United States v. The Board of Education of the City of Bessemer Brief for Appellant

    r d R -

No. 23335

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT
DORIS ELAINE BROWN,
ET AL., APPELLANT

V.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF 
BESSEMER, ET AL., APPELLEES

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

JOHN DOAR,Assistant Attorney General,
MACON L. WEAVER,United States Attorney,
ST. JOHN BARRETT,
DAVID L. NORMAN,
JOEL M. FINKELSTEIN,
BRIAN K. LANDSBERG,
CHARLES R. NESSON,
Attorneys.Department of Justice, 

Washington. D. C. 20530



INDEX
Page

Statement of the Case-----------------------  1
Specification of Error---------------------- 6

Argument------------------------------------  8

A. The plan retains racial assignments
of students in grades purportedly 
desegregated.---------------------- 8

B. The plan fails to provide specific
standards, procedures, and notice 
for the exercise by students of the 
right to attend desegregated 
schools.--------------------------- 12

C. The Plan fails to contain provisions
designed to eliminate the inferiority 
of schools traditionally attended by 
Negroes.--------------------------- 15

D. The plan fails to contain a provision
designed to eliminate the racial seg­
regation of faculty and staff.-------- 18

E. The plan fails to guarantee to students
who transfer that there will be no racial discrimination or segregation
in services, activities, and programs, provided, sponsored by or affiliated 
with the school system.-------------- 20

F. The plan fails to contain a provision
allowing Negro students in non-deseg- 
regated grades to transfer to schools 
from which they have been excluded 
because of race.---------------------21

Relief-------- ----------------------..... . 22
Conclusion------------------------------------^0



GASES
Page

Anderson v. Canton Municipal Separate 
School District, Civil Action No.
3700 (J) TĈ  TS.D. Miss., August 5,
1965)---- -------------------------------- 16

Baird v, Benton County Board of Education, 
iCivil Action No. 6531 (N.D. Miss., August 
3, 1965)----- ---------------------------- 16

Baldwin v. Morgan, 287 F. 2d 750 (C.A. 5,
— r W T --- ...........-..................... 19
Beckett. United States v. School Board of 

the City o^ Norfolk, Virginia, Civil 
Action No. 22li+ (E.D. VaT March 17, 1966)- 30

Beckett v. School Board of the City of
Norfolk, Civil Action No. 2214 CE.O. Va.,
1̂ 66)'— ------- --------------------- —  33

Bradl^ v. School Board, Richmond, Va.,
345 F. 2d 3l0 (C.A. k] 1965) vacated and 
remanded 382 U.S. 103 (1965);------------  11

Bradley v. School Board, Richmond, Virginia,
■ 3B2"U.S. 103“ ( - - .... .....  18
Bradley v. School Board, Richmond, Civil
Action No"̂  3333 (E.D. Va. 1966)----------  34

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
533 (1954)..... ...... ... .........-..... 9

Brown v. County School Board of Frederick 
County, Virginia, 245 F. Supp. 546, 56b 
(W.b. Va., 1^65)..... .................. - 19

Bush V. Orleans Parish School Board, 308
F. 2d 591 (C.A. 5, 1962) — ....... ........ 10

Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education,
CTvil Action No, 23T^f(H7D7*3STaT7"35arcTi 
22, 1966)......... -.............-........ 16

11



Cases--Continued Page
Carr. United States v. Montgomery 

CountV Board of 'EducationT Civil Action "«o. (^.b.'~ATa..
March 22, 1966)..........................  30

Carroll v. Bolivar County Board of 
Education. Civil Action tJo. 6531 (N,d7 ̂ iss,, August 27, 1965)---16

Dowell V, School Board of Oklahoma 
glty. 2t*H F. Supp. 971 cW.D. Okla.
T ^ ) ........ -......-...................  32

Gilliam v. School Board of the City 
of ttooewell. Virginia, Civil Action 
Wo. 3S5U ('E.P. Vl."l-966).................  33

Green v. School Board of City of 
— IToanoke. SOU F. 53 118, I2i cu.A.

U ,  1 9 S 7 ) ................................................................................................................. 1 0

Harris. United States v. BullockCountv Board of Education, Civil ActionWei. 2673-TrWrD. Al'^7^?5?ch 11, 1966)....  30
Kemo' V. Beasley, 352 F. 2d lU, 22 (C.A.
*^*17 1963)---— -...........................  9
Kier v. County School Board of Augusta 

County, Virginia, 299 F. Supp. at 2^6 
(W.D.^^a.; T% FT-........................  19

Kier v. County School Board of Augusta 
“ T^unty, P. Supp. 239 CW.D. 7a.7"1966' ) - - ................................................. - .................................................................................  25
Lee. United States v. Macon County Board 

ot ^ucatlon. Civil Action No.
W.D. Ala'.; March 11, 1966)............ —  30

Lockett V. Board of Education of Muscogee "County. 3^2 P. 2a"275, 258 (C.A-.~57 W U )- 9
McGhee. United States v. Nashville Special 

Sctiool District No. 1. Civil Action Wo.WIDT'Ark., March' 3, 1966)...........  30

111



Cases--Continued Page
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents,
■35^"U.S. 637 ----- - -— ---- ----- 20

Miller v. Clarendon County School 
District No. 2, D.C.S,C. Civil 
Action No. 8752 decided April 21,
1966....... ........... -.....-......... 25

Northcross v. Board of Education of"nSitv oT~Memphis, 302 3d ~81'5~Cc.A.
6) cert. den. J70 U.S. 9̂+̂+ (1966)-------- 10

Norwood V. Tucker, 287 F. 2d 798
(C.A. 8, 1961)----------------- ----- ---- 10

Price V. Denison Independent School district Board of Education, 348 
F. 2d IdlO, (C.A. 5, 1965)^------ ------2

Price V. Denison Independent School District.“348 F.' 2d 1010, 1013-1/+
(C.A. 5, 1965)------------ -------.......- 23

Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198 (1965),
t e “U . S . T W  (1965).... -................. 18

Scott V. Walker. F. 2d ___ (C.A. 5,No. 20814 decided March 31, 1966)---------  28
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
SchoolDistrict, 348 F. 2d 729 QC.A.5, I965y-— --------------    2

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, 355 F. 2d 865 (C.A.
5, 1966)------    18

Singleton V . Jackson Municipal Separate
School "District, supra at 870— ----------- 18

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate
SchoolDistrict, 335 F. 3a 865, 869, (C.A.5, 1 9 6 6 ) ........    21

Stell V. Savannah-Chafham County Board of
Education. 333 F. 2d 55. 65 (C.A. 5, 1964)- 11

Stell V. Savannah-Chatham County Board of
Education, 333 !f . 2d 55 (C.A. 5, 1964)---  13

IV



Cases--Continued Page
United States v. Carroll County Board 

of Education, Civil Action No. GC d5UL 
(N.D. Miss. , January 20, 1965)-----------  17

United States v. Duke, 332 F. 2d 759,
768-69, TcTa . 57T^6ii)-..... ------------- 19

United States v. Lowndes County Board 
of Education, Civil Action No. 2328-N 
(M.D. Ala. , Feb. 11, 1966).... ....... . 30

United States v. Palmar, ___ F. 2d ___C.A. 5, (No. 216U6, decided February 8,
1966)------------------------------------  28

United States v. Ward, 3k9 F. 2d 795
(C.A. 5,'"1T65)---------------------------  28

Wright V. County School Board of Greenville 
County, Civil Action No. 5763 (E.D. Va.,
January 27, 1966)------------------------  25

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
Civil Rights Act of 196i+, Section 902------  2
Code of Alabama, 19U0 (Recompiled 1958)----  5, 10
Miscellaneous:
Alabama Pupil Placement Law----------------  10
Revised Statement-------- -------------- H» 1^* 19» 20



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 23335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT
DORIS ELAINE BROWN,
ET AL., APPELLANT

V ,

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF 
BESSEMER, ET AL., APPELLEES

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 
Procedural history and status. On May 24,

1965, Negro plaintiffs, residing in Bessemer, Alabama, 
instituted a school desegregation suit against the 
Board of Education of the City of Bessemer and its 
members in the District Court for the Northern District



of Alabama (R. 11-19). The United States Intervened 
pursuant to Section ^02 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. 2000h-2 (R. 20-21). Upon finding that the 
Board maintained a racially segregated school system, 
the district court entered an order requiring the 
Board to submit a plan for desegregation (R. 37-42).

On July 30, 1965, the court entered an order 
approving with modifications the Board's plan (R. 64-6?). 
The plaintiffs and the United States appealed and, on 
August 1 7, 1965, this Court vacated the district court 
order and remanded the case for further consideration 
in light of Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, 348 F. 2d 729 (C.A. 5, 1965) and 
Price V. Denison Independent School District Board 
of Education, 348 F. 2d 1010 (C.A. 5, 1965). Upon 
remand, the Board filed an amendment to its school 
desegregation plan which was approved by the court 
on August 27, 1965 (R. 85-86). The plaintiffs and 
the United States noted an appeal to this Court (R. 87-88)

Summary of the desegregation plan. The plan 
purports to desegregate the 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th and 
12th grades in September, I965 (R- 45, 64-65, 80-82); 
the 2nd, 3rd, 8th and 11th grades in September, I966 

(R. 45, 65); and the 5th, 6th, and 9th grades in

-  2 -



Septemoer, 196? (R. ^5, 65, 81-82). Pupils in grades 
reached by the plan, except the 1st grade, may apply 
between May 1st and 15th "to a school heretofore 
attended only by pupils of a race other than the 
race of the pupils in whose behalf the applications 
are filed" (R. 43-45).

