Northwest Austin Municipal Utility Distr. One v. Holder Brief for Intervenors-Appellees

    Mullinax, Wells, Baab, Cloutman & Chapman, P.C.
A T T O R N E Y S  A T  L A W

8 2 0 4  ELH B R O O K  D R 1 V E /S U IT E  2 0 0 / P .O .  BO X 4 7 9 7 2 /D A L L A S ,  T E X A S  7 5 2 4 7

PHONE (AC 214) 0 3 0 - 3 6 7 2 / IN FT. WORTH CALL 263-1547

October 24, 1979
EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN, III

Mr. James M. Nabrit, III 
c/o Sonesta Beach Hotel 
350 Ocean Drive 
Key Biscayne, Florida 33149

Re: Tasby v. Estes
Dear Jim;

Enclosed is a copy of the Reply Brief for Petitioners
Curry, et al.

Sincerely,
MULLINAX, WELLS.BAAB, 
CLOUTMAN & CHAeA>I , P.C.

By______________  __________Edward B.Cloutman,III
:bg
Special Delivery



In the

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1978

No, 78-282

D onald E. Cubby, Et A l.,
Petitioners,v.

D allas N.A.A.C.P., Et Al ., 
and

Nolan E stes, Et Al.,
Respondents.

No. 78-253

Nolan Estes, Et Al.,
Petitioners,

v.

D allas N.A.A.C.P., Et Al .,
Respondents.

No. 78-283

R alph F. Bbinegab, Et A l.,
Petitioners,

v.

D allas N.A.A.C.P., Et A l .,
Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS, 
DONALD E. CURRY, ET AL

R obebt L. Blumenthal 
R obebt H. M ow , J b.

3000 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250 

Attorneys for Petitioners 
Donald E. Curry, et al



SUBJECT INDEX

Page

Argument ................................................................................  1

Conclusion ................................................................................ 15

Proof of Service ......................................................................  17

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

Columbus Board of Education v. Penick,
47 Law Week 4924 (July 2, 1979) .........................  2, 3, 4

Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman,
433 U.S. 406 (1977) ...........................................................  4

Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman,
47 Law Week 4944 (July 2, 1979) .......................... 2, 3, 4



In the

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1978 

No. 78-282

D onald E. Cubby, E t Al.,

v.
Petitioners,

D allas N.A.A.C.P., Et Al ., 
and

Nolan Estes, Et Al .,
Respondents.

No. 78-253

N olan E stes, Et Al., 

v.
Petitioners,

D allas N .A.A.C.P., Et Al.,
Respondents.

No. 78-283

R alph F. Beinegae, Et Al.,

v.
Petitioners,

D allas N.A.A.C.P., Et Al .,
Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS, 
DONALD E, CURRY, ET AL



2

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Since the filing of Curry et al’s initial brief, this Court 
has decided Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 47 Law 
Week 4924 (July 2, 1979) herein “Columbus” ) and Dayton 
Board of Education v. Brinkman, 47 Law Week 4944 (July 
2, 1979) (herein “ Dayton II” ) . This Reply Brief is required 
to respond to that new authority to certain unfair charac­
terizations of Curry’ initial brief, and to recent changes in 
the Dallas Independent School District.

Curry et al, Petitioners, fervently pray that this Court will 
understand the following about their position. They are not 
opposed to integrated schools and their position in this Court 
does not arise out of any such opposition. Indeed, they are 
here because they favor integrated schools and feel that 
their position is the only method of ultimately achieving 
integration in the public schools of the central cities of 
America, a result which they devoutly desire. Secondly, Cur­
ry feels that the very survival of public education in the cen­
tral cities of the United States and ultimately the very 
survival of the central cities of the United States is at 
stake in this proceeding. Lastly, these petitioners wish to 
point out that although their children are being asked to 
bear the brunt of whatever remedy is imposed by the United 
States Courts, neither they nor their children have any 
nexus to a school board that existed in 1954 from which their 
children are two school generations removed, nor do they 
have any nexus to the School Board or the Federal Courts 
as they existed in 1965 from which their children are a full 
school generation removed. Even more pointedly, Curry has 
no nexus at all to the Honorable T. Whitfield Davidson, 
United States District Judge, who, Plaintiffs-Respondents 
accurately point out in their brief did the student assign­
ment in DISD until 1965, when the Fifth Circuit adopted



3

its racially neutral student assignment policy which was 
being followed until 1971.

