Maxwell v. Davidson County, TN Board of Education Reply Brief and Appendix of Defendants-Appellees
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1960

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Maxwell v. Davidson County, TN Board of Education Reply Brief and Appendix of Defendants-Appellees, 1960. 9375ae3e-bd9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/18bc0a60-4d5c-42ce-a496-b6a1a9b612e7/maxwell-v-davidson-county-tn-board-of-education-reply-brief-and-appendix-of-defendants-appellees. Accessed June 13, 2025.
Copied!
y No. 14,607. IN THE UNITED S TA TES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. HENRY C. MAXWELL, JR., et al,, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. REPLY BRIEF AND APPENDIX OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. K. HARLAN DODSON, JR., 1106 Nashville Trust Building, Nashville 3, Tennessee, SHELTON LUTON, County Attorney for Davidson County, Tennessee, Davidson County Courthouse, Nashville 3, Tennessee, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees. St . L ouis L a w P r in tin g Co ., I nc ., 415 N. Eighth. Street. CEntral 1-4477. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED. The defendants feel that the following counter-statement of the questions involved more clearly presents the issues to be decided by this Court: 1. Were appellant Negroes entitled to disrupt the de segregation plan approved by the Court for the Davidson County School System so as to have exceptions made in their favor? The Court below answered the question “No” . Appellees submit it should have been answered “ No” . 2. Does the transfer provision of the Davidson County School System Desegregation Plan, as approved by the District Court and as approved by this Court in the City of Nashville School System case, violate the Fourteenth Amendment ? The Court below answered the question “ No” . Appellees submit it should have been answered “ No” . TABLE OF CONTENTS OF BRIEF. Page Counter-statement of questions involved ...............Prefaced Counter-statement of facts .............................................. 1 Argument ............................................................................ 7 I. Were appellant Negroes entitled to disrupt the desegregation plan approved by the Court for the Davidson County School System so as to have exceptions made in their favor! The Court below answered the question “ no.” Appellees submit it should have been answered “ no” . . . . 7 II. Does the transfer provision of the Davidson County School System desegregation plan, as approved by the District Court and as approved by this Court in the City of Nashville School Sys tem case, violate the fourteenth amendment? The Court below answered the question “ no.” Appel lees submit it should have been answered “ no” 11 Cases Cited. Board of Education v. Groves, Fourth Cir., 261 F. 2d 527 ................................................................................... 11 Boson v. Rippy, 285 F. 2d 43 (Fifth Cir., 1960)... .12,13 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. ed. 1083 ......................................................7,14 Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, Ohio, 228 F. 2d 853 .............................................................. 9,10 Kelley v. Board of Education, 270 F. 2d 209. .4, 6, 8,12,13 Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, Fifth Circuit, 242 F. 2d 156 ..................................... 8 Robert W. Kelley et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Nashville, 361 U. S. 924, 80 S. Ct. 293, 4 L. ed. 2d 240 ................................................................ 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX. Page Melvin B. Turner— Cross-examination .................................... .......... .. • • lb Ferris C. Bailey— Direct examination....................................................... lb J. E. M o ss - Direct examination .................................................... 3b Cross-examination...................................................... 17b Redirect examination .............................................. 18b William Henry Oliver— Direct examination ................................ 19b Cross-examination ...................................................... 23b Floyd A. Detchon— Direct examination .................................................... 25b Dr. Herman A. Long— Cross-examination ..................................................... 27b Melvin B. Turner— Direct examination .................................................. 28b Redirect examination................................................ 35b R. Emmett Pettie— Direct examination .................................................... 35b Dr. Eugene Weinstein— Cross-examination ...................................................... 41b Jitsuichi Masuoka— Direct examination.................................................. 42b A. E. Wright— Direct examination .................................................... 44b Joseph R. Garrett— Direct examination .................................................. 