Children entering the first grade are required to 
report to a designated school in the vicinity of their 
residence -- a designated Negro school for Negro children 
and a designated white school for white children. There, 
the parents of the child may fill out an application 
requesting that the child be reassigned to any school 
serving first graders in the district" (R. 43-45).

1/ The district court in approving the Board's plan 
"excepted the provision governing the initial assign­
ment of pupils to the first grade. Because_school was 
scheduled to open within four days of the district 
court's order, the court did not order the Board to 
amend its plan but Instead, ordered the Board to re­
study this feature of the plan and report to the court 
on or before December 31, 1965 (R- 85-86). The Board, 
however, has not reported to the court.

- 3 -



Assignments and transfers under the plan are 
to be processed and determined by the Board pursuant 
to its regulations so far as is practicable (R. +̂3- 
46), The Board’s regulations provide that the parent 
of an applicant must appear in person at the office 
of the Superintendent to obtain an application form 
which, when received by the Superintendent, will be 
reviewed by the Board (R, 254, 260), Before the 
transfer application will be granted, the regulations 
require the applicant to be evaluated in light of

2 Jthe criteria of the Alabama Pupil Placement Law 
(R, 254, 259-60, 261-62),

Students who do not apply for transfer or 
whose transfers are denied remain assigned to the 
schools to which they are presently assigned or are 
assigned to schools in accordance with the custom 
and practice that prevailed in the school system 
prior to the institution of this suit (R, 45-46),

Students entering the Bessemer school system 
for the first time who wish to attend a school the 
majority of whose students are of a race different

2/ Title 52, section 61(4) of the Code of Alabama, 
T540, (Recompiled 1958),

- 4 -



from the applicant may obtain applications from the 
school of their choice which arc, after completion, 
processed by the Superintendent (R, 83),

The plan contains no section requiring the 
Board, for the school years 1966-1967 and 1967-1968, 
to notify the public and students eligible to 
exercise rights under it of its provisions.

- 5 -



SPECIFICATION OF ERROR

A.

B.

The district court erred by entering an order 
approving a school desegregation plan which;

Retains racial assignments of students 
in grades purportedly desegregated.
Falls to provide specific standards, 
procedures, and notice for the exercise 
by students of the right to attend 
desegregated schools,

C. Fails to contain provisions designed
to eliminate the inferiority of schools 
traditionally attended by Negroes,
Fails to contain a provision designed to 
eliminate the racial segregation of 
faculty and staff.
Fails to guarantee to students who 
transfer that there will be no racial 
discrimination or segregation in 
services, activities and programs 
provided, sponsored by or affiliated with 
the school system, and

D.

E.

-  6 -



F. Falls to contain a provision allowing 
Negro students in non-desegregated 
grades to transfer to schools from 
which they have been excluded because 
of race.

- 7 -



ARGUMENT

A. The plan retains racial assignments of students 
in grades purportedly desegregated

1. The court below found that a dual school 
system existed in Bessemer in which students had 
been assigned to schools on the basis of race 
(R. 38-39). It is essential, if a school desegregation 
plan is to conform to the requirements of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, that it abolish the racial assignment of 
students in desegregated grades. The plan approved by 
the district court, however, simply provides that 
students in desegregated grades may apply for transfer 
to a school previously attended by students of another 
race and that, except where such application is made 
and accepted, "all pupils in all grades of the Bessemer 
System will remain assigned to schools to which they 
are assigned or will be assigned to schools in accordance 
with the custom and practice for assignment prior to 
the entry of the judgment of the district court in this 
case . . . . " (R. 45-46). In addition, the plan fails 
to abolish the racial assignment of children not yet 
in school by providing that Negro children entering the

-  8 -



first grade are to report to Negro schools and white 
children entering the first grade are to report to 
white schools, and that "upon such registration, an 
application may be made by the parents for the 
child's assignment to any school (whether formerly 
attended by white children or only by Negro children)"
(R. 47).

In short, the plan retains the dual school system 
based on race and places the burden of transfer on Negro 
students in allegedly desegregated grades to leave the 
Negro schools to which they were assigned. It violates 
the Fourteenth Amendment because it retains the dual 
school system (Brown v. Board Of Education, 347 U.S. 483 
(1954). Lockett v. Board of Education of Muscogee County, 
342 F. 2d 225, 228 (C.A. 5, 1964)) and fails to provide 
a non-racial basis for assignment of students in 
desegregated grades who fail to apply for transfer 
(Kemp V. Beasley, 352 F. 2d l4, 22 (C.A. 8, I965)).

2. The plan is further defective because it permits 
Negro students who wish to attend a school previously 
attended solely by white students to do so only after 
filing applications "in accordance with regulations of 
the Board" (R. 43-45); this requirement is not imposed 
on white students already attending such schools who wish

- 9 -



to remain there. The regulations provide that 
the parent of an applicant must appear in person 
at the office of the Superintendent to obtain an 
application form which, when received by the 
Superintendent, will be reviewed by the Board 
(R, 25U, 260). Before the transfer application 
may be granted, the regulations require the appli­
cant to be evaluated in light of the criteria 
contained in the Alabama Pupil Placement Law.
(R. 25U, 259-60, 261-62). The imposition on 
Negroes wishing to attend white schools of any 
requirement not applied to white students attending 
those schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Bush 
V. Orleans Parish School Board, 308 F.2d 491 (C.A. 5, 
1962); Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 304 
F.2d 118, 123 (C.A. 4, 1962); Northcross v. Board of 
Education of City of Memphis, 302 F.2d 818 (C.A. 6) 
cert. den. 370 U.S. 944 (1962); Norwood v. Tucker,
287 F.2d 798 (C.A. 8, 1961).

/ Title 52, Section 61(4) of the Code of Alabama, 
40 (Recompiled 1958).

-  10 -



3. The Boardj in submitting a plan, as it was 
entitled to do, elected to employ a method by which 
the choice of schools was, at least on the surface, 
to be made by the students. But the Board submitted 
and the court approved nothing more than a transfer 
plan superimposed on a system of racial assignments.
To be free of racial discrimination, a free choice 
plan must provide at the very minimum: (1) that all 
students in desegregated grades be given an opportunity 
to exercise a choice of schools (Bradley v. School Board, 
Richmond, Va., 3^5 F- 2d 310 (C.A. 4, 1965)5 vacated and 
remanded 382 U.S. 103 (I965); Revised Statement, 45 CFR 
18 1.4"^^ (2) that where the number of applicants apply­
ing to a school exceeds available space, preferences 
will be determined by a uniform non-racial standard 
(Stell V. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 333 
F. 2d 55, 65 (C.A. 5, 1964)j Revised Statement, 45 CFR 
18 1.49)j and (3) that where a student does not exercise 
his choice, he will be assigned to a school under a uniform 
non-racial standard (Kemp v. Beasley, 352 F. 2d l4, 22 (C.A, 
8, 1965); Revised Statement, 45 CFR l8l.45). The Bessemer 
plan fails to meet any of these standards.

Jt/ The Department of Health, Education and Welfare recently announced new school desegregation guidelines. 
31 Fed. Reg. 5623-34, April 9, 196b. They are cited as 
Revised Statement and appear in an attachment to this 
brief.

-  11 -



B, The plan fails to provide specific standards, 
procedures, and notice £or the exercise by 
students of the right to attend desegregated 
school^

The plan fails to specify how or where 
applications for transfer can be obtained, what 
information must be placed on the forms, who may 
execute the forms, what criteria will be applied 
in ruling on applications, or the method of 
assigning students whose transfers are denied.
In addition, the plan is silent as to the rights 
of non-residents attending school xn Bessemer.

Specificity in free choice plans is 
particularly important. Without a description 
of the procedures to be utilized by Negroes 
seeking to extricate themselves from Negro 
schools, or the standards to be applied to 
applicants, both white and Negro, exercising 
their right to choose their school, neither the 
court nor the parties can determine if the 
choice afforded by the Board will be truly free. 
If objections are to be made to the manner in

5 / The Bessemer system serves some non­
residents .

-  12 -



which the Board administers the plan, they will 
have to wait until the plan is in actual opera­
tion. This means that the right of Negro children 
to be admitted to public schools without regard 
to race or color might be further postponed.

Moreover, omitting basic information from
the plan can only result in students and their
parents being inadequately notified of their
rights under the plan and of the manner in which

_6_/such rights may be exercised. If a free choice 
plan is to live up to the standards announced by 
this Court, it must give students entitled to a 
choice of schools a clear opportunity to exercise 
that choice. Stell v. Savannah Chatham County 
Board of Education, 333 F.2d 55 (C.A. 5, 19o4).

6/ The plan contains no notice provisions 
for the school years following 1965-66.

- 13 -



It cannot do this without spelling out the 
procedures under which Negro students are to 
seek reassignment to desegregated schools and 
without notifying the students and their parents

z_/of such procedures. See the Revised Statement,
45 CFR 18 1.42-18 1.53.

7 / For example, for the 1965-86 school year 
with a total enrollment of approximately 2920 
white students and 5284 Negro students, 13 Negro students attend schools with white students 
See the Affidavit attached to the Memorandum in 
Support of the Motion to Consolidate and Expedite 
Appeals filed by the United States in this case.