Petitioners are as aware as this Court of the long ugly 
history of school boards trying to retain segregated schools 
and fighting integration in every conceivable way. Obviously 
that long history colors the thinking of this Court, as it has 
colored the thinking of every Court. However, the year is 
1979, not 1960, and obviously since 1965 intelligent, well- 
intentioned United States Courts have attempted to achieve 
racial balance in the Dallas Independent School District. 
The results of those attempts for the last 14 years by the 
United States Courts are before the Court in this proceeding. 
The latest decision, by the Fifth Circuit, calls, for additional 
action by the District Court.

Turning to the facts in Columbus and Dayton II, the 
Dallas Independent School District has had a majority to 
minority transfer program since 1971. The Dallas Inde­
pendent School District since the enforcement of a strict 
racially neutral school zone policy by the Fifth Circuit in 
1965 has not had any optional transfers. Children were re­
quired to go to the district in which they resided until 1971 
with the adoption of the majority to minority transfers ap­
proved by the Court. Since 1971 no school could be built 
in the Dallas Independent School District without the ap­
proval of the United States District Court. Complete faculty 
desegregation of the Dallas Independent School District 
occurred in 1971 and has remained constantly true since 
then. The only direct cognitive purposeful act of desegrega­
tion by the School District cited by the District Court in 
this proceeding, upon which all remedies are based, was 
its failure to adopt some of the remedial programs suggested 
by the Courts from 1965 to 1971. All of these remedial pro­



4

grams were voluntarily adopted before trial in the original 
proceeding in this cause in 1971.

Being aware of all the distinctions set out in the para­
graph above which could properly distinguish the Dallas 
Independent School District, the Dallas Independent School 
District was pursuant to State law, a segregated school dis­
trict in 1954. As Plaintiff-Respondent Tasby et al in its 
brief before this Court points out, from 1956 to 1965 the 
Honorable T. Whitfield Davidson, United States District 
Judge, entered a series of conflicting orders ultimately re­
sulting in the stair-step plan which was struck down in 1965 
with the implementation of a racially neutral system by the 
Fifth Circuit.

As we read the most recent teachings of this Court in 
Columbus and Dayton II, a school district which was once 
a State-enforced, segregated district is not entitled to main­
tain a racially neutral student assignment policy based upon 
a neighborhood school concept. Petitioner would fervently 
hope that the distinctions set forth in the preceding para­
graph distinguishes Columbus from the Dallas Independent 
School District, and will cause this Court to reverse the 
Fifth Circuit as set forth in our original brief, based on 
Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 
(1977) (Dayton I ). However, for purposes of this brief the 
assumption is that Columbus stands for the proposition that 
racially neutral neighborhood schools may no longer be a 
student assignment policy by school districts in cities which 
in 1954 were mandatorily segregated by State law, and the 
Districts and Courts are required to achieve racial balance. 
It is to this proposition that the remainder of this brief is 
addressed, in hopes that this Court will recognize its error.

Without questioning the good intentions of the Court in 
trying to achieve a desirable result, Petitioners would show



5

from the record in this case, that mandatory student re­
assignment and busing do not desegregate, but in fact re­
segregate and destroy the ability to achieve an integrated 
school district. The Dallas Independent School District has 
been used as a model of community support for a desegrega­
tion plan. The following is the result and facts of this1 
District.

