia University.

Q. Do you belong to any professional organizations? A. 
Yes.

Q. Would you state those? A. Among the ones that I 
belong to are three honorary professional societies, Phi

—5—
Beta Kappa, Kappa Delta Pi, and Phi Delta Kappa. In the 
category of professional associations as distinguished from 
those, the American Association of School Administrators, 
the National Education Association, the American Associa­
tion of University Professors, the National Conference of 
Professors of Education Administration, the National Or­
ganization on Legal Problems of Education, American As­
sociation of School Personnel Administrators, and the Pub­
lic Personnel Association.

Q. Are you an officer in either of those organizations? 
A. At the moment I am president-elect of the National 
Organization of the Legal Problems of Education.

E. Edmund Rentier, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



376a

Q. Have you written articles or books dealing with edu­
cation? A. Yes.

Q. Would you state some of those? A. These would in­
clude co-authoring a standard textbook, “Staff Personnel 
in the Public Schools,” published by Prentice-Hall, co­
authoring a textbook, “Legal Aspects of School Board Op­
eration,” published by Teachers College Bureau of Publi­
cations, a volume by myself called “Schools and the Law,” 
in two editions, one revised editon published by Oceana 
Publications, a volume called “ The School Administrator in 
Subversive Activities,” published by the Teachers College 
Bureau of Publications, and I was joint author of a research

— 6 —

monograph, “Principles of Staff Personnel Administration 
in Public Schools.” These would be the volumes of some 
length. I have written numerous chapters in books and 
articles in professional magazines including such profes­
sional publications as the “Educational Administration 
Quarterly,” “Law and Contemporary Problems,” “Ameri­
can School Board Journal,” “Nation’s Schools,” “Educa­
tional Leadership,” “Teachers College Record,” “Baltimore 
Bulletin of Education,” “California School Boards,” and 
numerous others.

Q. Have you made special studies in personnel adminis­
tration? A. My major areas of teaching and research- 
one of my major areas of teaching and research has been 
personnel administration, and in connection with the teach­
ing and research, I have participated in quite a number of 
special studies of the library nature and also of a field 
nature in terms of surveying school systems. I have con­
sulted with school systems on personnel policies and par­
ticipated in surveys in which personnel policies have been 
evaluated.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.— for Plaintiff— Direct



377a

Q. Have you taught at other institutions besides Colum­
bia? A. Well, I have made numerous speeches and par­
ticipated in numerous workshops at a large number of in­
stitutions. I would cite three places where for a sustained 
period of time I gave instruction and held, actually, the 
title of visiting professor at those institutions during those

— 7 —

periods. Those would be the University of Alaska, the Uni­
versity of Puerto Eico, and the University of Southern Cali­
fornia.

Q. Have you made speeches or talks to various confer­
ences at institutions dealing with personnel or education? 
A. Yes. Large numbers of the same, considerable numbers 
of talks, many of which have been written up in proceedings 
before school boards, professional groups of various sorts.

Q. Would you name some of the institutions which you 
have given such talks? A. Duke University, Indiana Uni­
versity, University of Pennsylvania, University of Denver, 
and I really don’t recall them. There were large numbers of 
them.

Q. In connection with this case, the North Carolina 
Teachers Association vs. the Asheboro City Board of Edu­
cation, did you have occasion to study the exhibits that have 
been introduced into evidence and to hear the testimony of 
the witness who testified yesterday? A. Yes.

Q. At whose request did you make that study? A. At 
your request.

Q. Are you connected with any organization now dealing 
with personnel problems in schools? A. Well, my general 
memberships in associations such as the Association—such

— 8 —

as among those that I cited before, the American Associa­
tion of School Personnel Administrators, the Public Per­

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



378a

sonnel Association, the American Association of School Ad­
ministrators, and several of the others deal with this sub­
ject in general.

Q. Are you also connected with the N.A.A.C.P. Legal De­
fense and Educational Fund?

Mr. Walker: What’s the name of that?
Mr. Chambers: N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Ed­

ucational Fund.

A. I have had and do have a relationship as a consultant 
to the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund, Incorporated, which 
is a part-time arrangement whereby I advise them on edu­
cational issues related to the segregation problems affect­
ing education, and of course, particularly with that teacher 
desegregation as of the moment.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’d like to tender the 
witness as an expert in the field of education and per­
sonnel administration.

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled. Let the record show that 

the Court finds this witness an expert in the field of 
education and personnel administration.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, you stated that you had occasion to study 
several exhibits that were introduced in evidence in con-

— 9—
nection with this case? A. Yes, I examined all the answers 
to interrogatories that were mentioned yesterday, the 
depositions of Mr. Teachey and Mr. Redding, and listened 
to all the testimony yesterday.

E. Edmund Reulter, Jr.— for Plaintiff— Direct



379a

Q. You did have occasion to listen to the testimony yes­
terday? A. That’s right, sir.

Q. Did you have the opportunity to study the procedure 
that was followed by the Asheboro City Board of Education 
in considering applicants for employment and making as­
signments of teachers in the school system? A. I did.

Q. Do you have an opinion about the practice and pro­
cedure that was followed?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct

A. I would make the general statement—

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Just answer yes or no. A. Yes, I have an opinion.
Q. What would be your opinion, Mr. Reutter, about the 

procedure followed by the Asheboro City Board of Educa­
tion in employing personnel in the school system?

Mr. Walker: Object.
— 10—

The Court: Do you gentlemen want to be heard?
Mr. Walker: No, sir.
The Court: Overruled. Now, Mr. Chambers, let me 

say this to you, at this juncture. Of course, Mr. Reut­
ter has testified before. I have the feeling that from 
a technical standpoint that some of this testimony, 
you know, is not competent. However, I ’ve thought 
about the matter, and I ’m inclined to let his testimony



380a

in. I rather think that counsel for the defendant will 
object to it, and in order that we might minimize the 
time in presenting argument on objections, I want to 
convey my thoughts at this juncture that I am in­
clined to let it in over the objection of counsel for 
the defendant, if it goes along the tenor that it did in 
the case before. But I merely say that to you. If we 
get too far afield, I would presume that even hearing 
the case without a jury, that some error can possibly 
be committed in letting evidence in. While the cases 
are pretty much to the effect that even though some­
thing does come in before the judge, they presume 
that he still just considered that evidence which was 
competent. But I still believe we could get too far 
afield in that, and I am not saying I am not going— 
I’m not saying I’m going to overrule every objection, 
but I am saying that if it goes along the tenor of the 
previous testimony, that I am inclined to let it in, 
but saying to you if we get too far afield, it’s possible

that what we are doing here could be upset and re­
versed. But with that in mind, I would want you to 
proceed.

Mr. Chambers: I think it would go along the same 
line, Your Honor. I don’t intend to go too far afield.

The Court: Now, if you gentlemen object and you 
want to be heard, if you will rise. Otherwise your 
objection will be recorded and of course, as we all 
know, it’s not necessary for an exception, but if you 
want to be heard at some juncture, I’ll be glad to 
hear you. Otherwise, we will just record your ob­
jection.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, sir.
The Court: All right.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.— for Plaintiff— Direct



381a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you recall the question? A. You asked me wliat 
the opinion was. My answer would be, I think the process 
as a whole which lead to decisions relative to reemployment 
in the present case of reorganization of the Asheboro School 
System has within it some serious flaws of invalidity, un­
reliability, and arbitrariness when weighed against gener­
ally accepted standards of personnel administration.

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, what would some of those serious flaws
— 12—

be?
Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. Among them, the more serious—in the interest of time 
I will mention some that I consider the most serious, start­
ing with the Board of Education—

Mr. Walker: Excuse me just a moment, Your 
Honor. We would like to state he asked him what 
would those serious flaws be, not his opinion. What 
are those serious flaws.

The Court: I will sustain that objection on the 
grounds that at this point it is not responsive. Will 
you restate your question, Mr. Chambers.



382a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, what would some of those serious flaws 
be? A. I would like to apologize to Your Honor. I thought 
I was only allowed to give opinions rather than to state 
facts.

Mr. Walker: Object.

By the Witness:

A. The first flaw is that the Board of Education did not 
operate in a fashion that is generally accepted for Boards 
of Education to operate in regard to personnel decisions 
according to my reading of the testimony, the deposition of 
the board president and the testimony yesterday. The 
Board of Education turned over to the superintendent vir­
tually complete responsibility to make the determinations.

—13—
Mr. Walker: Well, we object to that, if it please 

the Court, as to his interpretation of the legal effect 
of something.

The Court: All right. Overruled.

By the Witness:

A. The Board did not set up for the benefit of the superin­
tendent guidelines that he was to use in making the evalu­
ations. The function of the Board of Education is to set 
general policies. The function of the superintendent as ex­
ecutive officer of the Board is to carry out those policies. 
This becomes a particularly serious flaw in the instant 
case, because particularly brought to the attention of the 
Board, according to the deposition of Mr. Redding, was the 
fact that a Negro delegation visited him, visited them at an 
official meeting and raised questions about what was going



383a

to happen to them. Even -without this expressed notifica­
tion, the Board of Education operating according to theory, 
would have set up some guidelines in this matter to guide 
the superintendent as to how to carry out—let me correct 
that, would set up some guidelines as to goals to be achieved 
in carrying out the reorganization plan which was called for. 
It’s the superintendent’s role to determine how; it’s the 
Board’s role to determine what and to set general guide­
lines. So I would say that is the first serious complex of 
flaws dealing with the Board. The second has to do with

—l i ­
the evaluation scheme itself. First of all, the procedures 
that were used were not sufficiently formalized to carry out 
standards at a minimum level in the school system of the 
size of Asheboro with approximately two hundred teachers. 
I mean such things as a complete dirth of records except for 
the year that is being litigated. Any evaluation of a teach­
er’s performance would have to take account of the teacher’s 
performance through the years and to base the decision on 
the record of one year in writing—and I’ll discuss the 
writing in a moment—the one year in writing and the rest 
of it in the memory of the superintendent for some two 
hundred teachers over a period of many years fails, to meet 
minimum standards in the area of personnel administration 
when key decisions are being made such as who was going 
to be retained. Looking at some of the objective aspects of 
the procedures, first of all I would say, or I do say that 
they are very loose regarding “observations” . The pro­
cedures do not spell out in sufficient detail what was to be 
accomplished in the observations, by whom the observations 
were to be made, how frequently they were to be made, the 
criteria to be used were not clearly communicated to the 
principals who were the ones making the observations, mak­

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.— for Plaintiff— Direct



384a

ing the only written observations, therefore, an individual 
principal would not know what the ostensibly extensive cri­
teria really meant. Also the principals would not know what 
standards of comparison to make even if they knew in suf-

—15—
ficient detail to apply them what the criteria meant. That 
is to say if the principal observed a particular mode of con­
duct in the teacher, not only would he have to know whether 
this was what was meant by the criterion that he was sup­
posed to make a rating on, but he would have to have some 
standard to determine whether he was going to call this one, 
two, three, four or five, putting it another way, average has 
no meaning unless there is a standard, and it is not at all 
clear—in fact, it is unclear as to whether average means 
average in Asheboro, average in North Carolina, average 
in the country—so it is not even clear what average means, 
not alone reaching the point of whether average is indeed 
something that can be evaluated on some of the criteria. 
So to recap that point, the principals who made the only 
written evaluation, this is the key to the flaw, were given no 
guides as to what criteria to apply, how to apply them, or 
how to rate that which they observed either according to 
the criteria or according to such things as below average, 
superior. Each principal then was forced to rate according 
to his own set of standards, therefore comparisons between 
principals—or I should say among principals, to be gram­
matically correct, comparisons among principals would be 
completely impossible, because each principal would have 
to determine his own standards. And while each principal 
might be consistent within his own building according to

—16—
his own evaluation of what the criteria meant, certainly 
principal A ’s number three could not be compared with

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff-—Direct



385a

principal B’s number four in the absence of guidelines as 
to what has to be done to accomplish a three, namely, aver­
age, and what has to be done to accomplish a four, which 
was below average, or above average, a superior or what­
ever it was, whatever it would be.

Q. Mr. Reutter, let me inquire just at this point about 
the weights! A. I was just about to—

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Sustained. Go ahead with your ques­

tion.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you state your opinion about the weights or 
the procedure by which they were utilized in the Asheboro 
School System!

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. The rates are a very key flaw in the whole matter be­
cause of the fact that the principals did not understand 
the weights.