- 14 -



c. The Plan fails to contain provisions designed
to eliminate the inferiority of schools 
traditionally attended by Negroes.
In the court below the Government introduced evi­

dence and statistical tables showing that the facilities, 
curricula and pupil-teacher ratios in some Negro schools 
were markedly inferior to tlxose in all white schools (R. 
133-145; 152-153; 166-168; 187-194; 218-235; Intervenor's 
Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15; PI. Ebc. 21).

An expert on school facilities examined all .schools 
in the system and rated them on a uniform scale of 100 points 
(R. 187-202). His ratings averaged 71 points for white school 
facilities and 50 points for Negro school facilities (R. 
193-194). Although there are no white students in 
Bessemer attending schools in frame structures, (R. 139),
Negro children in two schools are housed in frame 
structures (R. 139-142). In one such structure some 
classrooms are divided by partitions that go three- 
quarters of the way to the ceiling (R. 140). Some Negro 
students have classes in rooms lit by bare bulbs suspended 
from the ceiling (R. 140, 142) and heated by coal stoves 
(R, 142; Intervenor’s Exhibits 4, 14, 15), The statisti­
cal tables attached to this brief show other measures 
of the inferiority of the Negro schools in Bessemer.

This evidence, we believe, demonstrates the 
need for relief that will equalize the educational
facilities traditionally attended by Negroes. Although

- 15 -



Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), required th^t 
school boards move to eliminate the segregation of schools 
and to that extent repudiated the "separate but equal" doctrine, 
it did not remove the constitutional obligation of the school 
boards, during the transition period, to provide Negroes with 
an education equal to that provided white children. Thus, 
in Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education, Civil Action 
No. 2072N (M.D. Ala., March 22, 1966), Judge Johnson ordered 
the Board to close seven inferior Negro schools before September 
1966 and 14 more such schools by September 1967. He further 
ordered the Board to provide remedial education to eliminate the 
effects of .past discrimination. In Baird v, Benton County 
Board of Education, Civil Action No. 6531 (N.D. Miss., August 3, 
1965), Judge Clayton ordered the Board to provide uniform 
curricula and to equalize per pupil expenditures of comparable 
grade levels. And in Carroll v. Bolivar County Board of 
Education, Civil Action No. 6531 (N.D. Miss., August 27, 1965), 
he granted similar relief ordering the Board not only to 
provide uniform curricula and equal per pupil expenditures at 
comparable grade levels but also to maintain teacher-pupil 
ratios at substantially the same levels for comparable grades.
In Anderson v. Canton Municipal Separate School District, Civil 
Action No. 3700 (J) (C) (S.D, Miss., August 5, 1965), Judge 
Cox ordered the Board to install adequate flush type toilet

- 16 -



± yfacilities in an ill-equipped Negro school. See also,
United States v. Carroll County Board of Education, Civil 
Action No. GC 6541 (N.D. Miss., January 20, 1966).

It is particularly important when the Board chooses 
to desegregate under a plan which depends upon students 
choosing their schools that the schools available in the 
system be substantially equal. The continuing inferiority 
of schools traditionally attended by Negroes perpetuates the 
racial identity of those schools. If the dual system is 
to be completely abolished, inferior schools which are 
readily identifiable as Negro schools must be eliminated.

8 / Subsequently, Judge Cox modified his order, upon the motion 
of the Board and the stipulation of the plaintiffs, by allowing 
the Board to close the ill-equipped school and move the children 
into another plant (Order of August 21, 1965).

- 17 -



D , The plan fails to contain a provisiondesigned to eliminate the racial segre­
gation of faculty and staff.
The inclusion of a provision in the plan designed 

to eliminate race as a factor in the emplo5mient and alloca- 
tion of faculty and staff at this late date is essential. 
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District,
355 F. 2d 865 (C.A. 5, 1966); Bradley v. School Board, 
Richmond. Virginia, 382 U.S. 103 (1965); Rogers v.
Paul, 382 U.S. 198 (1965). As the Court wrote in 
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 
supra at 870;

In view of the necessity ttiat the Jackson 
School system be totally desegregated by 
September 1967, we regard it as essential 
that the plan provide an adequate start 
toward elimination of race as a basis for 
the employment and allocation of teachers, 
administrators, and other personnel.
A desegregation plan, if it is to comply with

the rule announced in Singleton v, Jackson Municipal
Separate School District, supra, must (1) require the
Board to cease its practice of hiring and placing
teachers on the basis of race and (2) define a program
designed to correct the effects of past discriminatory

9/ The district court found that the Board staffed 
"schools by assigning white personnel to white schools 
and Negro personnel to Negro schools (R.39), but denied relief even though the Superintendent testified that the 
non-racial assignment of new teachers would be feasible 
(R. 121).

- 18 -



IQ_/ See the Revisedhiring and assignment practices.
Statement 45 CFR 181.13.

Where a school board is operating under a plan 
utilizing a freedom of choice (or transfer) method, the 
desegregation of faculty and staff is particularly 
important. As the district court said in Kier v.
County School Board of Augusta County, Virginia, 249 
F. Supp. at 246 (W.D. Va. 1966):

It is not enough to open the 
previously all-white schools to 
Negro students who desire to go there while all-Negro schools con­
tinue to be maintained as such.
Inevitably, Negro children will 
be encouraged to remain in ’’their 
school," built for Negroes and 
maintained for Negroes with all Negro teachers and administrative 
personnel, ii/ See Bradley v.
School Bd., 345 F. 2d at 324 
(dissenting opinion). This 
encouragement may be subtle but 
it is nonetheless discriminatory.The duty rests with the School Board to overcome the discrimi­
nation of the past, and the long established image of the long 
established image of the "Negro 
school" can be overcome under free­dom of choice only by the presence 
of an integrated faculty.

10/ As the Court said in United States v. Duke, 332 F. 2d 
739, 768-69 (C.A. 5, 1964):

An appropriate remedy ... should undo the 
results of past discrimination as well as pre­
vent future inequality of treatment. A court 
of equity is not powerless to eradicate the 
effects of former discrimination,

11/ By maintaining a segregated or substantially segregated 
faculties and staffs, the board has, in effect, labeled its 
schools "white" and "Negro." Brown v. County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia, 24b F. Suppi b46, bbO (W,u, va,, 
1965); cf. Baldwin v. Morgan, 287 F. 2d 750 (C.A, 5, 1961),



E ̂ The plan fails to guarantee to students who 
transfer that there will be no racial dis­
crimination or segregation in servxces, 
activities, and programs, provided, sponsored 
by or affiliated with the school system^
The plan is silent as to the elimination of racial

discrimination in services, activities and programs
sponsored by or affiliated with the school to which
Negro students may transfer. Valid plans must guarantee
the absence of racial discrimination or segregation in
connection with all programs related to the student's 

12/attendance. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, 355 F.2d 865, 870 (C.A. 5, 1966); Revised 
Statement, 45 GFR 181.14. This is particularly true under 
a freedom of choice (or transfer) system for any such dis­
crimination or segregation would inevitably inhibit free 
choice.

It is essential, therefore, that the plan specifies 
the availability of all activities, services and programs 
on a nonracial basis and provide that any disqualifica­
tions or waiting period which might otherwise apply to 
newly enrolled students will not apply to students 
exercising their right to obtain a desegregated educa­
tion. Revised Statement, 45 CFR 181.14 (b)(1).

12/ Indeed, before Brown, where the state provided one 
school for both races, it was prohibited from discriminating 
on the basis of race in connection with the school services, 
facilities and programs. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 
339 U.S. 637 (1950).

-  20 -



F . The plan fails to contain a provision
allowing Negro students in non-desegregated 
grades to transfer to schools from which 
they have been excluded because of race.
In Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate

School District, 355 F. 2d 865, 869 (C.A. 5, 1966),
the Court wrote:

The school children in still-segregated 
grades in Negro schools are there by assign­
ment based on their race. This assignment 
was unconstitutional. They have an absolute 
right, as individuals, to transfer to schools 
from which they were excluded because of 
their race.
It is true that this Singleton decision was 

rendered after the order of the district court in this 
case was issued. But, since the Singleton transfer rule 
is based on a constitutional principle, and is not merely 
an aspect of transitional relief, it should have been 
included in the plan. In any event, it is, of course, 
proper for this Court now to require its inclusion in 
the plan.