In October of 1970, the last October prior to the first 
busing order, there were 95,012 Anglo students in the Dallas 
Independent School District, That number of Anglo students 
had been increasing each year until 1970 when it was down 
2% from October of 1969. (Def. Ex. 13) The elementary 
enrollment, however, was slightly up for Anglo students 
between 1969 and 1970. (Webster, Vol. VIII, p. 169) As 
of November 14, 1978, there were 45,141 Anglo students 
in the Dallas Independent School District, a loss of 49,871 
students, or 52.49% of the Anglo students in the DISD at 
the last census before the court order of busing began. (All 
numbers for 1978 are from the official reports of the Dallas 
Independent School District required to be filed with the 
District Court and by motion added as a supplement to 
the record.) Since the new wave of busing ordered in the 
summer of 1976, the District lost an additional 12,285 Anglo 
students, or 21.39% of the remaining Anglo student body 
in three short years. Newspaper reports of this year’s enroll­
ment indicate that the decline in Anglo population is con­
tinuing. As of October 1979 there were 41,893 Anglo students, 
a decline in one year of 3,248 students or 7.2%.

The numbers are even more dramatic when those grades 
subject to mandatory student reassignment are examined. 
For example, in the northwest subdistrict grades 4 through 
6 there was a decline of 47.56% of the Anglo student popula­
tion from 3,592 to 1,883 in the three short years between



6

the scholastic population census used by the court in its 
order of 1976 and the scholastic population census as of 
November 14, 1978.1 In the middle schools in the northwest 
subdistrict which were also reassigned by the district court, 
49% of the Anglo students have disappeared during that 
period; the Court’s order indicates 2,624 Anglo students 
should be in middle schools (grades 7 and 8), in fact only 
1,339 were there as of November 14, 1978. In contrast, in 
the senior high schools (without student reassignment) in 
the northwest subdistrict, there was only a loss of 24.9% of 
the Anglo students. Obviously the lack of court ordered 
student assignment created a dramatic difference between 
grades 7 and 8 which lost 49% of the Anglo population on 
court ordered reassignment, and grades 9 to 12 a loss of 
24.9% without court ordered student assignment. The num­
bers remain consistent in the other subdistricts of the Dallas 
Independent School District. In the northeast subdistrict 
grades 4 through 6 lost 1346 Anglo students, or 38.3% of 
the court’s projected number. The middle schools, grades 
7 through 8, with court ordered assignment, the district 
lost 1521 Anglo students, or 35% of the 2,334 estimated to 
be in the middle school. However, in senior high school, 
grades 9 through 12, where there was no court ordered 
student assignment, the loss was only 1,072 Anglo or 17.4% 
of the projected total of 6,168. Again about half the rate of 
loss compared to the court ordered student assignment plan.

Since children do not start at the high school level, and 
since high school children have siblings, it is by no means 
contended that the high school loss is not caused by the 
Court’s orders, but clearly the loss is less,

Even more dramatic were the losses of those students 
proposed to be transported in connection with the plans.

1 All declines are measured from projections in the District 
Court’s opinion and appendices.



7

In the northwest subdistrict of 2,835 Anglo students to be 
transported under the Court’s plan, only 1107 remain, a 
loss of 1,728 students, or 61% of those Anglo students who 
were supposed to be on busses. In the northeast subdistrict, 
49% or 691 out of 1412 Anglo students disappeared who 
were supposed to be transported pursuant to the court’s 
plan. In the southeast subdistrict (the only other subdistrict 
in which there was student transportation), the loss was 
45% of the Anglo students.

The loss, however, is not limited to Anglos. 20% of the 
black students scheduled to be transported in all subdistricts 
are gone, and 12% of the Mexican-American students sched­
uled to be transported have disappeared.

Set out below is a table showing the student population 
of the high schools in the Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict by race as of November 14, 1978. These student bodies 
are in neighborhood school districts except for such changes 
as majority-minority transfers and magnet schools may 
occasion.