Mr. Walker: Object to that.

A. By testimony-—

Mr. Walker: Just a moment.
The Court: I do not believe to state that the prin-

— 17—
cipals did not understand—he couldn’t validly state 
that by any rule that I know of, so I will sustain it

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff-—Direct



386a

to that point. See, you could not state, Mr. Eeutter, 
certainly, the principals did not know. It would not 
be able—

The Witness: I see, Your Honor.
The Court: All right.

By the witness:

A. Well, Mr. Teachey yesterday indicated that he had not 
instructed the principals expressly as to what the ratings 
were. Furthermore, cursory and eclectic tabulations by me 
of certain of the rating forms indicated what would be 
errors in arithmetic with the weightings followed. I can 
cite specific examples. Would that be necessary?

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you cite one or two examples!

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. Among the ones that were miscalculated, if the weight­
ings among those—and I want to emphasize I only went 
through a few—among those in which there were errors 
in the final calculation, if the weightings as reported in 
the interrogatories were really used, were the following. 
Principal Loflin miscalculated—I have just the last names 
here—Principal Loflin miscalculated on Gallimore, and on

- 18 -

Gray, and I emphasize these were picked from different 
principals. Principal Hawkins miscalculated on Poole, and 
failed to give any overall rating to Feezor. Principal Har­
rell miscalculated on Craven. Principal Cliissim on

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr,—for Plaintiff— Direct



387a

O’Bryant. These were the bases of my statement that the 
principals did not understand. Getting back—excuse me.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Go ahead, sir. A. Getting back to the flaws that you 
asked for, then, in addition to the problem that we have al­
ready cited, the evaluation sheets which were turned in 
during the year ’64-65 for the first time, the sheets them­
selves, the form itself, was—well, I would say sloppily 
prepared. To substantiate that, I cite the fact that almost 
—well, this is the form itself. On the form itself, a sub­
stantial number of data are called for and not completed. 
There wrere eliminated, and the superintendent said yester­
day, he said they didn’t have to fill them out. This indicates 
to me a lack of consideration in preparing the form. The 
weightings do not appear on the form. The five classifica­
tions on the form do not compare with the five classifica­
tions filed in the interrogatory due to what could be a 
clerical error. That’s why I was struggling for an adverb 
and used the word “sloppily” rather than any other, be­
cause the word that is left oft is the key word in the evalua­
tion of any teacher, and the key word is left off of the 
evaluation record. Since it is a key word rather than a

—1 9 -
mere typographical error is why I used the word “sloppy” . 
I refer to “D” , which on the rating sheets says “knowledge 
of subjects” and in the interrogatory where this is am­
plified, it says “knowledge of subjects and methods.”

The Court: The evaluation form does not have a 
place, you say, for knowledge of subjects?

The Witness: The evaluation form—I was criti­

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



388a

cizing the form. The evaluation form says simply
“knowledge of subjects” .

The Court: All right.

By the witness:

A. According to the interrogatories of what Mr. Teachey 
said yesterday, what he was really getting at was knowledge 
of subjects and methods. I am saying the omission of “and 
methods” is an omission of great consequence which should 
have been picked up in a reasonably adequate administra­
tion, particularly critical when no sub-titles, where no sub- 
items were given on the rating sheet, and the only thing 
the principal was asked to evaluate was knowledge of sub­
jects, and naturally the knowledge of methods is probably 
one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the 
teacher as distinguished from the person who merely has 
knowledge. Well, these are some examples of what I was 
forced to state was a flaw; emphasis on the “was” or “is” , 
and that is that the form itself was not very well prepared.

— 20—

The next flaw would be that as the principal submitted these 
forms, they apparently—well, strike that. These forms as 
submitted were submitted in a very inconsistent and sloppy 
fashion. In several instances principals did not fill out 
even the five items that were so critical to the evaluation. 
In some other instances, they did not fill out the overall 
teaching performance. In many instances they failed to 
answer the question, “Have you discussed teaching difficul­
ties with this person?” And I believe that when a form 
says, “Yes, space” “No, space,” competent administration 
would require that one or the other be filled in. Dates do 
not appear on more than a handful. I think, but I ’m not 
sure at this moment, only one principal troubled himself

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



389a

with filling in the date, and the dates were not filled in 
upon them by the central office with any mechanical device. 
I think that this is sufficient to amplify that point at this 
moment. If I could retrace my step for just one second, I 
would like to point out one other professionally inadequate 
thing about the form, and that is its negative orientation, 
which says the only question, the only questions in addi­
tion to the actual ratings have to do with or are these two. 
“Have you discussed teaching difficulties with this person 
prior to submission of the report,” and “What has been 
done to help this person overcome these difficulties.” “Ex­
plain briefly.” That is the central administration has not 
in any way made a check on whether the principals do in-

— 21-

deed have conferences with the teachers. And one thing 
that I can say without fear of contradiction, the main 
purpose of an evaluation record is to record opportunities 
for pointing out strengths and weaknesses of teachers, and 
to help improve any situation. So I would object to the 
—I should say professionally raise a question about the 
negative orientation of this sheet. That was still on the 
part of the sheet itself. And I hope I haven’t confused the 
Court. Then I would bring in my points about the fact 
that the forms as filed by the principals were not received 
in a complete fashion and no effort was made between that 
time and when these were requested on the deposition to 
correct that, which of course was after, substantially after 
they were filed, because apparently they were filed in the 
spring of ’65.

Q. Mr. Reutter, what is your opinion about the failure 
of the School Board to advise the teachers in the system 
about the criteria and procedures to be used in evaluating 
teachers f

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



390a

Mr. Walker: Objection. There’s no evidence that 
they did not so advise the teachers, may it please 
the Court.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I would like to point 
to the depositions of Mr. Teachey, to the interroga­
tories that were filed by the School Board, and to 
the testimony of Mr. Teachey yesterday, which—

— 22—

The Court: All right. Overruled.

By the witness:

A. To fail to expressly tell the teachers that on which 
they were going to be evaluated I find a personnel policy 
on the very lowest category.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. It is the practice to give the teachers the criteria and 
procedures that will be used in evaluating them in their 
teaching, a system—

Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.

A. It is uniformly agreed upon in theory. It is the general 
practice. It certainly—well, it is the general practice. 
Otherwise, the teachers don’t know on what bases they 
are going to be evaluated.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. What is your opinion about the failure to have two 
or more people to evaluate the teacher!

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct

Mr. Walker: Object.



391a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct 

The Court: Overruled.

A. This is another flaw, if I had prepared a written state­
ment to read, that I would consider a serious one, and 
that is that in any subjective evaluation particularly a 
subjective evaluation of a subjective act, namely, teaching, 
it is absolutely essential to have more than one evaluator 
in order to be fair, what we in test measurements say 
would have reliability.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. I think it was testified that supervisors in the system
— 23—

were used as resource personnel, and at times the superin­
tendent would call upon them for a supervisor’s opinion 
about the teacher. Do you have an opinion about the use 
of the supervisor in these roles?

Mr. Walker: Objection.

A. I do.

The Court: Overruled.

A. One might say, or I will say there are two theories as 
to the role of the quote, supervisor, end of quote. One 
involves his being a resource person, a term Mr. Teachey 
used yesterday. One is being using as a resource person 
with the main goal being to help the teacher, staying com­
pletely out of the formal evaluation process through which 
a teacher’s salary, promotion, retention are determined. 
The other theory says that a supervisor of, shall we say 
mathematics, is the only one in a system who is qualified



392a

really to evaluate the knowledge of the teacher in mathe­
matics and the methodology of the teacher in mathematics. 
Putting this another way, a principal could not in this day 
and age, unless he were a genius and the teachers were 
poorly trained, know more about the subject and the 
methods than all the subjects taught in the school. What 
is wrong with what was done here is that Mr. Teachey 
breached the theory and took a little bit of each, which de­
stroys the valid use of either, because at one point he said 
that he used the supervisors as resource persons and kept

—24—
them out of the evaluation process, which I find very ac­
ceptable, but on the other hand he said he discussed mat­
ters of retention with the supervisors in certain cases. 
This, then, breaches the theory of the supervisor as resource 
person and not as evaluator because that theory is predi­
cated upon the fact that the teachers would freely confess 
their errors, their weaknesses and will ask for help without 
fear of their asking for help betraying their weaknesses. 
So to state it succinctly and directly, if the supervisor is 
going to participate in evaluation, as Mr. Teachey indi­
cated in some instances happened, then the theory that 
the supervisor does not participate in all—the theory— 
let me restate that'—that the supervisor should not partici­
pate in any, that theory then falls, and if the supervisor 
does participate in evaluations, minimum standards would 
require that those evaluations be put in writing.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would the same be true of conferences that are held 
between the principal and teacher and the supervisor and 
teacher when these conferences are for the purpose of eval­
uating the teacher?

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



393a

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. That they should be put in writing!

Mr. Walker : Object.
—25—

The Court: Overruled.

A. Certainly the minimum essentials of any conference 
such as the date and the fact that a conference was held 
should be in writing, and certainly any comments that will 
be influential or helpful in further dealings with the teacher 
should be recorded so that the frail human memory is not 
the only repository of the facts that came out in the con­
ference. This is particularly true in cases involving the 
teacher’s whole professional status, namely, whether she 
is going to be retained or not. School systems vary as to 
how much of a record they keep. To keep no record of 
time, place and purpose of the conference is absolutely poor.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, did you have occasion to examine the 
qualifications of Mr. Lewis Newberry to see some objective 
factors that would make him preferable to Mr. Burns 
who was returned as counselor in the school system?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. In reaching personnel positions subjective and objective, 
factors both have to be considered.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff-—Direct



394a

Mr. Walker: Object to that. I believe he asked a 
question as to whether or not he examined.

The Court: Yes. That was the question.

A. I’m sorry, Your Honor. The answer to that is, Yes,
— 26—

Your Honor, I examined it and do see objective evidence 
which would raise a question.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you point to some of that objective evidence? 

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled. You say as against—with 

the comparison to Mr. Burns?
Mr. Chambers: Mr. Burns, I believe.

By the Witness:

A. Mr. Burns, in the year under litigation, at the end of 
’64-65, had ten years’ total experience, one year’s experience 
in the school system, and a graduate degree in counseling. 
Mr. Newberry had fifteen years’ total experience, two years 
in the school system, and a graduate degree in counseling. 
In addition to that, in one of the rare instances of a prin­
cipal comment, Mr. Burns’ principal stated to the effect— 
I don’t have the record before me—stated to the effect 
that Mr. Burns was not a good guidance man but was 
showing marked improvement.

Mr. Walker: I object to that and move to strike 
that.

The Court: Yes, I sustain that.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



395a

A. I got that from the record.

The Court: Well, that is in the record, so I will 
sustain it.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Are you referring in your statement. about the prin-
—27—

cipal’s comment to the evaluation, the teacher evaluation 
record data sheet? A. May I see it to be certain?

Q. I think this is part of Plain tiff’s Exhibit No. 3, 
Your Honor. A. Yes, name of teacher, Joseph Burn, 
signed by Principal Harrell. No school listed, no date 
listed, no rating filled out. The comment, however, “Mr. 
Burn is not a strong guidance person although he has im­
proved in the past year.”

Q. Mr. Beutter, do you have an opinion about unau­
thorized purchases in a school system by a teacher?

Mr. Walker: I object to that. We will stipulate 
certain things as to that, but we object to the form 
of that question.

The Court: All right. Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Did you hear the testimony yesterday about unau­
thorized purchases?

Mr. Walker : Object.
The Court: Overruled.

E. Edmund Rentier, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct

A. Yes.



396a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr,—for Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether that would 
serve as a valid basis for retention or non-retention of a 
teacher?

Mr. Walker: Object.
—28—

The Court: Overruled.

A. Without detailed investigation as to what constituted 
quote, unauthorized purchases, end of quote, my only com­
ment would be the school system should have made a care­
ful investigation of it and recorded it if they found that 
indeed the unauthorized purchase was not just an error 
whereby the teacher bought something when the principal 
wasn’t in the building and wasn’t able to sign the purchase 
slip and then the principal got angry. What I ’m saying, 
there should have been an investigation of it. There would 
have to be an investigation of what is an unauthorized pur­
chase in an instant case before I could reach any conclu­
sion as to whether this is indeed of any significance.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Eeutter, did you have occasion to examine the 
plan of desegregation with respect to teachers of the Ashe- 
boro Board of Education?