-  21 -



RELIEF

In Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, 3^8 F. 2d ?29 (C.A. 5, 1965), this 
Court said that "The time has come for foot dragging 
public school boards to move with celerity toward de­
segregation," The Court also said (3^8 F. 2d at 731)

We attach great weight to the standards 
established by the Office of Education.
The Judiciary has of course functions 
and duties distinct from those of the 
executive department, but In carrying 
out a national policy we have the same 
objective. There should be a close 
correlation, therefore, between the 
Judiciary's standards In enforcing the 
national policy requiring desegregation 
of public schools and the executive 
department's standards In administering 
this policy. Absent legal questions, the 
United States Office of Education Is better qualified than the courts and is the 
more appropriate federal body to weigh administrative difficulties inherent in 
school desegregation plans.
If in some district courts Judicial guides 
for approval of a school desegregation 
plan are more, acceptable to the community 
or substantially less burdensome than H.E.W. guides, school boards may turn to the federal 
courts as a means of circumventing the H.E.W. 
requirements for financial aid. Instead of a 
uniform policy relatively easy to administer, both the courts and the Office of Education 
would have to struggle with Individual

-  22 -



school systems on an ad hoc basis. If 
Judicial standards are lower, recalcitrant 
school boards in effect will receive a 
premimum for recalcitrance; the more the 
intransigence, the bigger the bonus.
The Court emphasized that (3^8 F* 2d at 731)*

"As to details of the plan, the Board should be guided 
by the standards and policies anno\inced by the United 
States Office of Education in establishing standards 
for compliance with the requirements of Title VT of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

In Price v. Denison Independent School District, 
348 P. 2d 1010, 1013-14 (C.A. 5, 1965), this Court re­
peated its language in Singleton regarding the weight 
to be given the standards of the Office of Education 
and then went on to say:

More than that, we put these standards to work. To avoid the temptation to recalci­
trant or reluctant school systems to seek 
Judicial approval of a token plan as the 
basis for Federal aid under alternative 
(1) for court plans, the Court held the Jackson plan inadequate and directed that 
a plan modeled after the Commissioner of Education's requirements (note 11, supra) 
be submitted for the fall of I965-66.
This signals what will be a frequent approach 
to these cases as they.come to District Courts 
and thereafter this Court. These executive standards, perhaps long overdue, are welcome.
To many, both on and off the bench, there was great anxiety in two major respects with the 
Brown approach. The first was that probably 
for The one and only time in American

- 23



constitutional history, a citizen -- 
was compelled to postpone the day of 
effective enjoyment of a constitutional 
right. In Ross v. Dyer, 5 Cir., 1963^
312 F. 2d I'̂ TI 194, we recognized that 
under "a stair-step plan Negroes not in 
the eligible classes continue to suffer 
discriminatory treatment." That there 
can be a moratorium on the enjoyment of 
such rights runs counter to our notions 
of ordered liberty. Second, this in­
escapably puts the Federal Judge in the 
middle of school administrative problems 
for which he was not equipped and tended to 
dilute local responsibility for the highly 
local governmental function of running 
a community's school under law and in . 
keeping with the Constitution.
By the 1964 Act and the action of HEW, administration is largely where it ought 
to be--in the hands of the Executive and 
its agencies with the function of the 
Judiciary confined to those rare cases 
presenting justiciable, not operational 
questions.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 

Kemp V. Beasley, 352 F. 2d l4 (C.A. 8, 1965), discussed 
this Court's ruling in Singleton insofar as it relates 
to reliance upon the H.E.W. guidelines. While agreeing 
"that these standards must be heavily relied upon to 
determine what desegregation plans effectively eliminate 
discrimination," the Court of Appeals for that circuit 
equally emphasized the responsibility of a federal court 
to exercise its own judgment in determining constitutional 
issues." The court states its conclusion as follows,
(352 F. 2d at 1 9):

- 24 -



Therefore, to the end of promoting 
a degree of uniformity and discouraging 
reluctant school boards from reaping a 
benefit from their reluctance the courts 
should endeavor to model their standards 
after those promulgated by the executive.
They are not bound, however, and when 
circvimstances dictate, the courts may 
require something more, less or different 
from the H.E.W. guidelines.
Although the Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit has not had occasion to consider the effect
of the H.E.W. standards, district courts in that
circuit have relied on them. See Kj.er v. County
School Board of Augusta County, 2k9 P. Supp. 239
(W.D. Va., 1966)3 Wright v. County School Board of
Greenville County, Civil Action No. U263 (E.D. Va.,
January 27, 1966)3 Miller v. Clarendon County School
District No. 2, Civil Action No. 8752 (D. of S.C.,
April 21, 1966). In Miller, the most recent of these
cases, the District Court for the District of South
Carolina said, with reference to the H.E.W. standards:

Those standards have been adopted and approved generally in other forums in 
this circuit [citing Kler and Wright].The orderly progress of desegregation 
is best served if school systems de­
segregating under court order are re­
quired to meet the minimum standards promulgated for systems that desegregate 
voluntarily. Without directing absolute adherence to the "Revised Standards" 
guidelines at this Juncture, this court 
will welcome their inclusion in any new, 
amended, or substitute plan which may be 
adopted and submitted.

- 25 -



This case, as well as each of the other school 
desegregation cases now before this Court, illustrate 
the need for this Court to review present judicial 
enforcement methods to the end that the orderly transi­
tion to desegregation can be accomplished with a minimum 
of expenditure of judicial energy and with a maximum 
correlation between current desegregation standards and 
current desegregation practices. We suggest that this 
end can best be realized by the adoption of a specific 
decree to be entered in these cases by the district 
courts. This is neither a fundamental change in 
judicial approach nor a departure from established 
standards for desegregation. It would place in the 
courts, as it must under our constitutional system the 
primary responsibility for declaring the rights of the 
parties, and it would look to the Office of.Education, 
rather than to the school boards, for administrative 
guidelines affecting desegregation so that (1) the 
court will not be "in the middle of school administra­
tive problems," (2) uniformity in solving operational 
problems may be achieved, and (3) an efficient method 
of supervising school board performance can be realized.

This Court in cases involving voter discrimination 
has approved the same type of relief here being urged.

- 27 -



See United States v. Ward 3^9 F* 2d 795 (C.A. 5̂  19^5
and Unite(^States v. P a l m e r ___F. 2 d ____C.A. 5,
(No. 21646, decided February 8, 1966). In the Ward 
case the Court in adopting the former decision there 
proposed (349 F. 2d at 805) said:

[G]ood administration suggests that the 
proposed decree be indicated by an 
Appendix, not because of any apprehension 
that the conscientious District Judge 
would not faithfully impose every condition 
so obviously implied, but rather because of factors bearing upon administration itself.
It is, not possible, or even desirable, of 
course to achieve absolute uniformity.
But in this ever growing class of cases which have their genesis in unconstitutional 
lack of uniformity as between races, courts 
within this single circuit should achieve a relative uniformity without further delay.

Similarly in a recent decision involving jury discrimination 
this Court has emphasized "the desirability of achieving 
uniformity of the handling of the substantial number of 
cases arising in this Court dealing with the same
questions of law." Scott v. Walker, ___ F. 2d _____
(C.A. 5, No. 208i4 decided March 31, I966).

The necessary function of the court in desegregation 
cases is to guarantee that methods adopted for de­
segregation do not fall below constitutional limits.
It is not necessary to this function that the courts 
define every administrative detail necessarily involved

-  28 -



in day-to-day school administration. Under Title VT 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Executive Branch 
of the federal government must guarantee the fair use 
of federal funds hy prescribing the ordinary administra­
tive details inevitably involved in any workable de­
segregation plan. For the courts to look to the 
regulations and guidelines of the Office of Education 
does not involve the abdication of any Judicial function, 
but instead is a rational method of enforcement of law 
under a uniform national policy.

Those regulations and guidelines are the product 
of the expertise of the Office of Education. They reflect 
the experience and knowledge of persons involved in the 
day-to-day administration of the schools. The courts do 
not have the staff, the facilities, or the time to under­
take with the same precision the function of defining the 
workings of the desegregation mechanism.

With these considerations in mind we submit 
to the Court the proposed decree set forth in the 
appendix filed in connection with this brief and the

- 29 -



six other school desegregation cases before this 
Court to which the government is a party. The 
substantive requirements of the proposed decree 
derive from the Fourteenth Amendment and the

I
decisions of the courts. The administrative 
details are largely drawn from the Guidelines. j y

1V  Recent court-approved plans which draw on the new 
guidelines are; Carr. United States v. Morrtg^r^ojmty 
Board of Education, Civil Action Wo. 2072-N (k.D. Ala.,  ̂
TErdh"?2TTg56^T ree. United States v. Macon County _Bga^ 
of Education, Civil Action Wo. 6o4-E (M.D. ^
1966) (entered by consent); Harris, J • Bu^ock
Countv Board of Education, Civil Action iJo. 2C73-NATa7; MarCmi, 1900) (entered by consent); United Stat^
V. Lowndes County Board of Educatiqri, Civil Actipn No.232ti-N (M.D. Ala., February il, l^SS) (entered by consent); 
McGhee, United States v. Nashville Special School Dis^i£t No. 1, CivillTc^tTornio. 962 (W.D. Ark., March 3, lyob) f n̂te-red by consent); Becket t , United States v. School Board 
of the city of Norfolk .Virginia, civi± aculon No. 2214
(W.D. Va;,^^cTTT7, T cM.ller V. Clarendon County School District No. 2, D.C.S.O., 
TTIvnrAction 'No. 0762 decided April 'di, lyoo.

- 30 -



We have urged that thia Court direct the dis­
trict courts in these seven cases to enter a specific 
decree along the line proposed herein. The records 
in these cases fully support such relief. With the 
use of this method of iadividual enforcement there 
will no longer be occasion for the periodic submis­
sion by school boards of "desegregation plans," the 
hearing of objections to the plans and the submis­
sion of amended plans. Instead, the school boards 
will clearly understand thair obligations, and will 
report to the court on a periodic basis. It may be 
that supplementary enforcement proceedings will 
occasionally be necessary, but hearings should be 
less frequent and should produce more effective 
results in bringing c'lrrent practices and current 
standards closer. There will also be a higher prob­
ability that desegregation will proceed more uniformly 
among school districts tmder court orders and between 
such school districts and those desegregating on a 
voluntary basis under the supervision of the Office 
of Education.