HIGH SCHOOLS
School______________Anglo_________ Black_________M-A______ Total

No. %  No. %  No. %
Northwest District
Hillcrest Complex... 1298 78.62 297 17.99 31 1.88 1651
Thomas Jefferson 967 58.32 403 24.31 262 15.80 1658
North Dallas........... 154 12.32 382 30.56 695 55.60 1250
Pinkston 17 .94 1493 82.35 290 16.00 1813
W. T. White...........  2215 90.22 109 4.44 92 3.75 2455
Metro North........... 50 26.46 125 66.14 14 7.41 189
Metro West............. 153 43.59 154 43.87 5 1.42 351
Transportation

Magnet................  73 26.55 158 57.45 43 15.64 275
Northeast District
Bryan Adams 2598 85.97 157 5.20 209 6.92 3022
James Madison......  6 .44 1336 98.60 11 .81 1355
Skyline Center 1832 51.74 1407 39.73 254 7.17 3541
Woodrow Wilson 660 46.91 305 21.68 425 30.21 1407
Health Professions 111 21.76 346 67.84 41 8.04 510



8

HIGH SCHOOLS —  (Continued)
School______________Anglo _____  Black M-A Total

Southwest District 
Adamson

No.

254

%

19.63

No.

579

%

44.74

No.

437

%

33.77 1294
David W. Carter 253 14.24 1447 81.43 73 4.11 1777
Kimball 1243 54.47 739 32.38 274 12.01 2282
Sunset 896 47.76 154 8.21 790 42.11 1876

Southeast District
Lincoln.................... 1 .09 1092 99.91 0 0 1093
Samuel 1403 74.79 344 18.34 120 6.40 1876
Grady Spruce 1203 54.46 725 32.82 274 12.40 2209

East Oak Cliff
Roosevelt 5 .22 2278 99.35 10 .44 2293
South Oak-Cliff 7 .21 3390 99.50 10 .29 3407

Petitioner Curry, et al is unable to discern from a review 
of the high school population census what prevents these 
neighborhood schools with minority-majority transfer from 
being unitary schools. In assessing these schools it should 
be noted that all but three (Lincoln, Roosevelt and Pink­
ston) of the non-magnet schools began as all white schools. 
However, one thing is clear. Those schools in which the 
court has attempted to achieve racial balance, with only one 
exception, are minority isolated schools as defined by the 
Equal Educational Opportunity Act, 20 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. 
In the NAACP brief on p. 14, there are projected percent­
ages which show eight middle schools of 50% less minority 
enrollment and one of more. In fact, there is only one middle 
school where minorities are not in a majority and in ten out 
of sixteen the schools are more than 60% minority.

The actions of the United States courts have already pre­
vented meaningful integration in the Dallas Independent 
School District in those areas where it has adopted a man­



9

datory student assignment plan. Additional student assign,- 
meat plans as demanded by the Fifth Circuit create an 
overwhelming inability by the School District to achieve 
anything like a racially integrated school.

Dallas is a sunbelt city enjoying an economic boom. Its 
unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the nation. As 
a central city, it is not a decaying, rotting, blighted area, 
but a vibrant, booming area. But ultimately a city cannot 
survive without children and without the amenity of a 
public school system. There are 32 public independent school 
districts ringing the Dallas Independent School District, 
including one residing wholly within it. Not one of those 
districts other than Dallas suffer from the indignities of 
court ordered student assignment. In 32 other school dis­
tricts the traditional advertisement for a home “ convenient 
to churches and schools” is a reality. The courts and the 
district may assign students to schools, but the decision 
of accepting that assignment is going to lie with parents. 
Dallas has been held out as a model to the nation of a city 
united to make the court ordered desegregation plan work. 
There were no pickets, no bombings, no rallies, no negatives. 
The problem was there were also no middle class students. 
These are not numbers that come from some sociologist’s 
projections, these are actual numbers in the Dallas Inde­
pendent School District. However, testimony put in evidence 
in this case indicates there is nothing unique about Dallas. 
In every school district meeting Dallas’ criteria, a substantial 
minority population and suburban school districts surround­
ing the central city, the loss of Anglo students has been such 
that meaningful integration cannot exist. (See Curry Ex. 6, 
Appendix p. 260 et seq.)