Mr. Walker: Object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. I did.



397a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you have an opinion about the plan there of de­
segregating the school system!

Mr. Anderson: We object.
Mr. Walker: We object, if it please the Court. 

That is the whole basis of this inquiry, going into 
the validity of that plan as it might affect individual

- 2 9 -
teachers.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, our contention is 
that we are challenging not only the dismissal of 
these teachers, but also the procedure they are now 
following in eliminating the whole practice of these 
assignments of teachers to the school system.

The Court: I’m going to overrule the objection. 
All right.

By the witness:

A. I have an opinion on it.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you state what that is! A. I don’t think it is 
likely to accomplish its intended purpose.

Mr. Walker: We object to that. Just a moment. 
I don’t know how Dr. Reutter, as educated as he is, 
could know what the intended purpose of any plan 
of desegregation is.

The Court: Well, his answer was he did not think, 
you know. Of course that in itself has certain defects 
and so forth. I’ll overrule the objection. Go ahead.



398a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct 

A. The fact that the statement—

The Court: Just a minute.
The Witness: Excuse me.
The Court: Do you still have a question that he 

is developing!
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. I asked him why did he

- 3 0 -
have that opinion.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Walker: We object.
The Court: Overruled.

A. I have the opinion because there is nothing specific in 
it and some defects that I see include the fact that the word 
“henceforth” is used in it, which indicates no intent of the 
board to take a step to correct past practices, and the 
statement that the factors to be considered are quote, 
training, competence, experience, and other objective 
means, end of quote, I maintain that training, competence 
and experience are not objective until some meaning is 
given to what is meant by these.

The Court: Now, this part that you speak of, is 
this in the plan that has been approved by the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare!

The Witness: There’s no indication here, Your 
Honor, that it has been approved. This is the one 
statement on teachers.

Mr. Anderson: We will so stipulate.
Mr. Chambers: We couldn’t stipulate.
Mr. Walker: Then we object to his asking ques­

tions about it if he won’t stipulate.



399a

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, this problem was— 
this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, this is the—

—31—
The Court: Is this the plan that has been ap­

proved by the Commission!
Mr. Anderson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chambers: How it was approved, Your Hon­

or, is a different question. The only information I 
have is what I read in the newspaper, and I haven’t 
seen anything else. If they have a letter from the 
Department to that effect, I’d be glad to stipulate. 
The only information I have as to whether the plan 
has been approved is an article that I read, I think 
it was in the “Grensboro Daily News,” and we would 
question seriously whether that was an uncondi­
tional approval, if that article was true.

Mr. Walker: If he wants to ask him about this 
plan, he’s doing it, and we are objecting to it, but 
we will stipulate that that has been approved by 
the Office of Education of the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare.

The Court: He says he doesn’t know, though, Mr. 
Walker, whether this—that all he knows about it 
was that he read it in a newspaper that a plan had 
been approved, but did not know whether this would 
make up a portion of it or not, and hence he says 
he’s not in a position to stipulate. I don’t know, re­
viewing the evidence back, and of course I haven’t 
read all of the interrogatories and depositions. Is

—32—
there something before me in the evidence that a 
plan has been approved!

E. Edmund Rentier, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



400a

Mr. Walker: I believe you’ll find that in Mr. 
Teaehey’s deposition.

The Court: I see. All right.
Mr. Chambers: What information there is I think 

would be in Mr. Teachey’s deposition.
Mr. Walker: May I see that just a moment? May 

it please the Court, I recall specifically that there is 
a notation made in here that they complied and 
sent in a 441-A form which had been approved. On 
page 158, the plan for compliance with Title VI, 
the answer on line 13, “in February we adopted a 
reorganization plan as described in our minutes. 
On the basis of that plan, we assured the Office of 
Education that we would comply under a form 
known as HEW-441, which simply was an assurance 
of compliance. This was done on the basis of the 
action of February the 11th and actually author­
ized on February the 11th. Now, approximately 
thirty to forty-five days later, we were informed 
that the Office of Education would not accept from 
a southern school system any such assurance. I can’t 
offer any explanation for this, but this was a fact. 
Therefore, we had to write it out according to an 
outline provided by the Office of Education. There 
was no difference essentially, but we described it in

— 3 3 -
somewhat outline detail.” And then on page 159, 
“has your plan for compliance been approved by 
the Department of H.E.W.? Not finally. It has been 
approved in principle. Do you have—I’m sorry—the 
plan for desegregation of your school district?” 
Now, this is quoting from a letter of Henry Lumas, 
Acting Commissioner, “has been reviewed by the

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff— Direct



401a

staff of the Office of Education and has been deter­
mined to be adequate to meet the requirements of 
the Office for compliance with Title VI, the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.” This is signed by Acting Com­
missioner, Henry Lumas.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think that he should 
read further in the deposition.

Mr. Walker: I’ll read the whole thing.
The Court: Well, maybe that might be an aca­

demic question. It probably is. Of course, as to 
whether what the Asheboro System has complies 
with due process or not, of course, would be another 
matter, even though a plan had been approved by 
the Commissioner.

The Witness: Your Honor, I have the plan here. 
This may be irregular, but it says except for the 
question of possible discriminary—

The Court: Nobody introduced that.
The Witness: He asked him to read further.
Mr. Chambers: That’s what he was referring to

—34—
awhile ago.

The Court: Oh, the deposition.
The Witness: Except for the question of pos­

sible—
The Court: This is in evidence?
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir. I certainly didn’t mean to 

stop too soon. I’ll read further. What page is that 
on?

The Court: That’s on page 159. Well, gentlemen, 
let’s move along. I will overrule any objection that’s 
now lodged, and let’s get back on the track.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



402a

Mr. Walker: Yes, sir.
The Court: Let’s go ahead with this. I will re­

view the depositions, all of them. Mr. Chambers, we 
have digressed into some discussion here for a good 
little while. Do you have a question before the 
witness ?

Mr. Chambers: I was trying to think.
The Court: Do you have a question before you, 

before the witness?
Mr. Chambers: I don’t think so.
The Witness: I was in the process of answering 

one, I think. The one dealing with this plan. I didn’t 
finish the answer, if that was a legitimate question.

The Court: Was that your question? Let’s do it 
this way. You put a question to the witness and 
let’s proceed.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, you stated that you did not think the
- 3 5 -

plan would work to desegregate the teachers in the system. 
Why do you have that opinion?

Mr. Walker: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.

A. The plan does not include any goals. It does not include 
any time table. It does not include in my opinion any 
specific steps—strike out in my opinion—it does not any 
specific steps and it specifically excludes any statement of 
any intention to correct the effects of discriminatory as­
signment practices in the past.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Direct



403a

Mr. Walker: We object to the last portion, be­
cause it is assuming it had been.

The Court: Yes. Overruled.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I have no further 

questions.
The Court: All right. The witness is with the 

defendant.

Cross Examination by Mr. Walker :

Q. Professor Reutter, have you ever been a school ad­
ministrator in a public school system! A. I have been 
administrator in a system operated by public fund; I have 
not been an administrator in a public school system in the 
general use of the word.

Q. Where was that school and what type of school was it ?
— 36—

A. It was the Tokyo Army Education School in which I 
worked partly for the army for part of the time, and the 
next year for the federal civil service. The school was 
set up—it would be most analogous in this country, that 
is in the States, but you would call the North Carolina 
Union School plus college academic courses which the men 
could get credit back in the country.

Q. Had you ever served on a school board in any admin­
istrative unit, city or county or state in any of these places 
that you had been! A. No.

Q. Have you ever been retained or have you ever served 
as consultant to any administrative school unit! A. On 
numerous—

Q. In North Carolina! A. Not in North Carolina.
Q. Any state school system! A. You mean to the State 

Department of Education! A. No, sir. I mean any state 
of the fifty states! A. Oh, yes, numerous. As I stated

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



404a

directly, one of my functions is to consult with school dis­
tricts on personnel policies and to participate in surveys 
of them among the larger cities, Detroit—at the moment, 
Wilmington, Delaware, Detroit, Michigan, I could name 
quite a number. I didn’t get the import of your question. 
No school district in North Carolina has employed me

— 37—
specifically.

Q. Now, have you ever been in Asheboro, Randolph 
County, North Carolina! A. Probably not. I say prob­
ably because I have traveled in North Carolina, and I don’t 
watch these things that closely.

Q. I think we might stipulate that— A. I would say no. 
I will say no, if that is helpful.

Q. Well, have you been in any school in Asheboro, North 
Carolina? A. No.

Q. Have you ever talked to any principal who was con­
nected with any school of Asheboro? A. I would have to 
answer it to my knowledge, no, hut I may have, because 
many of them come to Duke School Law Conferences where 
I’ve spoken on many occasions and many come to Teachers 
College as students and people change jobs, so I have to 
put these qualifications in. Possibly one of the current 
principals was a former student or talked to me at some 
time.

Q. Well, have you talked to Lewis H. Newberry? A. 
No, sir.

Q. Do you know him? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever talked to Joseph R. Burn who you

— 38—
were comparing just a moment ago? A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever talked with Blondie J. Segers? A. No,

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross

sir.



405a

Q. Do you know her? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever talk with Marietta W. Foster? A. No, 

sir.
Q. Do you know her? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever talked with Pearline Palmer? A. No, 

sir.
Q. Do you know her? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever talked with Sara Peterson? A. No, 

sir.
Q. Do you know her? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever talked with Gaines W. H. Price? A. 

No, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen a band of his perform or heard 

it perform? A. All of these are not to my knowledge, no, 
sir.

Q. Have you ever talked with Jackie E. Kilgore? A. 
No, sir. I ’d be willing to say that to my knowledge I haven’t

—39—
talked on a personal or professional basis to any of the 
people who are mentioned in this case except as they may 
have been students.

Q. That’s why I want to go into detail. A. I ’m quite 
content to go through them. I was just trying to save time.

Q. I appreciate that. A. I want to make one thing clear 
for the record so as not to confuse anybody. It’s quite 
possible that I talked to some of these people during the 
many times that I have been at Duke University for two- 
day periods, and many people come to conferences where 
I speak and many people over my seventeen years have 
been students at Columbia University, and I would not 
want to say that I didn’t. On the other hand, if you want 
to make the point, if you’re asking the question, which you

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.— for Plaintiff— Cross



406a

are not, I should leave it to you, but I just want to make 
clear that I ’m not purporting to know any of these people 
intimately.

Q. Well, do you know them at all! A. I thought that I 
answered that.

Q. I didn’t understand. Do you know any of these people 
by sight or by name, to the best of your knowledge ? A. 
With the quali—

Q. Yes or no. A. No.
—40—

Q. Now, if you want to explain, you may go ahead. A. 
Well, thank you, because I would like to explain the fact 
I want to under no circumstances give an answer that could 
be misleading, and I want to indicate that I have on at 
least six or seven occasions been a principal speaker at the 
Duke School Law Conferences and therefore might very 
well know these people. I have been seventeen years at 
Columbia and have taught large numbers and large classes. 
Many people come up. Some last names seem vaguely 
familiar. So I just want to make it clear that I have not 
talked to any of these people in connection with this case.

Q. Well, Professor Beutter, have you talked to any of 
these people in connection with anything else to the best 
of your knowledge!

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think we are re­
peating ourselves here. I think the witness has al­
ready answered the question.

Mr. Walker: I don’t know whether he has or not.
The Court: Possibly so, but I’ll overrule the ob­

jection.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



407a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross 

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Let me put it this way. A. Yes.
Q. If G-aines W. H. Price were to walk through those 

doors right now, would you recognize him? A. No.
—41—

Q. If Jackie Kilgore were to walk through that door, 
would you recognize her? A. Not as Jackie Kilgore, pos­
sibly by face. I couldn’t put face and name together.

Q. I see. Have you ever seen any of these others whose 
names have been mentioned? A. I can’t put faces and 
names together, no. And I have not talked to any of them 
during my trip here to my knowledge.

Q. You are on sabbatical now from Columbia, are you 
not? A. During the spring semester, yes, sir.

Q. How long have you been on sabbatical? A. Well, 
the leave runs during the spring semester, technically that’s 
from February 1st till summer session.

Q. And you are now retained by the Legal Defense Fund, 
Incorporated? A. My association with them began some­
time ago. I forget the exact date.

Q. Well, I just want to know if you are now retained 
by them? A. At the moment, I am continuing with my 
relationship with them.