The courts would continue to have the final 
responsibility for fixing constitutional standards 
and for compliance with its decrees. The option is

- 31 -



still open to any school board to come into court to 
prove that extraordinary circumstances compel modi­
fication of one or another of the provisions of the 
decree. The private plaintiffs and the United States 
also retain their right, as they must, under our con­
stitutional system and Title IV of the Civil Rights 
Act of 196U, to come into cotirt when necessary to 
seek modification of or compliance with any provision 
in the decree.

Special mention should be made of the faculty 
provisions in the proposed decree and of the district 
covirt decisions that have decreed specific and 
detailed relief on this subject.

Principally within the past year, district 
courts have been grappling with the problem of fram­
ing practical and effective relief for the desegrega­
tion of faculty. Some courts in framing their decrees 
have focused upon the specific results to be reached 
by reassignment of teachers who had theretofore been 
assigned solely upon the basis of their race. Dowc_U  
V. School Board of Oklahoma City, 2Uk P. Supp. 971 
(W.D. Okla. 1965). Kier v. County School Board of 
Augusta County. Virginiat 2^9 F. Supp. 239 (W.D. Va.

- 32 -



1966). The orders entered in these cases required 
that the defendant school boards assign any employed 
teachers and reassign already-employed faculty sc 
that the proportion of each race assigned to teach 
in each school will be the same as the proportion 
of teachers of that race in total teaching staff in 
the system, or at least, of the particular school 
level in which they are employed. This type of re­
lief is justified on the ground that if faculty 
members had in the past been assigned without regard 
to race stich assignments would, as a matter of 
mathematical probability, have yielded this same 
result.

Other district courts in framing their decrees 
on faculty desegregation have not been specific as 
to the number of teachers of each race that should 
be assigned to each school in order to remove the 
effects of past discriminatory assignments. These 
courts have focused upon the mechanics to be followed 
in removing the effect of past discrimination rather 
than upon the result as such. Thus, in Becket_t v. 
School Board of the City of Norfolk, Civil Action 
No. 221U (E.D. Va., 1966); Gilliam v. School Board

- 33 -



of the City_of_Hopej<ellt Vtrgini^j Civil Action No. 
355U (E.D. Va, 1966); and Bradley v. School Board 
of City of Richmond. Civil Action No, 3353 (E.D, Va. 
1966), the courts approved consent decrees setting 
forth in detail the considerations that would control 
the school administrators in filling faculty vacan­
cies and in transferring already-employed faculty^ 
members in order to facilitate faculty integration.

1^/ The faculty provisions in the HopeweU^^se, 
v^ch were filed with the district court on April 8, 
1966, read as follows:

The School Board of the City of Norfolk 
recognizes its responsibility to employ, 
assign, promote and discharge teachers 
and other professional personnel of the 
Norfolk City Public School System without 
regard to race or color. It further recognizes its obligation to take all reasonable steps to eliminate existing 
racial segregation of faculty that has 
resulted from the past operation of a 
dual school system based upon race or 
color:

In order to carry out these responsi­
bilities, the School Board has adopted 
the following program:

1, Teachers and other professional 
personnel will be employed solely on the 
basis of qualifications and without 
regard to race or color.

(Cont. on following page.)

- 3 k  -



In yet other cases» the district court, while 
emphasizing the necessity of affirmative steps to 
undo the effects of past racial assignments of 
faculty and while requiring some tangible results,

14 / (Gont. from preceding page.)
2. In the recruitment and employment 

of teachers and other professional per­
sonnel, all applicants and other prospective employees will be informed 
that the City of Norfolk operates a racially integrated school system and 
that the teachers and other professional 
personnel in the System are subject to 
assignment in the best interest of the 
System and without regard to their race 
or color.

3. The Superintendent of Schools
and his staff will take affirmative steps 
to solicit and encourage teachers 
presently employed in the System to accept transfers to schools in which the 
majority of the faculty members are of a race different from that of the teacher to be transferred. Such transfers will 
be made by the Superintendent and his staff in all cases in which the teachers 
are qualified and suitable, apart from 
race or color, for the positions to 
which they are to be transferred.

4. In filling faculty vacancies which 
occur prior to the opening of each school 
year, presently employed teachers of the 
race opposite the race that is in the 
majority in the faculty at the school

(Cont. on following page.)

- 35 -



has not been specific either regarding the mechanics 
or the specific results to be achieved. Sec Harri^
V, Bullock County Board of Educationt Civil Action 
No, 2073-N (M.D. Ala. 1966); United States v. Lpwn^^ 
Board of Education. Civil Action No. 2328-N (M.D.
Ala. 1966); Carr v. Montgomery County Board of

I k / (Cont. from preceding page.)
where the vacancy exists at the time of the vacancy wxll be preferred in filling 
such vacancy. Any such vacancy^wxll be 
filled by a teacher whose race is the 
same as the race of the majority on the 
faculty only if no qualified and suxt— 
able teacher of the opposite race xs 
available for transfer from within the 
System.

5, Newly employed teachers will be 
assigned to schools without regard to 
their race or coior» provided^ that if there is more than one newly employed 
teacher who is qualified and suitable 
for a particular position and^the race 
of one of these teachers is different 
from the race of the majority of the 
teachers on the faculty where the 
vacancy exists, such teacher wxll be assigned to the vacancy in preference 
to one whose race is the same.

- 36 -



15/
ESdxicat^n, Civil Action No, 2072-N (M.D, Ala, 196^,

In the Monteomery case the court’s decree con­
tained the following provisions on faculty desegregation

Race or color will henceforth not be a 
factor in the hiring, assignment, reassign­
ment, promotion, demotion, or dismissal of 
teachers and other professional staff, with the exception that assignments shall 
be made in order to eliminate the effects 
of past discrimination. Teachers, prin­
cipals, and staff members will be assigned 
to schools so that the faculty and staff 
is not composed of members of one race.

In the recruitment and employment of 
teachers and other professional personnel, 
all applicants or other prospective em­
ployees will be informed that Montgomery 
County operates a racially integrated 
school system and that members of its 
staff are subject to assignment in the 
best interest of the system and without 
regard to the race or color of the 
particular employee.

The Superintendent of Schools and his 
staff will take affirmative steps to solicit and encourage teachers presently 
employed to accept transfers to schools 
in which the majority of the faculty members are of a race different from that 
of the teacher to be transferred.

Teachers and other professional staff 
will not be dismissed, demoted, or passed 
over for retention, promotion, or re­
hiring on the ground of race or color.In any instance, where one or more teachers 
-or other professional staff members are 
to be displaced as a result of desegre­gation or school closings, they shall

(Cont, on following page,)

- 37 -



The proposed decree set forth in the appendix
Incliides a faculty provision in general terms. It
does not seem desirable for this Court to compel*
exact uniformity as to how faculty desegregation 
should be accomplished in every school district 
within the Fifth Circuit, The appellate court should 
not prescribe a detailed faculty provision from 
which a district court could not depart. District 
courts should be free to add specifics to meet the 
particular situation. By its decree, this Court will 
only be recognizing that there may be differences 
between large and small school districts and between 
urban and rural school districts.

At the same time, the decree does require 
that a reasonable beginning be made and that a 
reasonable program be achieved in the actual desegre­
gation of the faculty. The decree makes it clear 
that the school officials are (1) restrained from

15/ (Cont. from preceding page.)
be transferred to any position in the 
system where there is a vacancy for which 
they are qiialifled.

- 38 -



practicing racial discrimination in the hiring and 
assignment of new faculty members, and (2) are 
required to take affirmative steps to correct exist­
ing results of past racial assignments.

This, we believe, is the minimum to be re­
quired in any school desegregation decree, "nie 
district courts, however, would be open to the 
plaintiff and to the United States to seek more 
specific relief if the facts warrant it.

- 39 -



(INCLUSION
Deference to local responsibility for the 

administration of school systems is a long established 
principle in the law of school desegregation one 
that continues to be valid today. However, we think 
it disserves the principle of local responsibility 
to place upon school boards the difficult and 
technical task of articulating judicial standards 
and formulating workable mechanics for free choice 
plans. The result is too often an inadequate plan 
which necessitates further abrasive involvement 
of the federal courts in local school affairs.
Instead, we iirge the Court to make the legal obliga­
tions of local officials as clear as possible and to 
utilize the expertise of HEW in the formulation of 
free choice mechanics. Local responsibility can then 
be turned to the far more productive tasks of admin­
istration and performance.

Respectfully submitted.

JOHN DOAR,Assistant Attorney General,
MACON L. WEAVER,United States Attorney,
ST. JOHN BARRETT,
DAVID L. NORMAN,
JOEL M. FINKELSTEIN,
BRIAN K. LANDSBERG,
CHARLES R. NESSON,
Attorneys,

Department of Justice, 
Washington. D. C. 20530



ATTACHMENT

This attachment consists of tables 
which were presented to the Court below 
as summaries of evidence showing the 
disparity between the educational oppor­
tunities afforded white and Negro students 
in Bessemer.