46 ii No. 14,607 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. HENRY C. MAXWELL, JR., et a!., P!ai ntiffs-Appel lants, COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS. Appellees are generally satisfied witli the statement of facts as presented in the brief of appellants. There are cer tain respects, however, in which appellees feel either that undue emphasis has been placed on certain statements re moved from context or the statement of facts is not suf ficiently complete to fully apprise this Court of the factual situation presented to the Court below and upon which its findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree were predi cated. For that reason appellees are filing an additional — 2 — appendix, which will be referred to in order to designate it separately from the appendix of appellants, with the suffix “ b ” and reference to the appendix of appellants will be with the suffix “ a ” . Following the initial hearing in this cause and pursuant to the direction of the District Court to formulate a plan for the orderly desegregation of the Davidson County schools, the County Board of Education of Davidson County, Tennessee, appointed a special committee of its membership, to-wit, Ferriss C. Bailey, Frank "White and S. L. Wright, Jr., which committee worked with the staff of the Board of Education to compile and submit the plan (64a). This plan was then submitted to the entire Board of Education of Davidson County, which adopted it and submitted it to the Court (64a). The plan, as submitted originally by the Board, abol ished segregation based on race for Grade One in the Davidson County School System for the scholastic year beginning September, 1961, with an additional year to be desegregated each subsequent year thereafter; a zoning plan was adopted based upon the location of the school buildings, transportation facilities, scholastic population, etc., without reference to race; subject to exceptions neces sary in the administration of the school system, thereafter the students in each desegregated grade would attend the school designated for their zone, unless transferred pur suant to their parents’ request for good cause; transfers were permitted to be applied for and consideration given when made by parents or persons standing in the rela tionship of parents, provided good cause for such was shown and such transfer was practicable and consistent with sound school administration; and among other condi tions upon which transfers could be granted by request, the plan provided that where a student would be required to attend a school where such student was in the extreme — 3 — race minority, transfer requests would be considered (69a-71a). Following a full hearing the Court accepted the plan as submitted by the appellees, excepting that the Court required the first four grades, rather than the first grade, to be desegregated effective with the commencement of the January, 1961, Term, in order to cause the Davidson County plan to become current with the plan in the educa tional system of the City of Nashville (132a). The plan as proposed by the appellees and as approved by the Court, with modifications as above noted, was sup ported by the testimony of persons experienced in the operation of the school systems within Davidson County, Tennessee. The first of these witnesses, the Honorable Ferriss C. Bailey, had served as the Chairman of the Com mittee of the School Board for the formulation of the plan. Mr. Bailey is an attorney and has served on the Board of Education of Davidson County for more than seventeen years, and prior to that time served on the Board of Edu cation of the City of Nashville, located within Davidson County, for a period of six years (Vol. 2, pp. 5 and 6). Mr. J. E. Moss has served for twelve years as the Super intendent of the Davidson County Schools and prior to that had served for twenty-five years as a teacher and supervisor in the Davidson County School System (Vol. 2, p. 31). Mr. William H. Oliver has served as Superintend ent of the School System of the City of Nashville for the last two years plus, and prior to that had served as a prin cipal and teacher in the School System of the City of Nashville for a period of thirty-three years (Vol. 2, pp. 179-180). Mr. Floyd Detchon has served for twenty-seven years with the School System of Davidson County in the various capacities of principal and attendance and re search supervisor (Vol. 2, pp. 217-219). Mr. Melvin B. Turner has served in the School System of Davidson County for twelve years as Superintendent of Transporta *— 4 — tion (Vol. 2, p. 311). The witness, Mr. Emmett Pettie, has served for a period of fourteen years with the Davidson County School System as a teacher and school psychol ogist (Vol. 3, p. 337). Mr. A. E. Wright, who likewise testified in support of the plan, has served for a period of thirty-five years with the Davidson County School System as a teacher, coach, principal, supervisor and assistant superintendent (Vol. 4, p. 27). The other witness used by the appellees in support of the plan and who assisted in the work of the staff in formulation of the plan was Mr. Joseph