Q. I don’t know what that relationship is, sir. Are you 
retained by them, paid by them? A. I received a retainer

—42—
from them, yes.

Q. Well, who is the Legal Defense Fund, Incorporated? 
What is it? A. It is an organization incorporated under 
appropriate statutes for the purpose of attaining through 
legal means rights which may be denied, which reasonably 
might be denied to Negroes. I emphasize it is incorporated, 
it is a non-profit organization.



408a

Q. Is it a group of members of the National Association 
for the Advancement of Colored People who formed this 
Legal Defense Fund? A. I am not an expert on the his­
tory of the Fund. With that in mind, my understanding 
is that this was founded as an off-shoot of the N.A.A.C.P., 
and incorporated somewhere in the late 1930’s as a non­
profit group under appropriate statutes. It is not subject 
to the policies of the N.A.A.C. P. It’s an independent group; 
an independent board of directors; independent operation. 
I emphasize that I am not an expert in the history of that 
or of the organization.

Q. Excuse me. Are you through now? A. Yes, sir. I’m 
sorry. If I understood slightly more what I’m getting, 
maybe I could answer it a little more directly.

Q. Let me ask you this. Are you a member of the Na­
tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

—43—
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’d like to object to 

that on the basis that it’s irrelevant.
The Court: I sustain the objection.

By Mr. Walker:
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Directors or the 

governing body of the Legal Defense Fund, Incorporated? 
A. No.

Q. Are you a member of that group?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor—
The Court: Is he a member of that group?
The Witness: I don’t understand the question.
Mr. Chambers: We would stipulate that that is 

not a membership corporation.
Mr. Walker: I’m trying to find out what it is.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr,—for Plaintiff—Cross



409a

The Court: Overruled. Mr. Reutter is a very in­
telligent witness, and if he doesn’t understand, he 
can have it clarified, if he doesn’t know. So, go ahead.

By the witness:

A. As I understand it, this is an organization not unlike 
Columbia University with boards of directors and various 
kinds of officials and so forth and so on. I am employed as 
a—I guess you would use the word consultant, by the 
N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Incorpo­
rated. That’s the long title, N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Incorporated, and this is a part-time

—44—
consultantship, and you can go on and I’ll pick it up from 
there.

Q. I just assumed you’d keep on going. A. I’ve an­
swered it, I thought.

Q. Are you paid by the Legal Defense Fund, Incorpo­
rated for participating in this case? A. No.

Q. Are you being paid by anyone for participating in 
this case? A. Again, I don’t want to mislead. I am not 
being paid to participate in this case. I am being paid a 
retainer to advise them on certain matters, and I believe 
this to be an important case and therefore came at Mr. 
Chambers’ request. I am receiving no special fee for com­
ing to this case.

Q. But you are receiving a monthly compensation from 
the Legal Defense Fund, Incorporated? A. For advice. 
My coming down here is extra-curricular, and I get only 
expenses.

Q. What is your salary from the National—or rather 
the Legal Defense Fund? What are you paid a month? A. 
Well, I’ve got to start thinking about that. If you asked 
for the year, it would have been easier.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



410a

Q. How much a year, then! A. Five thousand dollars.
Q. Five thousand a year plus expenses! A. Yes, sir.

—45—
Q. And you’ve been down here in North Carolina how 

long this time before today? A. Well, I was here about 
three days last week and three days this week approxi­
mately. I can get out all the records of when I arrived 
and when I left.

Q. And you realize that Greensboro is twenty-six miles 
from Asheboro. A. Approximately. Yes, I realize that, 
approximately.

Q. And you haven’t even gone down to look at one of 
the schools! A. I didn’t think that was relative to dis­
cussion of personnel policy.

Q. And you haven’t gone down to talk to any of these 
people? Any of the teachers, the principals or superin­
tendents? A. I have not.

Q. Now, are you an attorney at law, Dr. Reutter? A. 
I am not.

Q. You yesterday say here at the counsel table right next 
to Mr. Chambers all day, didn’t you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You examined all the documents? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You advised him by little notes that you wrote him

—46—
as to questions to ask of the witness? A. I wrote him 
notes.

Q. And that had to do with questions to ask? A. Yes. 
Whether he followed the advice or not was up to him.

Q. Do you know this gentleman seated right here, Mr. 
C. A. Paul, a journalist? A. I met him in the corridor 
yesterday.

Q. I want to know if you made this statement to Mr. Paul. 
“Dr. Reutter told a reporter he was retained by the Legal

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



411a

Defense Fund, Inc., of New York City. He said it was 
formed by some members of the National Association for 
the Advancement of Colored People, quote, who broke away, 
quote? A. I don’t remember any such.

Q. Did you make that statement? A. I don’t see the 
statement I made to Mr. Paul was substantially the state­
ment I made here, which was that Thurgood Marshall and 
a group that was once associated with the N.A.A.C.P. and 
may still be formed a separate corporation for a separate 
purpose.

Q. Thurgood Marshall is still associated with the 
N.A.A.C.P.? A. No, sir, he was with the group that 
founded it. You asked who founded it, and Reporter Paul 
asked me—well, the same type of question that you are. 
To the best of my knowledge I gave him the same type of

—47—
answer. Broke away is a word that would have to be 
defined.

Q. Dr. Reutter, let me ask you this, please, sir. Is it not 
true that both, that you consider both subjective and objec­
tive criteria as essential for the proper evaluation of a 
school teacher? A. I do.

Q. Now, let me ask you if you agree with this printed 
statement that I am going to read you. It’s very short. 
“The record discloses that experts in the field of education 
are not in agreement as to the best methods of evaluating 
teachers. Possibly better methods might be available for 
evaluating teacher qualifications. The Board has a wide 
discretion in performing its duties including those relating 
to the employment of teachers.” Do you agree or disagree 
with that statement?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think that he is 
reading from a case, but I don’t know whether the

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



412a

statement is being taken out of context, and unless 
the witness is advised of the way the judge in that 
opinion has approached the problem to get to this 
point to make this statement, I don’t think it would 
be fair for this witness to be now trying to answer 
a question out of context. I think that statement 
that is being read—

Mr. Walker: If it please the Court—
—48—

The Court: I’m going to overrule the objection.
Mr. Walker: Thank you, sir.
The Witness: Can I read it?
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir. I might state, if it please 

the Court, for the record, that I am reading from 
page 444 of the case of Beaufort against The Mor- 
ganton City Board of Education, in which Mr. Cham­
bers participated as counsel.

The Court: I recognize the statement, having read 
that case.

By the witness:

A. Now, this says the record discloses. Now, I don’t have 
the record. It starts off, “The record discloses,” so there­
fore I would say I could not agree with it because I do not 
have the facts. The first three words, it says, “The record 
discloses,” and I don’t have the record.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. That’s all you wish to comment about that statement? 
A. Without facts, I don’t think opinions should be offered, 
which is the gist of why I think Asheboro did badly.

Q. And yet you are coming up here giving your opinion 
without going twenty-six miles to talk with any of these

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



413a

people. Is that right? When you have been here three 
days? A. The fact is right. I would submit that the con­
clusion is out of line.

—49—
Q. Let me ask you about this statement, and see if you 

agree with this. “The individual qualifications, capabilities, 
and abilities of each teacher must be considered.” A. 
Again, considered for wThat?

The Court: Mr. Walker—
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir.
The Court: I believe it is objectionable to read 

from a ease. Now, you might ask him if he agrees 
with a premise, you know, that is phrased in the 
light of that. But I do believe-—he says he is not a 
lawyer and to read from that opinion and ask him, 
would be objectionable. You might rephrase your 
question, or phrase your question that would get at 
the statement, I think would be proper.

Mr. Walker: All right, sir.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Let me ask you this, Dr. Beutter. A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you agree with this principle as enunciated in this 

statement or if you disagree. “The individual qualifications, 
capabilities and abilities of each teacher must be consid­
ered, and human capabilities cannot be reduced to a mathe­
matical formula, intangible factors such as personality, 
character, disposition, industry, adaptability, vitally affect 
the work of any teacher.” Do you agree with that prin­
ciple as enunciated in that statement or disagree?

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff-Cross



414a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross

—50—
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, again, I don’t want 

to delay, but I just want the witness to know the 
context in which that is being printed.

The Court: Overruled.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Would you like to see this statement, sir? A. Yes.

Mr. Walker: Again, I would like the record to 
show that I am continuing to read from the case 
of Beaufort against The Morganton City Board of 
Education on page 443.

The Court: All right. You may answer.

A. I don’t mean to be difficult or evasive, but I can’t reply 
to it.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. All right, sir. Thank you. A. I don’t know the con­
text, is the reason.

Q. All right. A. You know you’ve got to know con­
sidered for what, and you don’t know for what.

Q. Did you hear Mr. Teachey’s reference yesterday to 
a Bible as he used the term of Dr. Reeder? A. You know, 
I didn’t get the word he was using, but now since you tell 
me it was Reeder, I am very familiar with Reeder’s work. 
He died many, many years ago.

Q. Would you say that he was an expert in the field of
- 5 1 -

school administration? A. At the time he lived, yes.
Q. When did he die? A. I think his last writing was 

1951.



415a

Q. Well, when did he die? A. This is a fact I don’t 
know. The point that I am making is simply the fact that 
at the moment, Ward Reeder is not considered an expert 
in current personnel administration. Indeed in personnel 
administration, I would submit he was not.

Q. I beg your pardon, sir. A. I say that Ward Reeder 
lived in a different time and wrote in a different time, and 
as of today, rare indeed is any quotation ever made of him. 
In fact, I didn’t get it yesterday, and to call it a Bible, I 
think would certainly not be accepted. I don’t mean Bible 
in the literal sense. He is one of many, many, many text­
book writers.

Q. You would refer to it— A. I find nothing wrong 
with his qualifications. I don’t mean to imply that he is 
a charlatan. He has done a lot of writing, but all of 
his writing was somewhat in the past and never did he 
focus on personnel administration. He’s not regarded as 
an expert in that particular area, but I certainly don’t want 
to say anything that would harm his memory or fail to 
recognize the contribution that he did make, nor do I want 
to say that any principles he may have enunciated are still 
true.

—52—
Q. Dr. Reutter, do you think as an administrator that, 

and as an expert and admitted by the Court, that it is 
desirable to retain the services of a person who in a period 
of one year has written several worthless checks, some on 
the school itself?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object to the ques­
tion.

The Court: Overruled.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



416a

Mr. Chambers: I’d like to be—I’d like to add, Your 
Honor, that that is not in evidence, and he is asking 
the witness to express an opinion on something that 
is not expressly in the record, and I don’t think that 
it would be proper for him to express an opinion 
under the circumstances.

Mr. Walker: I think, Your Honor has ruled—
The Court: I overrule the objection.

A. If you wouldn’t mind restating that exactly in its form. 

By Mr. Walker:

Q. I’ll ask Mr. Erlacher to read it back to you exactly, 
because I’m not sure I can get it. A. I knew the main sub­
stance, but my answer would have to be to the way you 
asked it.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross

(The question was read by the reporter.)
The Court: That is the question.

A. My answer to the question would be this. I would not
—53—

presume and in none of my testimony have I presumed to 
say who should be retained and who should not be retained. 
I have only described and evaluated methods. If I were to 
evaluate individuals, I would have to go through the system 
and evaluate individuals. Now, the method here that would 
have to be applied would be in an investigation. Certainly 
this would be a prima facie situation that should be looked 
into by the superintendent, investigated by the superinten­
dent, and it could or could not be a reason for dismissing 
the teacher. Many of us have overdrawn our bank accounts 
and misunderstood things. On the other hand, this could be



a scoundrel. But without a thorough investigation, and then 
having investigated the facts of the quote, worthless checks, 
end of quote, this would have to he in context with all of 
the other objective and subjective findings.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. Is that all, sir? A. I think I ’ll stop there unless—
Q. I ’m at your beck and call. A. I think, then, that I 

couldn’t add to that, if you understand my position.
Q. All right, sir. A. It is in essence that I cannot evalu­

ate quote, worthless checks, end of quote, or Mr. Newberry 
as a person, and I have not indicated that Mr. Newberry 
should have been retained, because I don’t know Mr. New­
berry. I’m simply saying that he should not have been, in

—54—
my opinion, dismissed under the procedures that were fol­
lowed.