BESSEMER SCHOOL SYSTEM 
Capacity and Enrollment Summaryj[[̂ /

SCHOOL

White
Bessemer High School Bessemer Jr. H. S. 
Arlington Elementary 
Jonesboro Elementary 
Jonesboro AnnexSpecial Education 
Vance Elementary 
Westhills Elementary

TOTAL

CAPACITY ENROLLMENT NUMBER OF STUDENTS

800 652

Under
Caoacity

148

Over
Capacity

800 735 65
U50 405 45
480 420 60
100 87 13
75 44 31

300 268 32
180 185 5

3185 2796 394 5
389 - Net Available Places in White Schools

Negro
Abrams Elementary 600 626 26
Abrams Secondary 1050 1064 14
Carver Elementary 800 873 73
Carver Secondary 750 785 35

Special Education 15 11 4 29Dunbar Elementary 700 729 48Dunbar Secondary 250 202
Special Education 15 11 4 35Hard Elementary 600 635 26Hard Secondary 210 184

TOTAL 4990 5120 82 212
130 - Net Over-enrollment in Negro Schools.
259 - Net Available Places in Entire School System

Compiled from PI. Ex. #21, Special Report Prepared for the Super- 
intendent-Bessemer Board of Education.

- 1-



ARTS

BESSEMER SCHOOL SYSTEM
Electives Taught at 
Public High SchoolsJ^/ 

Grades 10-12
BESSEMER CARVER
Band Band
Glee Club ChoirMusic
Art I 
Art II 
Art III Speech I 
Speech IIPlay Production III

ABRAMS
Band
P.S. Music

LANGUAGE French I 
French II 
Spanish I 
Spanish II 
Spanish III

French French

MATHEa4ATICS

SCIENCE

Algebra I 
Algebra II Plane Geometry 
Plane Geometry II 
General Math I 
General Math II 
General Math III 
Business Math III
Plane and Solid Geo. 
Trigonometry III

Algebra I 
Algebra II Geometry

Business Math 
Advanced Math

Algebra 
Algebra II Geometry
General Math 
Advanced Gen. Math. 
Advanced Gen. Math.

Advanced Modern Math.

General Biology
C. P. Biology 
Chemistry II 
Physics III

Advanced Gen.

Biology
Chemistry
PhysicsPhysical Science 
General Science 

Science Advanced Gen.Sci.

Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Physical Science 
Science 
Adv.Gen.Sci.I 
Adv.Gen.Sci.il

-  2 -



BESSEMER CARVER ABRAMS
HISTORY World History World History 

Social Studies
World History 
Social Studies

VOCATIONAL Diversified Occup^ 
Distributive Ed. 
Home Econ. II 
Home Econ. Ill 
Library Science 
Typing I 
Typing II 
Bookkeeping II Bookkeeping III 
Shorthand I 
Shorthand II 
Shorthand III 
Office Practice III 
Auto Mechanics 
Machine Shop

★★Diversified 0c._/ 
Home Econ.

Typing

Cosmetology 
Electronics 
Industrial Arts 
Shoe Repair

Diversified Occup.
Home Econ.
Home Econ. Adv. 
Library Science 
Typing

Auto Mechanics

Printing
TailoringUpholstery

MISCELLANEOUS Reading Lab I 
Reading Lab II 
Reading Lab III 
Student Council

^  Compiled from Intervenor’s Exhibit #7, Accreditation Application, 
1964-65, for each school.
Information obtained from the records of the Superintendent of 
Education of the City of Bessemer.

- 3 -



BESSEMER SCHOOL SYSTEM

Pupil-Teacher Ratios^J^

SCHOOL PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO
White
Bessemer High School (10-12) 
Bessemer Junior H. S, (7-9) 
Arlington Elementary (1-6) 
Jonesboro Elementary (1-5) 
Jonesboro Annex (6)

Special Edxication 
Vance Elementary (1-6) 
Westhills Elementary (1-6)

23.3
2k,527.0
26.3
29.0
11.0 26.8 
30.8

AVERAGE 2k,l*/

Negro
Abrams Elementary (1-6) 
Abrams High School (7-12) 
Carver Elementary (1-6) 
Carver High School (7-12) 

Special Education 
Dunbar Elementary (1-6) 
Dunbar Secondary (7-8) 

Special Education 
Hard Elementary (1-6)
Hard Secondary (7-8)

32.9
25.3
34.9 
29.1 
11.0 
34.7
25.3
11.0
33.4 
26.3

AVERAGE 30.1*/

V  Information compiled from Special Report Prepared for
Superintendent, Bessemer Board of Eiducation, PI. Ex. #21,

- 4 -



BESSEMER SCHOOL SYSTEM

Insured Valuation of Bessemer City School Buildings— /

SCHOOL VALUATION
White
Bessemer High School 
Bessemer Junior H. S. 
Arlington Elementary 
Jonesboro Elementary 
Jonesboro Annex 
Vance Elementary Westhills Elementary

$ 986,824 
657,643 
197,227 
520,275 
109,605 
166,500 
99,000

TOTAL $2,737,074

Negro
Abrams High School 
Abrams Elementary 
Carver School 
Dunbar School 
Hard School

$452,500153,832
544,119
328,170
280,000

TOTAL $1,758,621

INSURED VALUATION PER PUPILicic /

White $978.92
Negro $345.43

* / Compiled from Intervenor's Elxhibit #8, Statement of Values 
of Buildings and Contents, 1963.★★/ Based on enrollment given in Special Report Prepared for 
Superintendent-Bessemer Board of Education, Pl.'s Ex. #21.

- 5 -



BESSEMER SCHOOL SYSTEM

School Inventory Svanmary by Tsrpe of Equipment— ^

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT VALUATION PER PUPIL
V^ite Schools Negro Schools (2^96 students) (5120 students)

1. Furniture and Kitchen Equipment $39.79
2. Books, Maps Charts, etc. 28.30
3. Audio-Visual Eqiiipment 12.09

Machines, Tools, Vocational Equip. 22.35
5. Drapes, Curtains, Mats, Physical

Education Equipment 3.37
6. Music Equipment 3.13
7. Miscellaneous 5.03

$9.40
9.60
1.95
7.36

2.66

2.79
3.20

TOTAL $114.06 $36.96

*_/ Information compiled from School Inventory of Bessemer City
Schools, 1965, svnnmary sheet for each school. There is some 
inconsistency in the method used by the schools for classify­
ing their inventory into these seven categories.

-  6 -



BESSEMER SCHOOL SYSTEM

School Inventory Summary by School Totals—* /

SCHOOL ESTIMATED VALUE VALUE PER PUPIL
White

Bessemer High School (10-12) 
Bessemer Junior H. S. (7-9) 
Arlington Elementary (1-6) 
Jonesboro Elementary (1-5) 
Jones Annex (6 & sp)
Vance Elementary (1-6)
Westhills Elementary (1-6)

$167,3W.60
58,702.40
17.836.50
42.794.50 
13,177.00
8,761.00

10,304.25

$256.66
79.87
44.04
101.89
100.59
32.69
55.70

TOTAL $318,919.25 $114.06 V

Negro
Abrams High School (7-12) $68,603.82 $64.48Abrams Elementary (1-6) 5,748.81 9.18
Carver School (1-12) 64,029.36 38.36Ehanbar School (1-8) 30,895.90 32.80Hard School (1-8) 19,938.71 24.35

TOTAL $189,216.50 $169.17

* / Information compiled from School Inventory of Bessemer City 
Schools, 1965, summary sheet for each school. Averages are 
based on total number of students of each race in the system.

- 7 -



BESSEMER SCHOOL SYSTEM

Book - Pupil Ratio

SCHOOL NUMBER OF BOOKS ENROLLMENT BOOK-PUPIL RATIO

White
Bessemer High School 8785 652 13.5

Negro
Abrams High School 5799 1061+ 5.5
Carver High School 3975 785 5.1

/ Information obtained from Intervenor's Exhibit #7, Applica­
tions for Accreditation; also Plaintiff's Exhibit #21,
Special Report Prepared for the Superintendent-Bessemer Board 
of Education.

-  8 -



REVISED STATEMENT OF POLICIES 
FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGATION PLANS 

UNDER TITLE VI OF THE 
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

M arch 1966

U .S . D E P A R T M E N T  O F H EA LT H , E D U C A T IO N , A N D  W ELFARE

O ffice o f  Education



Subpart ¥ —Desegregation Plans Not Reaching All Grades for the 1966-67 School Year

§ 181.71 Opportunity to Transfer in Grades Not Reached 
by Plan

In any school system in which, for the school year 1966-67, there are grades not yet reached by the desegregation plan, tlie school system must ar­range for students to attend school on a desegre­gated basis in each of the special circumstances described in (a), (b), (c), and (d) below. This opportunity must be made available in such a way as to follow, to the maximum extent feasible, the desegregation procedures in grades generally reached by the plan, according to the type of plan in effect.(a) T r a n s fe r  f o r  a  C o u rse  o f  S tu d y . A student must be permitted to transfer to a school in order to take a course of study for which he is qualified and which is not available in the school to which he would otherwise be assî ed on the basis of his race, color, or national origin.(b) T r a n s f e r  to  A t t e n d  S c h o o l  W i t h  R e la t iv e .  A student must be permitted to transfer in order to attend the same school or attendance center as a brother, sister, or other relative living in his household, if such relative is attending a school as a result of a desegregation plan and if such school or attendance center offers the grade which the student would be entering.(c) T r a n s fe r  f o r  S tu d e n ts  R e q u ir e d  T o  G o  
O u ts id e  S y s te m . A student must be permitted to transfer to any school within the system which offers the grade he is to enter if he would otherwise be required to attend school outside the system on the basis of his race, color, or national origin.(d) T r a n s fe r  f o r  O th e r  R e a so n s . A student must be permitted to transfer to a school other than the one to which he is assigned on the basis of his race, color, or national origin if he meets what­ever requirements, other than race, color or na­tional origin, the school system normally applies in permitting student transfers.
§ 181.72 Students New to the System
Each student who will be attending school in the system for the first time in the 1966-67 school year in any grade not yet generally reached by the desegregation plan must be assigned to school under the procedures for desegregation that are to be applied to that grade when it is generally reached by the desegregation plan.