Not only has the Anglo population declined in such a way 
as to prevent the meaningful integration of schools, but



10

the Anglo decline has really been a middle class or upper 
class decline. The testimony of Dr. William Webster, head 
of the Department of Research and Evaluation for the 
Dallas Independent School District, was the loss of Anglo 
students is really a loss of middle class and upper middle 
class student population in the Dallas Independent School 
District (Vol. VIII, page 192). It was his opinion that in 
addition to the Anglo loss we were also experiencing a loss 
of black middle class in the Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict. (Id.) After noting that study performance appeared 
to be the arena of debate on desegregation plans Dr. Webster 
testified “This approach is tantamount to fiddling while 
Rome bums. If a desegregation policy has as its principal 
observable effect, the resegregation of the public schools, 
whether or not a given group of students would have benefit 
from that policy is academic. Methods must be found to 
provide meaningful integrated experiences for school children 
while not upsetting the majority population to the point 
that population redistribution occurs. Only then can the 
effect of induced desegregation be meaningfully discussed 
and examined.” (Vol. VIII, pp. 171-172).

Even Plaintiff witness Dr. Robert Crain’s testimony was 
to the same resegregation result. Vol. VIII, p. 497-498. 
“What I said was if the school is designated predominantly 
black, then the desegregation plan is liable to be in trouble 
because a lot of white students aren’t going to go. A lot 
of white students don’t show up, so that’s the problem.”

This Court, if it chooses, can command the Dallas Inde­
pendent School District to achieve racial balance in its 
schools. We suppose that if racial balance constitutes 5% 
of the Anglo students in each school in the district, and 
each school 95% minority, it can be achieved, because there 
are certain Anglo students who cannot escape the mandates



11

of the Court or the school system. But that is not what 
this Court is attempting to achieve nor is it what the 
Dallas Independent School District desires, nor is it what 
Curry believes is the best interest of any children. To order 
the District Court to achieve racial balance is like ordering 
the District Court and the Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict to cause the sea to retreat or the sun to stand still. 
The Court can command, but ultimately the people will 
decide.

Not only do the figures in every central city in the United 
States overwhelmingly show the failure of court ordered 
student reassignment to desegregate the systems and not 
only do such statistics show the overwhelming resegregation 
of the schools of the central cities, but the issue of to what 
purpose stares as a stark question in the eyes of any honest 
examiner. From the plaintiffs own brief in this Court comes 
the startling findings of plaintiffs’ own witnesses that “Of 
twelve studies of desegregation at the junior high school 
and high school levels five show negative effects” .... page 86, 
footnote 42. “ .... only 9 of the 21 cases of desegregation in 
grades 3 or 4 showed positive results” .... page 86, footnote 
42. The fact is that testimony by Armor, Coleman, Estes, 
Glaser, Felice and Webster, and the testimony by each of 
the educators and experts studying the issue such as Nancy 
St. John, overwhelmingly indicate that no positive results 
flow.

Plaintiff’s witness, Dr. Robert Crain, testified at Vol. VIII, 
p. 447:

“ No, I think the best single compendium is a book done 
by Nancy St. John called School Desegregation — 
Outcomes for Children . . .”

and at p. 502 of Vol. VIII:



12

“ However, I should point out that Nancy St. John 
who did this review of the work looks at the same set 
of data and concludes that there is no evidence here 
that black students benefitted from desegregation. And 
its likely — she goes further and she finds in one chap­
ter saying on the basis of her review of the evidence 
she would be opposed to massive busing and large scale 
busing, I think that’s her words, because there is no 
evidence that the students benefit.”