Q. Now, as I gather from your answer to that, you are 
not in a position to state that any one of these, Mr. Price, 
Miss Kilgore, Miss Palmer, Miss Peterson, Mr. Newberry, 
Mrs. Segers, Mrs. Foster, Mrs. Brooks, or any of them 
should have been retained over any other person! A. I 
would never make a comment on an individual without a 
personal and thorough investigation, which would take a 
long, long time, in North Carolina, in Asheboro, in the 
school systems.

Mr. Walker: You may come down.
Mr. Chambers: One question, Mr. Reutter, to fol­

low that up.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. From your studying of the depositions, of interroga­

tories, and hearing the testimony of the witness yesterday,

417a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



4:18a

in your opinion did the Board have sufficient information 
to form an opinion as to whether to retain or not retain one 
of these persons ?

Mr. Walker: We object to that, sir.
The Court: What is this, now, Mr. Chambers? You 

lost me back there in that question.
Mr. Chambers: The question was posed of Mr. 

Reutter whether he was in a position to state whether 
any of these teachers that were read out by Mr. 
Walker should have been retained.

—55—
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Chambers: My question was whether from the 

depositions and the evidence that was introduced 
here that the superintendent or the board was in a 
position to make such an opinion.

The Court: I sustain the objection.
Mr. Walker: That’s why we’re up here in Greens­

boro.
The Court: I sustain the objection.
Mr. Chambers : No further questions. Come down, 

sir.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: Gentlemen, we usually have our morn­

ing break. Just let me survey the situation. Dr. Reut­
ter, you may get your material and step down, and 
you won’t bother us by getting your material to­
gether.

Mr. Chambers: We close our case at this time.
The Court: He states that he is closing his case. 

When we get back, is it your thinking you’ll have any 
witnesses?

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiff—Cross



419a

Colloquy

Mr. Anderson: No, sir. We will have no evidence.
The Court: All right. We will take care of those 

formalities when we get back in. I am going to ask 
you for proposed findings, and I’ll be glad to hear 
any oral argument that you might wish. I’d be glad

— 56—
to hear it today or at some later time. You might be 
thinking about that. Let’s without an announcement 
take a morning break.

(A short recess was taken.)
The Court: Now, let’s formalize the record in view 

of what we discussed before. Is there further evi­
dence for the plaintiff, Mr. Chambers?

Mr. Chambers: No further evidence for the plain­
tiff.

The Court: All right. What says the defendant?
Mr. Walker: There is no evidence for the defend­

ant, may it please the Court.
The Court: All right. Would there be any motions 

on the part of either side insofar as the record goes 
at this time ?

Mr. Chambers: The plaintiffs have no motion, 
Your Honor.

Mr. Walker: Well, for the record, the defendant 
at the close of all of the evidence moves for a finding 
in favor of the defendant for dismissal of the action.

The Court: All right. Gentlemen, let me inquire 
of you about the time that you will want to submit to 
me proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law 
as I am required to find and make my findings and 
conclusions, and I would like for you to submit pro-



Colloquy

—57—
posals, and of course, I will give you time to do so. 
Since it is an adverse proceeding, it would be proper 
to have the plaintiff submit proposals first, and then 
follow with proposals by the defendant. Mr. Cham­
bers, how much time will you need? I realize that 
you have one case that was heard as recent as last 
week and that you will be working on that.

Mr. Chambers: We’d like twenty days, Your 
Honor.

The Court: All right. That would be the 25th day 
of May. That is on a Wednesday, Mr. Chambers. Is 
that all right?

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. That would be fine.
The Court: Of course, the defendant can be work­

ing on their proposals in the interim time, but would 
ten days after be sufficient?

Mr. Walker: That would be ample, yes, sir. I pre­
sume that one will be submitted to us and then addi­
tional ten days will be ample.

(Whereupon, a memorandum in the matter was 
dictated and the hearing was closed.)



421a

Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for 
Leave to Be Added as a Party-Plaintiff

The above named applicant for intervention, by his 
undersigned attorneys, respectfully move the Court for 
an order permitting him to intervene or to be added as 
a party plaintiff in this cause and to re-open this case 
and submit additional evidence as to his alleged un­
authorized purchases and indebtedness while teaching in 
the Asheboro School System and as ground therefor show 
the Court as follows:

1. That applicant for intervention is a Negro citizen 
of the United States and the State of North Carolina and 
formerly resided in Asheboro, North Carolina.

2. That applicant for intervention taught in the Ashe­
boro School System for three years before being denied 
employment following the closing of the all-Negro Cen­
tral High School, at which he taught, at the end of the 
1964-65 school year and the integration of high school 
students in the school system.

3. That following the closing of the all-Negro Central 
High School and the dismissal of twelve (12) Negro 
teachers, including the applicant for intervention, this 
action was filed by the North Carolina Teachers Associa­
tion seeking redress for the deprivation of the constitu­
tional rights of the twelve Negro teachers dismissed, who 
were members of said Association.

4. That at the hearing of this cause, Gluy B. Teachey, 
Superintendent of Asheboro Public Schools, made numer­
ous disparaging and criminal charges against the appli­
cant for intervention, all of which were damaging to the



422a

reputation of the applicant for intervention and all of 
which were untrue. That said superintendent stated, inter 
alia, that while the applicant for intervention was teaching 
in the system a tax levy was issued against his salary 
and it became necessary to deduct portions of his salary 
to satisfy the tax levy; and that the applicant for inter­
vention made unauthorized purchases while in the school 
system. All said charges of the Superintendent regarding 
the applicant for intervention are untrue.

5. That the charges at the trial made against applicant 
for intervention and other teachers dismissed at the close 
of the 1964-65 school year were the first notice that ap­
plicant for intervention, his counsel, who is also counsel 
for plaintiff North Carolina Teachers Association, had, 
although said counsel had specifically inquired in pre-trial 
discovery of any and all reasons why the applicant for 
intervention and other Negro teachers dismissed were 
not retained in the system. That the Superintendent and 
the defendant presented no written records to support 
these charges and the applicant for intervention respect­
fully alleges that no such written records exist to support 
such charges since the same are untrue. That without 
notice, the applicant for intervention and his counsel were 
unable to produce written documents at trial to show the 
complete falsity of the charges of the Superintendent.

6. That to protect the reputation of the applicant for 
intervention he should be permitted to produce additional 
evidence to show that none of the charges made against 
him, coming at the first time at trial and without any 
notice whatsoever, are untrue.

Motion to Intervene



423a

7. That prior to the filing of this motion counsel for 
applicant for intervention sought to inspect the records 
of the defendant with the view of stipulating facts to 
correct the record but without success.

8. That the applicant for intervention should be per­
mitted to intervene as a party-plaintiff in this action upon 
the following grounds:

(a) Applicant for intervention will be affected by the 
relief prayed for by the original plaintiff herein.
(b) Applicant for intervention has a substantial in­
terest in the subject matter of this action.
(c) Applicant for intervention may or will be bound 
by any judgment in this cause.
(d) The claims of applicant for intervention and 
that of the original plaintiff herein present common 
questions of law and fact.
(e) The slight delay that may be caused by permitting 
the intervention here prayed for by the applicant is 
necessary in the interest of justice and will not unduly 
delay or prejudice the rights of the original parties 
herein who are represented by the same counsel.

9. That if the applicant for intervention is allowed to 
intervene he adopts and reasserts the original complaint 
filed by the original plaintiff herein.

W h e r e f o r e , it is prayed that an order be entered per­
mitting the above named applicant for intervention to 
intervene as a party-plaintiff pursuant to Rule 24 of the

Motion to Intervene



424a

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or in the alternative 
permitting the applicant to be added as a party-plaintiff 
pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce­
dure, permitting him to adopt the original complaint 
herein and to produce additional evidence in refutation 
of his unauthorized purchases, the tax levy and deduc­
tions from his salary and other matters damaging to the 
reputation of the applicant.

Motion to Intervene.



425a

Response to Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative 
for Leave to Be Added as a Party-Plaintiff

The defendant, The Asheboro City Board of Educa­
tion, by way of response to Motion of the applicant for 
intervention, states, by its undersigned attorneys, that 
prior to the trial of the above cause on May 3 and 4, 1966, 
certain documents were required by the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare; that these documents 
were prepared relative to the employment and re-employ- 
ment of all displaced teachers and teachers in comparable 
positions and at that time, the information was computed 
relative to the levy of taxes against the defendant for 
Gaines W. H. Price and also other matters as testified to 
by Guy B. Teachey on May 3, 1966.

That in reviewing the papers submitted, together with 
the actual tax levy it appears that the notice of levy was 
dated September 29, 1965, and the date of assessment was 
May 26, 1965.

That the defendant is very desirous of having a ruling 
in this cause at the earliest practicable time, and to that 
end does not object to the Court considering only the 
testimony relating to the comparison of the application 
for intervention, Gaines W. H. Price, with the other 
teachers in the system.

It will be noted that the only facts set forth in the 
Statement of Facts filed in this cause by the defendant 
relating to Gaines W. H. Price appear in Paragraph 9 of 
the Statement of Facts which said paragraph reads as 
follows: “Each of the Negro teachers not offered new 
contracts of employment was compared by the adminis­
tration with all teachers in comparable positions. For



426a

instance, Gaines W. H. Price was compared to Joseph B. 
Fields, A. G. Harrington, A. B. Fairley, and J. A. Hay­
worth ; teacher Price had a bachelor’s degree while teachers 
Fields, Harrington, Fairley, and Hayworth all had master 
degrees. Teacher Price had a Class A Certificate in the 
music (science) area while teachers Fields, Harrington, 
and Hayworth had graduate certificates in either music or 
science, civics or chemistry and general science. Teacher 
Price was rated by the administration as an average 
teacher while teacher Fields was rated superior, teacher 
Harrington rated above average, teacher Fairley rated 
superior, and teacher Hayworth was rated above average. 
In addition to the general qualifications other qualifica­
tions were listed in the record showing teacher Fields to 
have an excellent record in training bands that won superior 
ratings in competition for ten years.”

The defendant does not oppose the Court considering 
only the portion of the testimony relating to the com­
parison as set forth above, together with other relevant 
evidence received concerned with the application of stand­
ards and criteria as applied to all teachers, and respect­
fully submits that the decision should not be prolonged 
by a hearing for intervention or for leave to be added as 
a party-plaintiff, and in particular in view of the admissions 
herein asserted that there should be no reopening for 
additional testimony.

Attached to this response is a copy of a letter received 
from J. LeVonne Chambers, Attorney, stating that it was 
his intention to move the Court to reopen the case in order 
to correct the records regarding the credit ratings and al­
leged unauthorized purchases of Mr. Gaines Price, Mr. 
Louis Newberry, and Mrs. Janie A. Brooks. Defendant

Response to Motion to Intervene



427a

assumes that since no motion to intervene was filed on be­
half of either Mr. Newberry or Mrs. Brooks the record 
need not be inquired into as to them.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of June, 1966.

W alker, A nderson, Bell & Ogburn

By Hal H. W alker

By H ugh R. A nderson

Attorneys for Defendant, Ashe- 
boro City Board of Education

Response to Motion to Intervene



428a

Exhibit Attached to Foregoing Response 
(Letter dated May 7, 1966 from Julius LeVonne Chambers)

J ulius L eV onne Chambers 
A ttorney at Law

405% EAST TRADE STREET

T elephones 375-1764 or 375-1765 
May 7, 1966

Mr. Hal H. Walker and
Mr. Hugh R. Anderson
Walker, Anderson, Bell and Ogburn
P. O. Box 967
Law Building
Asheboro, North Carolina

Re: North Carolina Teachers 
Association v. Asheboro 
City Board of Education

Gentlemen:
Mr. Gaines W. H. Price has contacted me concerning the 
testimony of Mr. Teachey at the hearing in the above case. 
Mr. Gaines has requested that he be intervened as a party 
plaintiff or file an independent proceeding to clear the 
record regarding his alleged problems with the Internal 
Revenue Service. Mr. Gaines has advised that there was 
never any levy by the Internal Revenue Service or any 
other source. He has further advised that Mr. Louis H. 
Newbury would also like to intervene to correct the record 
regarding the testimony concerning his presenting worthless 
checks. I would like permission from you to inspect the 
records of the school board concerning the matters testi-



429a

Exhibit Attached to Foregoing Response

fled to by Mr. Teachey. Since this information was not 
brought to our attention prior to the trial, I think it only 
fair that we be permitted to check the records to substan­
tiate this. Moreover, we would not want to attempt to re­
open this case if the facts would not warrant it. If, how­
ever, the facts or the records in the Superintendent office 
do not support the testimony of Mr. Teachey, we plan to 
move the court to reopen the case in order to correct the 
records regarding the credit ratings and alleged unauthor­
ized purchases of Mr. Gaines Price, Mr. Louis Newbury and 
Mrs. Janie A. Brooks.
Please let me hear from you regarding the above as soon 
as possible. Under the Court order we are to file proposed 
findings and brief by May 25. Unless we are able to investi­
gate the records of the Board prior to this date, we plan 
to file a motion intervening these parties and seeking 
further hearing in the case.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  J. LeV ostne Chambers 
J. L eV onne Chambers

JLC/apc
ec: Mr. Gaines Price

Mr. Louis H. Newbury



430a

Stipulations

It is stipulated by and between counsel for all parties as 
follows;

1.