§ 181.73 General Provisions Applicable
A student wdio has transferred to a school under § 181.71 above, or entered a school under § 181.72 above shall be entitled to the full benefits of § 181.14 above (relating to desegregation of serv­ices, facilities, activities and programs) and to any and all other rights, privileges, and benefits gener­

ally conferred on students who attend a school by virtue of the provisions of the desegregation plan.
§ 181.74 Notice
Each school system in which there will be one or more grades not fully reached by the desegre­gation plan in the 1966-67 school year must add a paragraph describing the applicable transfer provisions at the end of the notice distributed and published pursuant to § 181.34 above or §§ 181.46 and 181.53 above, as is appropriate for the type of plan adopted by the school system. The text of the paragraph must be in a form prescribed by the Commissioner. The school system must make such other changes to the notice as may be necessary to make clear which students will be affected by attendance zone assignments or free choice requirements.In addition, for the letter to parents required in § 181.46, school systems with free choice plans which have not desegregated every grade must use a letter describing the plan and will enclose with the letter sent to parents of students in grades not desegregated a transfer application instead of a clioice form. For the letter to parents required in § 181.34, school systems with geographic zone plans must send to each parent of students in grades not desegregated a letter describing the plan and a transfer application. The text for these letters and the transfer application must be in a form prescribed by the Commissioner.

§ 181.75 Processing of Transfer Applications
Applications for transfer may be submitted on the transfer application form referred to in § 181.74 above or by any other wanting. If any transfer application is incomplete, incorrect or un­clear in any respect, the school system must make eveiw reasonable effort to help the applicant perfect his application. Under plans based on geographic zones, and under plans based on free choice of schools, the provisions of § 181.42 as to whether a student or his parent may make a choice of school, shall also determine whether a student in a grade not yet generally reached by desegrega­tion may execute a transfer application.

§ 181.76 Reports and Records
In each report to the Commissioner under §§ 181.18, 181.35, and 181.55 above, the school sys­tem must include all data, copies of materials dis­tributed and other information generally required, relative to all students, regardless of whether or not their particular grades have been generally reached by the plan. Similarly the system must re­tain the records provided for under §§ 181.19, 181.35, and 181.55 above with respect to all students.

[§§ 181.77 through 181.80 reserved]

10
U S. G O V ERN M EN T  PR IN TIN G  O FF IC E  : 1966 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 6 0



GEOGRAPHIC PLANS

TEXT FOR NOTICE TO BE PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS, DISTRIBUTED 
WITH LETTERS TO PARENTS, AND OTHERWISE MADE FREELY AVAIL­
ABLE TO THE PUBLIC

(As required by § 181.34 of the Statement of Policies)

(School System Name and Office Address)
NOTICE OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION PLAN UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS

ACT OF 1964
T H IS  N O T IC E  IS  M ADE A V A ILA B LE TO IN F O R M  YOU A BO U T T H E  D E SE G R E G A T IO N  O F O U R  SCH O O LS. K E E P  A 

COPY O F T H IS  N O T IC E . IT  W IL L  A N S W E R  MANY Q U E ST IO N S A B O U T SCHOO L D E SE G R E G A T IO N .

1. D esegrega tion  P la n  in  E f e c t

The_________________public school system is being desegregated under a plan adopted
(Name of school system)in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The purpose of the desegregation plan is to eliminate from our school system the racial segregation of students and all other forms of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Your school board and the school staff will do everything they can to see to it that the rights of all students are protected and that our desegregation plan is carried out successfully.

2. N o n -R a c ia l A tten d a n c e  Z on es

Under the desegregation plan, the school each student will attend depends on where he lives. An attendance zone has been established for each school in the system. All students in the same grade who live in the same zone will be assigned to the same school, regardless of their race, color, or national origin and regardless of which school they attend now.
3. T ra n sfe r  to  S ch oo l in  A n o th er  Z one

A student may transfer from the school to which he is assigned only under the following conditions: 
[S ta te  here the co n d itio n s , i f  a n y , u n d e r  w h ich  tra n sfe r  w i l l  be g ra n ted . T h ey  m u s t he co n s is ten t w ith  the 
tra n sfe r  p r o v is io n s  s ta ted  in § 1 8 1 .3 3  o f  the S ta tem en t o f  P o lic ie s .] Transfers for any other reasons will not be permitted.
4. N o tif ic a tio n  o f  A s s ig n m e n t

On_________________the parent, or other adult person acting as parent, of each student
(Date)enrolled in this system will be sent a letter telling him the name and location of the school to which the student will be assigned for the coming school year. The letter will also give information on any school bus service provided for the student’s neighborhood. A copy of this notice will be enclosed with each letter. The same letter and notice will be sent out on the above date for all children the school system expects to enter the school system for the first time next year. This includes children entering first grade or kindergarten. [D elete “or kindergarten” i f  n o t offered.] If the school system learns of a new student after the above date, it wall promptly send the student’s parent such a letter and a copy of this notice.

5. M a p s  S h o w in g  A tten d a n c e  Z on esMaps showing the boundary lines of the attendance zones of every school in the school system are freely available for inspection by the public at the Superintendent’s office. Individual zone maps are available at each school.
6. R e v is io n  o f  A tte n d a n c e  Z o n es B o u n d a r ie sAny revision of attendance zone boundaries will be announced by a prominent notice in a local paper at least 30 days before the change is effective.
7. A U  O ther A s p e c ts  o f  Schools D esegrega ted

All school-connected services, facilities, athletics, activities and programs are open to each student on a desegregated basis. A student assigned to a new school under the provisions of the desegregation plan wall not be subject to any disqualification or w'aiting period for participation in activities and pro­grams, including athletics, which might otherwise apply because he is a transfer student. All transpor­tation furnished by the school system will also operate on a desegregated basis. Faculties will be de­



segregated, and no staff member will lose his position because of race, color, or national origin. This includes any case where less staff is needed because schools are closed or enrollment is reduced.
8. A tten d a n c e  A c ro s s  School S y s te m  L in e s

No arrangement will be made or permission granted by this school system for any students living in the community it serves to attend school in another school system, wmere this would tend to limit desegregation, or where the opportunity is not available to all students without regard to race, color, or national origin. No arrangement will be made or permission granted, by this school system for any students living in another school system to attend public school in this system, where this would tend to limit desegregation, or where the opportunity is not available to all students v\dthout regard to race, color, or national origin.
9. V io la tio n s  T o B e  R ep o rted

It is a violation of our desegregation plan for any school official or teacher to influence, threaten or coerce any person in connection with the exercise of any rights under this plan. It is also a violation of Federal regulations for any person to intimidate, threaten, coerce, retaliate or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with the desegregation of our school system. Any person having any knowled̂  of a^ violation of these prohibitions should report the facts immediately by mail or phone to the Equal Educational Opportunities Program, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 20202 (telephone 202-962-0333). The name of any person reporting any violation will not be disclosed without his consent. Any other violation of the desegregation plan or other discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in the school system is also a violation of Federal requirements and should likewise be reported. Anyone with a complaint to report should first bring it to the attention of local school officials, unless he feels it would not be helpful to do so. If local officials do not correct the violation promptly, any person familiar with the facts of the violation should report them immediately to the U.S. Office of Education at the above address or phone number.

U .S . G O V E R N M E N T  PR IN T IN G  O FF IC E  : I R M  0 — 2IO -O V7



FREE CHOICE PLANS

TEXT FOR NOTICE TO BE PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS, DISTRIBUTED 
WITH LETTERS TO PARENTS, AND OTHERWISE MADE FREELY 
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC

(Required by § 181.46 and 181.53 of the Statement of Policies)

(School System Name and Office Address)
NOTICE OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION PLAN UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS

ACT OF 1964
T H IS  N O T IC E  IS  M .\D E  A V A ILA B LE TO IN FO R M  YOU A BO U T T H E  D E SE G R E G A T IO N  O F OUR SCHOO LS. K E E P  A 

COPY O F T H IS  N O T IC E . IT  W IL L  A N SW ER  MANY Q U E STIO N S A BO U T SCHOOL D E SE G R E G A T IO N

1. D eseg ra tio n  P la n  in  E;ffect ̂ The________________ public school system is being desegregated under a plan adopted in
(Name of school system)accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The purpose of the desegregation plan is to eliminate from our school sĵstem the racial segregation of students and all other forms of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

2. T h ir ty -D a y  S p r in g  Choice P e r io dEach student or his parent, or other adult person acting as parent, is required to choose the schoolthe student will attend next school year. The choice period will begin on-----------------and close _________ , 1966.
3. E x p la n a to ry  l e t t e r s  a n d  Sch ool Choice F orm s

On the first day of the choice period, an explanatory letter and this notice will be sent by first-class mail to the parent, or other adult person acting as parent, of each student then in the schools who is expected to attend school the following school year. A school choice form will be sent with each letter, together with a return envelope addressed to the Superintendent. Additional copies of the letter, this notice and the choice form are freely available to the public at any school and at the Superintendent’s office.
4. R e tu rn in g  the Choice F orm s

Parents and students, at their option, may return the completed choice forms by hand to any school or by mail to the Superintendent’s office, at any time during the 30-day choice period. No preference will be given for choosing early during the choice period. A choice is required for each student. No assignment to a school can be made unless a choice is made first.
5. Choice F orm  In fo rm a tio nThe school choice form lists the names, locations and grades offered for each school. The reasons for any choice made are not to be stated. The form asks for the name, address and age of the student, the school and grade currently or last attended, the school chosen for the following year, the appropriate signature, and whether the form has been signed by the student or his parent. [ I f  choice fo r m  a sk s  f o r th £  
s tu d en t’s race, color, or n a tio n a l o r ig in , in se r t the fo llo w in g  sentences: “The race, color, or national origin of the student is requested for purposes of recordkeeping required by the U.S. Office of Education. The information will not be used in any way to discriminate against the student.’’] Any letter or other written communication which identifies the student and the school he wishes to attend will be deemed just as valid as if submitted on the choice form supplied by the school system. The names of students and the schools they choose or are assigned to under the plan will not be made public by school officials.
6. C ourse a n d  P ro g ra m  In fo rm a tio nTo guide students and parents in making a choice of school, listed below, by schools, are the courses and programs which are not given at every school in this school system.