Dr. Webster testified as a result of studies conducted in 
the Dallas schools that:

(Vol. VIII, p. 179, 1. 13-15)
“A. . . . Nonbused black students had more positive 
attitudes towards school than did bused black students.
“Q. All right. With respect to whether the black stu­
dents attended a bused from rather than a bused to 
school, what was the result of your study?
“A. Black students attending bused from schools were 
more positive in attitudes than were black students 
that attended bused to schools.”
(Vol. VIII, p. 180, 1. 7-12)
“A. Black students in mostly white classes had a nega­
tive attitude towards school while those in mostly black 
classes had a positive attitude. Similarly, white stu­
dents in mostly black classes had a negative attitude 
towards school while white students in mostly white 
classes had a positive attitude.”
(Vol. VIII, p. 182, 1. 9-16)
“ Q. All right, now, putting it in simple laymen’s terms, 
this would indicate that the students that remained in 
the predominantly minority schools had a more posi­
tive attitude towards white students than those that 
were either in attendance at or were bused to what 
had been more predominantly or majority white schools, 
is that correct?
“A. It would suggest that, yes.”



13

(Vol. VIII, p. 182, 1. 20-25)
“A, White students in mostly white classes had posi­
tive attitudes toward black students while white stu­
dents in mostly black classes had a slightly negative 
attitude toward black students. So there was a signifi­
cant difference between the class composition relative 
to attitudes toward black students among white 
students.”
About Webster and his department, the testimony was 
as follows:
(Vol. VIII, p. 197, 1. 15 to p. 198, 1. 19)
“Q. Has the Research and Evaluation Department of 
the Dallas Independent School District received any 
recognition?
“A. Yes, I think it is probably generally recognized 
as the best Department of Research and Evaluation in 
the country. It has had outside auditors come in to 
audit the department on several different occasions, the 
most noteworthy of which was Dan Stufflebeam, who 
is one of the foremost evaluation therapists in the 
country.
“THE COURT: Who is It?
“THE WITNESS: Dan Stuffllebeam who is one of the 
foremost evaluation therapists in the country. He 
was brought in as part of the Chase study last year 
and basically concluded that it was the best Depart­
ment of Research and Evaluation in the country. Do 
you want me to read that quote into the record?

“Q. If you would like, you certainly may.

“A. In arriving — this is quoted from the report by 
Dan Stufflebeam. ‘In arriving at an overall judgment 
of the evaluation In research work done in the DISD 
I compared what I saw in Dallas with what I observed 
in my past studies of other evaluation and research 
systems in school districts, in state education depart­



14

ments, federal agencies, research and development 
agencies and private companies. Based on these com­
parisons I am convinced that the DISD Research and 
Evaluation system is considerably stronger than any 
other I have observed.’ ”

The testimony of Dr. John W. Letson, former Super­
intendent of Schools of Atlanta, Georgia, testified about 
the transportation of the Atlanta schools to virtually an 
all black system. His testimony was that the loss of com­
munity support was the most tragic loss of all in the 
Atlanta school system (Vol. VIII, page 51). That loss of 
community support ultimately results in a public school 
system which cannot adequately function. The testimony 
of Dr. O. Z. Stevens of the Memphis School District in 
this proceeding about the difficulties of the school system 
after its loss of white students as a result of mandatory 
student assignment is as follows:

(Vol. VIII, p. 148, 1.13 to p. 149, 1.11)

“A. I think it’s, you know, from all of this, there has 
been kind of a spinoff. I can remember five years ago 
when the preparation of a budget and the presenta­
tion of it to the City Council was sort of a formality. 
There was always the political rhetoric of the Board 
of Education has a little bit too much fat in its budget 
and you pare it back and it’s a surface kind of concern. 
Most of it rhetoric for political purposes. We never 
had any difficulty. If we needed an eleven cent tax 
increase we got an eleven cent tax increase. We used 
to, 1970-’71, for example, our annual capital improve­
ment budget would be between twelve and fifteen mil­
lion dollars a year, that’s the bonds that we were 
selling. Our Board of Education for the past three 
months has been wrestling with all sorts of internal 
strife over the approval of a three million dollars bond 
issue which even if the Board approves and finally gets



15

reconciled has about as much chance of being approved 
by the City Council as if it were eleven. You know, 
it’s the attitude throughout Memphis as it relates to 
the public school system. Not one more penny for the 
public school system. It was reflected in a referendum 
for this past summer for a quarter cent increase in the 
sales tax for education, you know, it lost ten to one.”