That as regards the testimony and evidence concerning 
Gaines W. H. Price, the Court, by stipulation by and be­
tween all parties, shall consider only the following testi­
mony of Guy B. Teachey concerning Gaines W. H. Price: 
“Each of the Negro teachers not offered new contracts of 
employment was compared by the administration with all 
teachers in comparable positions. For instance, Gaines W. 
H. Price was compared to Joseph B. Fields, A. G. Harring­
ton, A. B. Fairley, and J. A. Hayworth; teacher Price had 
a Bachelor’s degree while teachers Fields, Harrington, 
Fairley and Hayworth all had Master degrees. Teacher 
Price had a Class A Certificate in the music (science) area 
while teachers Fields, Harrington and Hayworth had grad­
uate certificates in either music or science, civics or chem­
istry and general science. Teacher Price was rated by the 
administration as an average teacher while teacher Fields 
was rated superior, teacher Harrington rated above aver­
age, teacher Fairley rated superior, and teacher Hayworth 
was rated above average. In addition to the general quali­
fications other qualifications were listed in the record show­
ing teacher Fields to have an excellent record in training 
bands that won superior ratings in competition for ten 
years.”

2.

The parties stipulate further that in addition to the por­
tion of the testimony relating to the comparison as above 
set forth, other relevant evidence received concerned with



431a

Stipulations

the application of standards and criteria as applied to all 
teachers, should and will be considered by the Court in de­
ciding this case now pending.

3.

That the objections of the plaintiff to the admission of 
testimony by the Superintendent regarding testimony con­
cerning Mrs. Janie A. Brooks and Louis Newberry are not 
affected by these stipulations.

4.

That no additional evidence or pleadings will be offered 
or filed by the Plaintiff-Intervenor, Gaines W. H. Price.

This 15th day of September 1966.



432a

Order Allowing Intervention

This cause, coming on to be heard before the undersigned 
United States District Judge, on motion by Gaines W. H. 
Price, applicant for intervention as a party plaintiff, to be 
added as a party plaintiff in the above entitled cause,

A nd, it appearing to the Court that there is good reason 
therefor.

Now t h e r e f o r e , i t  is o r d e r e d  that Gaines W. H. Price be 
allowed to intervene as a party plaintiff, and to adopt the 
pleadings of the original party plaintiff heretofore filed in 
this cause.

This the 15th day of September 1966.

United States District Judge



433a

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F oe the Middle D istrict of North Carolina 

Greensboro Division 

No. C-102-G-65

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

North Carolina Teachers A ssociation, 
a Corporation, and Gaines W. H. Price,

Plaintiffs,
v.

T he A shebobo City B oard of E ducation, 
a Public Body Corporate,

Defendant.

Mr. LeVonne Chambers, of Charlotte, North 
Carolina; Mr. Conrad 0. Pearson, of Durham,
North Carolina; Mr. Sammie Chess, of High 
Point, North Carolina; and Mr. James Na- 
britt, III, of New York, New York, for the 
Plaintiffs

Mr. Hal H. Walker and Mr. Hugh R. Ander­
son, of Walker, Anderson, Bell & Osburn, of 
Asheboro, North Carolina, for the Defendant

In this action the plaintiffs ask the Court in the original 
complaint for injunctive relief enjoining the defendant 
Gordon, District Judge



434a

from hiring, assigning and dismissing teachers and pro­
fessional personnel on the basis of race and color. In its 
amended complaint, the plaintiffs additionally ask the 
Court to order reinstated all teachers found by the Court 
to be denied employment in violation of their rights under 
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the Con­
stitution. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant in 
employing teachers for the school year 1965-66 discrimi­
nated against Negro teachers and followed a procedure 
which denied the Negro teachers equal protection and due 
process of law.

The defendant denies that there has been discrimination 
as against Negro teachers, severally, or individually, and 
asks the Court to dismiss the action. The evidence shows 
that nine Negro teachers who taught in the defendant’s 
school system during the school year 1964-65 were not 
offered re-employment or employment in the system for 
the year 1965-66. The defendant contends that the failure 
to re-employ or employ the nine Negro teachers was fox- 
reasons other than race or color.

The Court, having considered the evidence, including 
briefs, interrogatories, answers to interrogatories, exhibits 
and depositions, makes and files its Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law as follows:

F indings or F act

1. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court by Title 28 U.S. 
C.A. § 1343.

2. The corporate plaintiff is a professional teachers as­
sociation, organized as a private, non-profit, membership 
corporation pursuant to the laws of the State of North 
Carolina. The individual plaintiff, Gaines W. H. Price, is

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



435a

a Negro, and by order dated the 15th day of September, 
1966, was allowed to intervene as a party plaintiff. He is 
a citizen and resident of the State of North Carolina. The 
defendant is an agent of the State of North Carolina, a 
corporate public body, organized and existing under the 
laws of the State of North Carolina.

3. During the 1964-65 school year the defendant oper­
ated a total of nine schools, consisting of one senior high 
school, two junior high schools, five elementary schools, 
and one union school, Central High School (hereinafter 
referred to as “ Central” ). All Negro students during 1964- 
65, with the exception of six who attended formerly all- 
white schools, attended Central where grades 1 through 12 
were taught. During the school year 1964-65, 24 Negro 
teachers were employed in the school system of the de­
fendant and were assigned to Central.

4. In February, 1965, the defendant took action, effec­
tive for the 1965-66 school term, to reorganize its school 
system. The reorganization resulted in the conversion of 
the all-Negro Central School into an elementary school, 
grades 1 through 6. The name was changed to Central 
School and the prior teacher allotment of 24 was reduced 
to 12.

5. The teacher allotment for the defendant’s entire 
school system was 209 for the 1964-65 school year, and 
the allotment for the 1965-66 school year was 206. Prior 
to 1965-66, the defendant operated under a system whereby 
Negro teachers were assigned to the all-Negro school, that 
is, Central, and the white teachers were assigned to the 
other schools.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



436a

6. Upon reorganization of the defendant’s system, and 
as the system operated during the school year 1965-66, the 
Asheboro High School accomodates all students in the 
entire system attending grades 10 through 12; Asheboro 
Junior High School accomodates all students in the en­
tire system attending grades 8 and 9; and the Fayetteville 
Street School accomodates all students in the entire sys­
tem attending grade 7. Under this system of a single 
assignment policy, all students, Negro and white, in a given 
grade attend the same school from grade 7 through 12.

7. As a result of the reorganization, in addition to the 
Asheboro High School and the two junior high schools pro­
viding for the students in grades 7 through 12, six ele­
mentary schools each consisting of grades 1 through 6 
were provided with geographical zones defining the atten­
dance areas for each school. During the school year 1965- 
66, 230 Negro students attended the Central School and 
no white students. Thirty-five white pupils were assigned 
to Central School for the 1965-66 year, but transferred 
pursuant to the provisions of the Plan of Compliance under 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At Central School 
the principal is white, three white part-time teachers in­
struct in music, art and Bible, and a white full-time teacher 
was employed during the school year 1965-66 to teach in 
the pre-school program.

8. During the school year 1965-66, 11 Negro teachers 
taught at Central School, 1 Negro teacher taught at the 
Asheboro High School, 1 Negro teacher taught at the 
Asheboro Junior High School and 1 Negro teacher taught 
part-time at the Balfour Elementary School.

9. The schools comprising the defendant’s school sys­
tem in the 1965-66 year, along with pupil assignments as

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



437a

of September 13, 1965, and teacher assignments as of July 
17, 1965, were as follows:

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

ASHEBOEO CITY SCHOOLS
Pupils  Teachers

School Grades Negro White Negro White

High School:
Asheboro High School 10-12 73 887 1 40

Junior High Schools:
Asheboro Junior High 8-9 86 736 1 32
Fayetteville Street 7 33 403 — 16

Elementary Schools:
Balfour 1-6 4 408 1* 15

Central 1-6 230 — 11 _**

Lindley Park 1-6 4 455 —- 17

Loflin, Donna Lee 1-6 — 487 — 19

McCrary, Chas. W. 1-6 32 95*** — 21

Teachey, Guy B. 1-6 — 539 — 21

* Part-time
**  At Central sometime after the school year 1965-66 got underway, in 

addition to the white principal, a full-time white teacher was assigned 
as a kindergarten instructor

* * *  Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 (Teachey Deposition) gives this figure, but it is 
believed to be in error by reason of the number of teachers assigned.

10. On or about May 14, 1965, a letter was written and 
sent to the individual plaintiff and several other Negro 
teachers at Central advising them that the defendant could 
not offer them a contract beyond the 1964-65 term. The 
letter went to those teachers to whom there was uncertainty 
as to the availability of a position. Further, the letter 
stated that the applications of the teachers to whom the 
letter was mailed would be kept on file for consideration 
as vacancies arose. No white teachers received this letter,



438a

and white teachers for whom there had been determined to 
be no vacancy had been notified previous to the May 14 
letter. Before the May 14 letter, teachers, Negro and white, 
who were considered favorably for employment and for 
whom a vacancy existed had been mailed a letter which 
enclosed an option to check and return indicating whether 
the teacher wished to resign, retire or be considered for 
employment.

11. The defendant for the school year 1965-66 employed 
approximately 35 new teachers. The normal yearly turn­
over rate is approximately 8 per cent.

12. The defendant follows the policy as to those teachers 
re-employed of returning to the same school each year 
the teachers who taught at the particular school the previ­
ous year. In employing teachers and other school person­
nel the defendant permits the applicants to file their appli­
cations with the Superintendent. Through 1964-65, Negro 
teachers were considered for assignment only to the school 
attended predominantly by Negro pupils. In considering 
teachers for re-employment, the principals of the respec­
tive schools make recommendations to the Superintendent 
and the Superintendent to the defendant Board. Written 
individual evaluations of teachers by the principals were 
made for the first time in the spring of 1965, but group 
evaluations of the individual teachers have been required 
of the principals for many years. The evaluation sheets 
are made up by using criteria and procedures which were 
called to the attention of the principals. However, prior 
to the 1965-66 school year, the defendant maintained no 
written criteria for evaluating teachers under considera­
tion for employment or re-employment.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



439a

13. Resignations were requested and received from 4 
white teachers who taught in the defendant’s system dur­
ing the 1964-65 school year. One of the white teachers so 
resigning had 15 years experience and another 20 years 
experience. In addition, other white teachers resigned af­
ter conferences. Not offered re-employment for the year 
1965-66 were 9 Negro teachers, which number includes the 
individual plaintiff.

14. Guy B. Teachey has been Superintendent of the de­
fendant’s school system since 1947 and before becoming 
Superintendent was 2 years a principal in the system. The 
entire Asheboro City School System is accredited by the 
North Carolina Department of Instruction and the South­
ern Association of Colleges and Schools. There are ap­
proximately 167 school systems in the State of North 
Carolina, and only 15 to 18 of the systems are so ac­
credited by both the State and Southern Association.

15. This action does not involve pupil assignment, but 
raises the issue only of whether the defendant in its sys­
tem hires, assigns and dismisses teachers on the basis of 
race or color. No issue is involved concerning the discharge 
of a teacher prior to expiration of his contract of employ­
ment, and the evidence presented with respect to particular 
teachers is confined to the actions of the defendant in the 
employment and re-employment of teachers for the school 
year 1965-66.