[H ere lis t,  b y  schools, each course a n d  p ro g ra m , such  a s sp e c ia l edu ca tion , fo re ig n  
lan guages, voca tion al edu ca tion , science, com m ercia l courses, a n d  college p r e ­
p a ra to r y  courses offered a t a  p a r tic u la r  school w h ich  is  not offered a t the sam e  
grade level a t every other school in  the system . I t  m u st in c lu d e  courses a n d  
p ro g ra m s offered in  grades n o t y e t  gen era lly  reached by  the desegrega tion  p la n .]



7. S ig n in g  the Choice F ormA choice form may be signed by a parent or other adult person acting as parent. A student who has reached the age of 15 at the time of choice, or will next enter the ninth or any higher grade, may sign his own choice form. The student’s choice shall be controlling unless a different choice is exercised by his parent before the end of the period during which the student exercises his choice.
8. P ro cess in g  o j  C hoices

No choice will be denied for any reason other than overcrowding. In cases where granting all choices for any school would cause overcrowding, the students choosing the school who live closest to it will be assigned to that school. Whenever a choice is to be denied, overcrowding will be determined by a uniform standard applicable to all schools in the system.
9. N o tic e  o j  A s s ig n m e n t, S eco n d  C hoiceAll students and their parents will be promptly notified in writing of their school assignments. Should any student be denied his choice because of overcrowding he will be promptly notified and given a choice among all other schools in the system where space is available.
10. S tu d e n ts  M o v in g  In to  the C o m m u n ity

A choice of school for any student who will be new to the school system may be made during the spring 30-day choice period or at any other time before he enrolls in school. An explanatory letter, this notice and the school choice form will be given out for each new student as soon as the school system knows about the student. At least seven days will be allowed for the return of the choice form when a choice is made after the spring 30-day choice period. A choice must be made for each student. No assignment to any school can be made unless a choice is made first.
11. S tu d e n ts  E n te r in g  F ir s t  G rade

The parent, or other adult person acting as parent, of every child entering the first grade, or kinder­garten [delete “or kindergarten” i j  n o t o jfered], is required to choose the school his child will attend. Choices will be made under the same free choice process used for students new to the school system in other grades, as provided in paragraph 10.
12. P r io r i ty  o j  L a te  C hoices

No choice made after the end of the spring 30-day choice period may be denied for any reason other than overcrowding. In the event of overcrowding, choices made during the 30-day choice period will have first priority. Overcrowding will be determined by the standard provided for in paragraph 8. Any parent or student whose first choice is denied because of overcrowding will be given a second choice in the manner provided for in paragraph 9.
13. T ests, H ea lth  R ecords a n d  Other E n tra n ce  R equ irem en ts

Any academic tests or other procedures used in assigning students to schools, grades, classrooms, sections, courses of study, or for any other purpose, will be applied uniformly to all students without regard to race, color or national origin. No choice of school will be denied because of failure at the time of choice to provide any health record, birth certificate, or other document. The student will be tentatively assigned in accordance with the plan and the choice made, and given ample time to obtain any required document. Curriculum, credit, and promotion procedures will not be applied in such a way as to hamper freedom of choice of any student.
14. C hoices Once M a d e  C an n o t he A lte re d

Once a choice has been submitted, it may not be changed, even though the choice period has not ended. The choice is binding for the entire school year to which it applies, except in the case of (1) compelling hardship, (2) change of residence to a place where another school is closer, (3) the availability of a school designed to fit the special needs of a physically handicapped student, (4) the availability at another school of a course of study required by the student, which is not available at the school chosen.
15. A l l  O ther A s p e c ts  o j  Schools D esegregatedAll school-connected services, facilities, athletics, activities and programs are open to all on a desegregated basis. A student attending school for the first time on a desegregated basis may not be subject to any disqualification or waiting period for participation in activities and programs, including athletics, which might otherwise apply because he is a transfer student. All transportation furnished by the school system will also operate on a desegregated basis. Faculties will be desegregated, and no staff member will lose his position because of race, color or national origin. This includes any case where less staff is needed because schools are closed or enrollment is reduced.
16. A tten d a n ce  A c ro ss  School S y s te m  L in es

No arrangement will be made, or permission granted, by this school system for any students living in the community it serves to attend school in another school system, where this would tend to limit



desegregation, or where the opportunity is not available to all students without regard to race, color or national origin. No arrangement will be made, or permission granted, by this school system for any students living in another school system to attend school in this system, where this would tend to limit desegregation, or where the opportunity is not available to all students without regard to race, color or national origin.
17. V io la tio n s  T o B e  R ep o rted

It is a violation of our desegregation plan for any school official or teacher to influence or coerce any person in the making of a choice or to threaten any person with penalties or promise favors for any choice made. It is also a violation of Federal regulations for any person to intimidate, threaten, coerce, retaliate or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with the free making of a choice of school. Any person having any knowledge of any violation of these prohibitions should report the facts immediately by mail or phone to the Equal Educational Opportunities Program, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 20202 (telephone 202-962-0333). The name of any person reporting any violation wiU not be disclosed without his consent. Any other violation of the desegregation plan or other discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in the school system is also a violation of Federal requirements, and should likewise be reported. Anyone with a complaint to report should first bring it to the attention of local school officials, unless he feels it would not be helpful to do so. If local officials do not correct the violation promptly, any person familiar with the facts of the violation should report them immediately to the U.S. Office of Education at the above address or phone number.

U .S . G O V ERN M EN T  PR IN T IN G  O FF IC E  : I9 6C  O — 2 I 0 - 0 M



FREE CHOICE PLANS

TEXT FOR ANNUAL LETTER TO PARENTS 
F or  U se  D u r in g  30 -D ay Sp r in g  C h o ic e  P eriod  

(Required by §181.46 of the Statement of Policies)
(IF  S E P A R A T E  SCHOOLS H A V E  B E E N  M A IN T A IN E D  F O R  O T H E R  TH A N  N E G R O  AND W H I T E  STU D E N T S,  T E X T  IS  TO B E  A D JU ST ED

A CCORDINGLY)

(School System Name and Office Address)
Dear Parent: (Date sent)
Our community has adopted a school desegregation plan. We will no longer have separate schools for children of different races. The desegregation plan has been accepted by the U.S. Office of Education under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The plan requires every student or his parent to choose the school the student will attend in the coming school year. It does not matter which school the student is attending this year and it does not matter whether that school was formerly a white or a Negro school. You and your child may select any school you wish.
A choice of school is required for each student. A student cannot be enrolled at any school next school year unless a choice of schools is made. This spring there will be a 30-day choice period, beginning _________ , 1966, and ending___________ , 1966.
A choice form listing the available schools and grades is enclosed. This form must be filled out and returned. You may mail it in the enclosed envelope, or deliver it by hand to any school or to the address above any time during the 30-day choice period. N o one may require you to file your choice form before the end of the choice period. No preference will be given for choosing early during the choice period.
No principal, teacher or other school official is permitted to influence anyone in making a choice. No one is permitted to favor or penalize any student or other person because of a choice made. Once a choice IS made, it cannot be changed except for serious hardship.
Also enclosed is an explanatory notice giving full details about the desegregation plan. It tells you how to exercise your rights under the plan, and trils you how teachers, school buses, sports and other activities are being desegregated.
Your School Board and the school staff will do everything we can to see to it that the rights of all students are protected and that our desegregation plan is carried out successfully.

Sincerely yours.

Superintendent.

U .S . G O V E R N M E N T  P R IN T IN G  O PPICC  : 1966 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 9 6



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the Brief 
and the Appendix in this case has been served by 
official United States mail in accordance with 
the rules of this Court to the attorneys for the 
parties addressed as follows:
Mr. David H. Hood 
2001 Carolina Avenue 
Bessemer, Alabama
Mr. Jack Greenberg 
Mr. Norman C. Amaker 
Legal Defense 
NAACP10 Columbus Circle 
New York City, New York
Mr. Reid B. Barnes 
Lange, Simpson, Robinson 

and Somerville 
317 North 20th Street 
Birmingham, Alabama
Dated: April 25, 1966

Mr. Oscar Adams 
1630 +̂th Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama
Mr. J. Howard McEniry 
McEniry, McEniry & McEniry 
1721 +̂th Avenue, North 
Bessemer, Alabama

JOEL M. FINKELSTEIN, 
AttorneyDepartment of Justice, 
Washington, D. C. 20530