Obviously this Court is familiar with the further mani­
festations of school districts that cannot raise funds. The 
failure to raise adequate revenue is followed by teacher 
strikes, followed by the ultimate abandonment of any at­
tempt at quality education. The final losers in all of this 
are the minorities which this Court is attempting to help.

CONCLUSION
In reading the briefs filed herein by the Plaintiffs and the 

NAACP and the Justice Department, and in reading many 
of the past opinions of the Circuit Courts and indeed this 
Court, one is struck by the continual reference to long 
ago events by long departed school boards. Perhaps inap­
propriately in such a solemn brief Curry is reminded 
of the opening lines of Edgar Allen Poe’s short story, “A 
Cask of Amontillado” :

“A thousand injuries of Fortunate I have borne as I best 
could; but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed 
revenge.”

The Court will recall Fortunato’s final words, chained in 
the wine cellar, as the last brick was placed in its position 
entombing him, “ For the love of God, Montresor.” The 
United States Supreme Court seems to say that the five 
words “Equal Protection of the Law” require that white 
children, because of their race, be transported to remote 
sections of the school district to attend schools to achieve



16

racial balance, and that black children, because of their 
race, be transported to remote sections of the school dis­
trict to achieve racial balance. Constitutional amendment 
to change this tortured interpretation of those words, if 
not impossible, is extraordinarily difficult. One can only 
cry out in defense of the school systems in the central 
cities of America, “ Mercy.”

Respectfully submitted,

R obert L. Blumenthal

R obert H. M ow, Jr.

3000 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250

Counsel for Petitioners 
Donald E. Curry, et al

Dated:



17

PROOF OF SERVICE.
We, Robert L. Blumenthal and Robert H. Mow, Jr., at­

torneys for Petitioners Curry et al. herein, and members 
of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
hereby certify that on the day of October 1979, we 
served three copies of the foregoing Brief upon the following 
Counsel for Respondents, Counsel for other Petitioners, 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae, and the Respondent Pro Se:

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III 
8204 Elmbrook Drive, Suite 200 
P. O. Box 47972 
Dallas, Texas 75247
Ms. Vilma S. Martinez 
Mexican-American Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund 
28 Geary Street 
San Francisco, California 94108
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
1790 Broadway, 10th Floor 
New York, New York 10019
Mr. Thomas E. Ashton, III 
Dallas Legal Services 

Foundation, Inc.
912 Commerce Street, Room 202 
Dallas, Texas 75202
Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
2606 Forest Avenue, Suite 202 
Dallas, Texas 75215
Mr. James A. Donohoe 
1700 Republic National Bank 

Building
Dallas, Texas 75201
Mr. Lee Holt, City Attorney 
New City Hall 
Dallas, Texas 75201



18

Mr. John Bryant 
8035 East R. L. Thornton 
Dallas, Texas 75228
Mr. James G. Vetter, Jr.
2468 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250
Mr. James T. Maxwell (pro se)
4440 Sigma Road, Suite 112 
Dallas, Texas 75240
Mr. Martin Frost
777 South R. L. Thornton Freeway,

Suite 120
Dallas, Texas 75203
Mr. Warren Whitham 
210 Adolphus Tower 
Dallas, Texas 75202
Mr. Mark Martin 
1200 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250
Mr. H. Ron White
1907 Elm Street, Suite 2100
Dallas, Texas 75201

by mailing same to such Counsel and Respondent pro se 
at their respective addresses and depositing the same in a 
United States mail box in an envelope addressed to such 
addresses with first class postage prepaid.

We further certify that all parties required to be served 
have been served.

Robert L. Blumenthal

Robert H. Mow, Jr.
Attorneys for Petitioners, 

Curry et al.



»