16. The evidence shows:
(a) Mr. Gaines W. H. Price, a Negro teacher, was 

not re-employed for 1965-66. He holds a bachelor’s 
degree and a Class A Certificate in music and science.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



440a

He had 7 years total experience, 3 years with the 
defendant’s system. His primary work was that of 
band director. Mr. Price was compared with Messrs. 
Joseph B. Fields, H. E. Harrington, A. B. Fairley 
and J. A. Hayworth. Messrs. Fields and Harrington 
hold master’s degrees with graduate certificates in 
music. Mr. Fields had been with the defendant’s sys­
tem 9 years and Mr. Harrington 3 years. In each of 
the now 10 years that Mr. Fields served as Band 
Director at the Asheboro High School, the band re­
ceived in state competition the top rating of superior.

Both Messrs. Fairley and Hayworth hold master’s 
degrees in science. Mr. Fairley has completed a sub­
stantial number of hours leading to his doctor’s degree 
at the University of North Carolina in science.

(b) Mr. Jackie E. Kilgore, a Negro teacher, was 
not re-employed for the 1965-66 school year. His 
certificate was in biology, chemistry and general 
science. Mr. Kilgore holds a bachelor’s degree, Class 
A Certificate and 4 years total experience. His experi­
ence in teaching science was limited, having taught 
science incidentally at the seventh grade level as part 
of his classroom situation. Mr. Kilgore was compared 
by the administration with other teachers holding- 
similar certificates and similar qualifications.

(c) Miss Pearline L. Palmer, a Negro teacher, was 
not re-employed for the school year 1965-66. She holds 
a bachelor’s degree, Class A Certificate in library 
science. She had 1 year of experience and her work 
as evaluated by the administration was below average. 
Miss Palmer was compared with others holding sim­
ilar certificates. She was compared with Librarians 
Laverne H. Barnes, Judith M. Gray, Patricia H.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



441a

Skeen, Kathleen C. Whatley, Catherine Buie, Gray
K. Kearns and Swana Baldwin.

Mrs. Laverne H. Barnes, one of those with whom 
Miss Palmer was compared, is a Negro teacher and 
was employed for the 1965-66 school year as librarian 
for the Balfour and Central elementary schools. The 
enrollment of these two elementary schools is such 
that a full time librarian cannot be assigned to each, 
and therefore Mrs. Barnes serves both schools as 
librarian.

Librarian Whatley has a master’s degree and a 
graduate certificate in library science. Librarians 
Skeen, Gray, Baldwin, Buie and Kearns have bachelor’s 
degrees and Class A Certificates.

Miss Palmer, after the May 14, 1965, letter was 
mailed, was contacted by the defendant to see if she 
would be interested in a library position anticipated 
to come available. She replied that she did not care 
to be considered.

(d) Miss Sarah I. Peterson, a Negro teacher, was 
not re-employed for the 1965-66 school year. She holds 
a bachelor’s degree, Class A Certificate in business 
education and had 2 years experience.

Miss Peterson was compared with Mrs. Anne Moore, 
Mrs. Ernestine D. Presnell and Miss Stella Jane 
Walker. Mrs. Moore holds a bachelor’s degree, Class 
A Certificate and experience of 15 years. Mrs. Pres­
nell holds a master’s degree, graduate certificate in 
business education and had 4 years experience. Miss 
Walker holds a bachelor’s degree, Class A certificate 
in business education and had 1 year experience.

(e) Mr. Louis H. Newberry, a Negro teacher, was 
not re-employed by the defendant for the 1965-66 school

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



442a

year. He holds a master’s degree, graduate certificate 
in counseling and either a graduate or A Certificate 
in science and social studies and had experience of 
13 years in teaching and counseling. Mr. Newberry 
utilized one-half of his time in counseling and other 
one-half teaching eighth grade. Mr. Newberry, in the 
area of his certification, had received no experience 
except that of counseling in the last 10 years, and all 
of his graduate work in the last 10 years had been 
in counseling. Hence his prime field was that of coun­
seling as he had not had experience in science and 
social studies in the last 10 years. Mr. Newberry’s 
handling of his personal financial matters had caused 
embarrassment to the defendant.

Mr. Newberry was compared with Mr. M. R. Prilla- 
man and Mrs. Joseph R. Burns. Mr. Prillaman holds 
a master’s degree and graduate certificate in counseling 
and had 9 years experience as a counselor. Mr. Burns 
holds a master’s degree, graduate certificate in coun­
seling, and had 11 years total experience in teaching, 
4 years in counseling.

(f) Mrs. Blondie J. Segers, a Negro teacher, was 
not re-employed by the defendant for the school year 
1965-66. She holds a bachelor’s degree, Class A Cer­
tificate in music and a total of 3 years experience. 
She taught music fifty per cent of the time and seventh 
grade fifty per cent of the time.

Mrs. Segers was compared with Mrs. Louise Thomas, 
Mrs. Rose Patterson, Mrs. Marian Felton and Mr. 
John Allen. Mrs. Thomas holds a master’s degree, 
graduate certificate in music and had 30 years experi-* 
ence. Mrs. Patterson holds a bachelor’s degree, Class 
A Certificate in music and had 10 years experience.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



443a

Mrs. Felton holds a master’s degree, graduate certifi­
cate in music and 8 years experience. Mr. Allen holds 
a master’s degree and graduate certificate in music 
and history and had 7 years experience.

(g) Mrs. Marietta W. Foster, a Negro teacher, was 
not re-employed for the school year 1965-66. She 
holds a bachelor’s degree, Class A Certificate in home 
economics and science and 13 years experience.

Mrs. Foster was compared with Mrs. Ola M. Smith, 
Miss Mary Linda Pinkham and Miss Rebecca Jane 
Poole. Mrs. Smith had a bachelor’s degree, Class A 
Certificate in home economics and science and had 
10 years experience. Miss Pinkham holds a bachelor’s 
degree, Class A Certificate in home economics and had 
2 years experience. Miss Poole had a bachelor’s degree, 
Class A Certificate in home economics and 1 year ex­
perience.

(h) Mrs. Janie A. Brooks, a Negro teacher, was 
not re-employed for the school year 1965-66. She holds 
a bachelor’s degree, Class A primary certificate and 
had 10 years experience. She taught first grade gen­
erally. Inquiries to the school by creditors of Mrs. 
Brooks and unauthorized purchases charged to the 
school by Mrs. Brooks were sources of embarrass­
ment to the school.

(i) Mr. Charles Holly, a Negro teacher, taught in­
dustrial arts during the year 1964-65 and was mailed 
a copy of the May 14, 1965, letter informing him that 
no contract beyond the 1964-65 term could be offered 
him. Later, in June, 1965, a vacancy arose and Mr. 
Holly was offered the position. He did not accept.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



444a

Elizabeth S. Jones, a Negro teacher, was not recom­
mended by the principal of Central to be employed but 
nevertheless was employed by the defendant for the 1965- 
66 school year.

17. Each teacher not offered employment for the school 
year 1965-66 was compared with all other teachers in his 
or her area of certification—including those with previous 
service in the defendant’s school system and those new to 
the system. The teachers employed were found to possess 
qualifications superior to those not employed.

Discussion

The responsibility of a District Court in cases involving 
the disestablishment of racial discrimination in teacher 
employment and assignments was discussed in detail by 
this Court in Wall, et al. v. Stanly County Board of Educa­
tion, ------F. Supp.-------  (#C-140-S-65 Decided September
15, 1966, M.D. N.C.), a case heard immediately prior to 
the instant case and the principles and reasoning ex­
pressed therein, although not here repeated, are neverthe­
less adopted.

It is contended by the plaintiffs that by procedures and 
practices employed by the defendant, Ashebro City School 
System (hereinafter referred to as the “System” ), uncon­
stitutional racial discrimination has resulted against cer­
tain Negro teachers in that they were deprived of due 
process of law and the equal protection of the laws as 
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United 
States Constitution.

Although there is a great inexactness in the use of the 
terms “due process” and “equal protection” by courts, and 
although they are frequently used interchangeably, they

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



445a

are not one and the same. Willoughby on the Constitution 
of the United States (1929), Sec. 1267. The requirement 
of due process tends to secure equality in that it demands 
a required minimum of protection of rights to all persons. 
Although equality of treatment is essential to due process 
of law, it is the Equal Protection Clause which provides 
the greater weapon to prevent racial discrimination. As 
Mr. Justice Taft put the matter:

“It may be that they (the two prohibitions) overlap, 
that violation of one may involve at times the viola­
tion of the other, but the spheres of the protection they 
offer are not conterminous . . . The due process clause 
. . .  of course tends to secure equality of law in the 
sense that it makes a required minimum of protection 
for everyone’s right of life, liberty, and property, 
which . . . may not withhold. Our whole system of law 
is predicated on the general fundamental principle of 
equality of application of the law . . . But the framers 
and adopters of this (Fourteenth) Amendment were 
not content to depend on a mere minimum secured by 
the due process clause, or upon the spirit of equality 
which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. 
They therefore embodied that spirit in a specific guar­
anty. The guaranty was aimed . . .  at hostile discrimi­
nation or the oppression of inequality, . . .  It sought 
an equality of treatment of all persons, even though 
all enjoyed the protection of due process.” Traux et 
al v. Corrigan et al, 257 U. S. 312, 42 S. Ct. 124, 66
L. Ed. 254, 27 A.L.R. 375 (1921).
Also see 16 Am. Jur. 2d “Constitutional Law”, § 490.

Thus although recognizing that the bundle of protection 
afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment is not easily divis­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



446a

ible into neat divisions, both the plaintiffs’ claims of denial 
of due process of law and equal protection will be con­
sidered from the standpoint of the traditional scope of 
each concept.

Due Pbocess

In North Carolina, teacher tenure does not exist and 
teachers are hired for only one year. General Statutes of 
North Carolina, Chapter 115, § 142. The decision to re­
employ a teacher for a subsequent school term is, there­
fore, a matter of sound discretion vested in the school 
board. Johnson et al v. Branch et al, 4 Cir., 364 F. 2d 177 
(1966).

The requirements of due process are fulfilled if the dis­
cretion vested in the school administrators is exercised 
“in good faith” and not “arbitrarily, capriciously and with­
out just cause.” Specifically, it has been held that it 
violates due process if employment is denied on account 
of race, color, creed, national origin, membership in a 
political party, exercise of constitutionally protected rights 
or other such discriminatory grounds. Cramp v. Board of 
Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278, 82 S. Ct. 275, 7 L. Ed. 2d 
285 (1961); Blocker v. Board of Education of New York, 
350 U. S. 551, 76 S. Ct. 637, 100 L. Ed. 692 (1956); Alston 
et al v. School Board of City of Norfolk, et al, 4 Cir., 112
F. 2d 992, (1940), cert. den. 311 U. S. 693, 61 S. Ct. 75, 85 
L. Ed. 448; Johnson et al v. Branch et al, supra; Wall et 
al v. Stanly County Board of Education, supra; Cody v. 
Barrett, 200 N. C. 43, 156 S. E. 146 (1930); Harris et al 
v. Board of Education of Vance County; et al, 216 N. 0. 147, 
4 S. E. 2d 328 (1939).

No statute of North Carolina nor any regulations or 
procedures adopted by custom either in the state or in the

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



447a

System entitles teachers not recommended for re-employ­
ment to any formal hearing or appeal. Absent any such 
statute or regulation, the failure to grant any teacher, 
whether or not there are specific allegations of misconduct 
or inefficiency pending against that teacher, a hearing and 
appellate opportunities by a state does not violate the 
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Parker 
v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 237 F. 
Supp. 222 (D. Md. 1965), aff’d per curiam, 4 Cir., 348 F. 2d
464 (1965), cert. den. 382 U. S. 1030,------ S. Ct. ------, 15
L. Ed. 2d 543 (1966), rehearing den.,------U. S .------- , ------
S Ct.------, 15 L. Ed. 2d 857 (1966).

Due process of law was not denied the individual plain­
tiff nor was it denied to others as contended by the plain­
tiffs. From the evidence, this Court cannot find that the 
decision of the Board was prompted by forbidden motives.

E qual Protection

The main thrust of the plaintiffs’ arguments is that the 
defendant has denied the class represented by the corpo­
rate plaintiff and the individual plaintiff equal protection 
of the laws in that it considered race in the employment, 
re-employment and assignment of teachers and .more par­
ticularly it has discriminated against Negro teachers in 
re-employment.

The parties disagree on the issue of who has the burden 
of proof. The defendant contends that the burden rests 
with the plaintiffs to satisfy the Court by the greater 
weight of the evidence that the system has discriminated 
against Negro teachers on account of race citing Buford 
et al v. Morganton City Board of Education, 244 F. Supp. 
437, (W.D. N.C. 1965), Chambers v. Hendersonville City 
Board of Education, 245 F. Supp. 759 (W.D. N.C. 1965);

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



448a

Brooks v School District of City of Moberly, 8 Cir., 267
F. 2d 733 (1959); cert. den. 361 U. S. 894, 80 S. Ct. 196, 
41 L. Ed. 2d 151 (1959); Parker v. Board of Education of 
Prince George’s County, supra.

Subsequent to the submission of briefs in this ease, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
reversed the decision of the District Court in Johnson et 
al v. Branch et al, supra; and also Chambers et al v. Hen­
dersonville City Board of Education, 4 Cir., 364 F. 2d 189 
(1966), a case involving failure to renew the contracts of 
Negro teachers following racial desegregation of pupils 
in a system formerly segregated both as to pupils and 
teachers. In the Chambers case the Court of Appeals 
stated:

“In this background, the sudden disproportionate 
decimination in the ranks of the Negro teachers did 
raise an inference of discrimination which thrust upon 
the School Board the burden of justifying its conduct 
by clear and convincing evidence. Innumerable cases 
have clearly established the principle that under cir­
cumstances such as this where a history of racial dis­
crimination exists, the burden of proof has been thrown 
upon the party having the power to produce the facts. 
In the field of jury discrimination see: Eubanks v. 
Louisiana, 356 U.S. 584 (1958); Reece v. Georgia, 350 
U.S. 85 (1955); Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559 (1953); 
Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935); State v. 
Lowry, 263 N.C. 536, 139 S. E. 2d 870 (1965); State 
v. Wilson, 262 N.C. 419, 137 S. E. 2d 109 (1964). The 
defendants’ reliance on Brooks v. School District of 
City of Moberly, Missouri, 267 F. 2d 733 (8 Cir. 1959) 
is not well founded. In that case the School Board 
had promptly proceeded to desegregate following the

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



449a

Brown case. Furthermore, the facts showed that the 
School Board, prior to the end of the school year, 
carefully compared the qualifications of all the teach­
ers, using previously estiblished uniform standards. 
The procedure resulted in the failure to rehire both 
white and Negro teachers.”

As this Court stated in Wall et al v. Stanly County Board 
of Education, supra, it does not believe that the Court of 
Appeals of this Circuit by its decision in Chambers, supra, 
intended that in each and every “teacher” case, wherein 
the practices of the school system as to employment and 
re-employment of teachers following disestablishment of 
pupil segregation is at issue, the burden of proof is shifted 
to the defendant school system, and that thereby it is 
required to expunge itself of any taint or allegation that 
it trafficked in racial considerations in teacher employment 
and assignment. Rather, this Court views that the shifting 
of the burden of proof as required in said case to be 
limited to one in which the facts ai’e more or less similar 
to those in Chambers. The case at bar is factually dis­
tinguishable.

Nevertheless an analysis of the decisions in this and 
other circuits would indicate that such shifting of the 
burden of proof is indeed the trend, and in the instant 
case the Court regards the burden of proof to be on the 
defendant system.

It is now clear that the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution forbids discrimination on ac­
count of race by a public school system with respect to 
the employment and assignment of teachers. Bradley et 
al v. School Board of Richmond, 382 U. S. 103, 86 S. Ct. 
224,15 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1965); Franklin et al v. School Board 
of Giles County, 4 Cir, 360 F. 2d 325, 327 (1966).

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



450a

It is now equally clear that school hoards and school 
administrators may not treat Negro teachers whose posi­
tions have been abolished as the result of disestablishment 
of pupil racial segregation as having lost their jobs and 
therefore compelled to stand in the position of new appli­
cants for positions in the system. Chambers et al v. Hen­
dersonville City Board of Education, supra. In Franklin 
et al v. County School Board of Giles County, et al, 4 Cir., 
360 F. 2d 325, 326 (1966), the Court emphasized that the 
consideration of such displaced teachers must not be 
limited to vacancies in the system.

As stated in the Court’s Findings of Fact, the displaced 
Negro teachers were not treated as new applicants, con­
sidered only for vacancies existing in the system, but 
were considered for positions for which they were qualified 
and compared with white and Negro teachers who had 
during the preceding year been the occupants of those 
positions and signified a desire to be re-employed.

The plaintiff emphasizes the fact that, upon the conver­
sion of Central High School to Central School, Negro 
teachers and only Negro teachers received the May 14 
letter from the Board indicating that they would not be 
offered positions for school year 1965-66. This letter was 
forwarded to the Negro teachers following an extensive 
comparison of the Negro teachers with other teachers who 
were then in the system and their consideration against 
new applicants and provided: (1) that their applications 
for employment would be retained and continued as active 
applications for any length of time they wished them to 
so remain, (2) that they would automatically be considered 
as vacancies should arise.

White teachers not offered re-employment did not re­
ceive the May 14 letter. While not affirmatively shown by

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



451a

the evidence, the clear inference is that the white teachers 
were not given the considerations outlined in the letter, 
that is, their applications to remain on file and automatic 
consideration for vacancies.

In addition to seeking reinstatement of teachers allegedly 
not offered re-employment in the school year 1965-66, be­
cause of racial considerations, the plaintiffs seek an order 
enjoining further employment and assignment of teachers 
and school personnel on the basis of race or color.

It is true that the racial composition of the schools in 
the system remained essentially unchanged from the school 
year 1964-65 and the school year 1965-66. It is also true 
that the Board apparently intends to reassign teachers to 
the schools at which they formerly taught, but neither the 
racial distribution apparent in the schools in the system 
nor the Board’s expressed intention in employment and 
assignment of teachers in the future does violence to the 
constitutional rights of the class represented by the cor­
porate plaintiff.

The analysis of Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 
294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1954) in Briggs v. 
Elliott, 132 F. Supp. 776, 777, with reference to pupil as­
signments is equally applicable to teacher assignment cases. 
There the court said:

“ . . .  It is important that we point out exactly what 
the Supreme Court has decided and what it has not 
decided in this case. It has not decided that the federal 
courts are to take over or regulate the public schools 
of the states. It has not decided that the states must 
mix persons of different races in the schools or must 
require them to attend schools or must deprive them 
of the right of choosing the schools they attend. What 
it has decided, and all that it has decided, is that a

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



452a

state may not deny to any person on account of race 
the right to attend any school that it maintains. This, 
under the decision of the Supreme Court, the state 
may not do directly or indirectly; hut if the schools 
which it maintains are open to children of all races, 
no violation of the Constitution is involved even though 
the children of different races voluntarily attend dif­
ferent schools, as they attend different churches. 
Nothing* in the Constitution or in the decision of the 
Supreme Court takes away from the people freedom 
to choose the schools they attend. The Constitution, 
in other words, does not require integration. It merely 
forbids discrimination. It does not forbid such seg­
regation as occurs as the result of voluntary action. 
It merely forbids the use of governmental power to 
enforce segregation. The Fourteenth Amendment is a 
limitation upon the exercise of power by the state or 
state agencies, not a limitation upon the freedom of 
individuals.”

The foregoing interpretation was recently reaffirmed in 
this Circuit by Bradley et al v. School Board of City of 
Richmond, Va., 4 Cir., 345 F. 2d 310, 316 (1965); rev. on 
other grounds 382 U. S. 103, 86 8. Ct. 224, 15 L. Ed. 2d 
187 (1965).

It is recognized that the Court has not merely the power 
but the duty to render a decree which will, so far as pos­
sible, eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as 
well as bar discrimination in the future. Louisiana et al 
v. United States, 380 U. S. 145, 154, 85 S. Ct. 817, 13 L. Ed. 
2d 709, 715 (1965). Nevertheless, the decree in this case is 
dictated by the answer to the issue of whether race was a 
factor entering into the employment and placement of

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



453a

teachers. The Court finds that race was not a motivating 
factor. The fact that the teachers at predominantly Negro 
schools are largely Negro and the fact that most teachers 
at predominantly white schools are themselves white vio­
lates no part of the Constitution. Briggs v. Elliott, supra.

The “Amended Plan for Compliance” adopted by the 
Board in June, 1965, in accordance with Title VI of the 
Civil Bights Act of 1964 at Par. VI thereof reads:

“Employment and/or assignment of staff members 
and professional personnel shall be based henceforth 
on factors which do not include, race, color or national 
origin and shall be on a non-discriminatory basis. 
Factors to be considered will include training, com­
petence, experience and other objective means of mak­
ing evaluation.”

In a letter dated September 17, 1965, from the Acting 
U. S. Commissioner of Education to the Superintendent of 
the System, notification was given to the System that the 
plan for the desegregation of the System had been re­
viewed and found to meet the requirements of the Office of 
Education for compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, except for the question of teacher discrimina­
tion raised by the instant suit. The letter further stated 
that the Office of Education was willing to await the out­
come of the litigation before taking action.

However, to answer the question of whether the System 
complied with the guidelines then set by the Office of Edu­
cation or whether it complied with the many guidelines 
quoted by the corporate plaintiff in its brief is not to an­
swer the question of whether it is denying the constitu­
tional rights of the class represented by the corporate 
plaintiff.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



454a

The standards by which the Court must judge the plan 
and the practices of the System emanate from the Consti­
tution and not from the Executive Branch of the Govern­
ment. The Courts cannot abdicate their responsibility for 
determining whether a school desegregation plan is viola­
tive of constitutional rights. Kemp et al v. Beasley et al, 
8 Cir., 352 F. 2d 14, 19 (1965); Singleton et al v. Jackson 
Municipal Separate School Dist. et al, 5 Cir., 355 F. 2d 
865, 869 (1966).

The table contained in the Findings of Fact shows that 
one Negro teacher instructs in the completely integrated 
Asheboro High School (grades 10-12), one in the com­
pletely integrated Asheboro Junior High School (grades 
8-9) and one instructs in the Balfour Elementary School, 
a predominantly white school on a part-time basis. A 
white principal and one white teacher are assigned to 
Central, an all-Negro school.

No constitutional mandate can be found requiring the 
school board to cease assigning teachers re-employed to 
the schools at which they taught in previous years. This 
is not to say that the present practice would be upheld if 
a Negro teacher wishes to teach at a white school and 
manifests this desire to the Superintendent, for that issue 
is not before this Court.

It has been affirmed by the defendant that the race of 
the teacher will not be a factor which will be considered 
by the System in future employment, and this affirmation, 
considering the good faith exhibited by the Board in 
placing Negro teachers in white schools in the past and a 
white principal and teacher at Central will in a relatively 
short time, considering teacher turnover, alleviate the re­
sults of the present assignment, while they may not be the 
best by modern social and educational standards are never­
theless in the opinion of the Court constitutional.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Laiv and Opinion



455a

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion 

Conclusions of L aw

1. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the 
subject matter of this controversy.

2. The individual plaintiff was not denied Due Process 
of Law or Equal Protection of the Law by the defendant.

3. No person among those alleged has been denied Due 
Process of Law or the Equal Protection of the Law by the 
defendant.

4. The request of the corporate plaintiff for an injunc­
tion should be denied.

5. The motion of the defendant to dismiss should be al­
lowed.

Counsel for the defendant will prepare and submit to 
the Court an appropriate judgment.

/ s /  E ugene Q. Gordon
United States District Court

October 19, 1966
A True Copy 
Teste :

/s /  Norman A masa Smith, Cleric

By /s /  B obbie D. F razier,
Deputy Cleric

[Seal]



456a

Judgment

Pursuant to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 
and Opinion rendered herein by the Court on October 19, 
1966, and for the reasons therein stated, it is adjudged that 
the plaintiffs have not established the right to any of the 
relief prayed for in the complaint, or the amendments 
thereto, and the action is hereby dismissed.

E ntered, this October 31, 1966.

/ s /  E xjgene Q. Gordon
United States District Court

Notice of Appeal

Notice is hereby given that The North Carolina Teachers 
Association, plaintiff above-named on this 22nd day of 
November, 1966, hereby appeals to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from the final judg­
ment entered in this action by the United States District 
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on the 
31st day of October, 1966.



457a

Designation of Record on Appeal

Plaintiff, by its undersigned attorney, pursuant to Rule 
75(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby de­
signates all the original files and the complete transcript 
of the evidence in the subject case for inclusion in the rec­
ord on appeal, including all pleadings, exhibits, affidavits, 
depositions, testimony, orders, notice of appeal and this 
designation.

This 22nd day of November, 1966.



MEILEN PRESS INC