R. Garrett, who has served for twelve years with the Davidson County System in child welfare and at tendance (Vol. 4, p. 70). As contrasted with these witnesses who had had daily contact with both the community and the School System of Davidson County, the appellants produced the testimony of a Dr. Long, who had never taught or supervised in any public educational institutions in either Davidson County or elsewhere (Vol. 2, pp. 275-276); Dr. Eugene Weinstein, who had never taught or worked in or for or attended a public school in this area (Vol. 3, pp. 392, 395); and Dr. J. Masuoka, whose experience was in general a study of race relations problems in Japan (Vol. 3, pp. 399-402). There are two school systems in Davidson County, Ten nessee. One is the school system of the City of Nashville, which serves a school population of approximately 30,000 pupils (Vol. 2, pp. 182-183). The other school system is the school system operated by the defendant-appellee, County Board of Education of Davidson County, Tennes see, which serves that portion of Davidson County outside of the City of Nashville and serves a school population of approximately 47,000 pupils (77a). The City of Nashville School System Plan for gradual desegregation was con sidered by the same District Court as considered the in stant case and was considered by this Honorable Court in the case of Kelley v. Board of Education, 270 F. 2d 209. ---0 As appears from the report of the Special Committee of the Davidson County School Board working with the staff and from the testimony of the witnesses, there were many problems which had to be considered by the appellee-de fendant, Board of Education, in order to formulate a plan which might work in Davidson County, Tennessee. One of the problems to be considered was the fact that the Davidson County School System was terribly overcrowded at the present time and in fact and in spite of an active building program, seventy portable or temporary build ings were being used to house the excess of pupils (66a, 87a, Vol. 2, pp. 47, 63-64, 225-226). Out of the School System of Davidson County, forty-four of the schools would be affected by a desegregation plan (78a, Vol. 1, p. 50). Another factor was the concentrations of the Negro population and the white population in the County out side of the City, which would be the area served by the Davidson County School System (66a, 67a). In addition, the Davidson County School System offers transportation to its students residing more than one and one-fourth miles from the school attended, and any alteration of the existing school system would create transportation prob lems (67a, Vol. 1, pp. 70-71, Vol. 2, pp. 51-52). The trans portation problem was not only a problem of administra tion and operation of the school bus system, but likewise involved discipline on the buses where the driver was charged not only with the operation of the bus and the safety of its operation, but the discipline of the children riding the bus, which disciplinary problems would increase with integration (67a-68a, Vol. 2, pp. 52-53, 55, 56, Vol. 3, pp. 313-315). Another important factor to the School Board, which was considered by it, was the custom in the community over many years of a segregated school system, which had to be overcome (54a, Vol. 2, pp. 60, 85, 166) and the fact that friction would arise among the student bodies by too rapid a departure from the status quo (60a, 67a). In addition, educational wise any change of a school for any cause has an adverse effect on the pupil (Yol. 2, pp. 59-68, 194), and precipitous action would cause community disturbances, property loss and grave administrative dif ficulties (65a). The School Board in preparing and offer ing the plan also considered the variance in achievement levels at higher school grade levels as between the Negro school population and the white school population and its effect on the entire school population and the educational system from an integrated system (Vol. 2, pp. 65-73, 173, 196, Vol. 3, pp. 347-354). Any change in the school system for any cause and for any reason requires a great amount of administrative work, which is time consuming, and the greater the change the more time required to work out the administrative problems (Vol. 2, p. 155). Another factor which strongly influenced the Board in recommending the plan adopted, with certain modifica tions, by the District Court for orderly integration was that the City of Nashville plan, approved by this Court in the Kelley case, supra, was familiar to the residents of the area, the teachers in the school systems and the pupils in the. school systems and had been accepted generally by the local populace (Vol. 2, p. 187). Based upon these factors the defendant-appellee, the County Board of Education of Davidson County, Tennes see, offered a plan identical with the plan previously of fered by the City of Nashville and which had been in oper ation in the community for a period in excess of three years. The only real modification made by the District Court was to increase the number of grades to start off the plan from the first grade to the first four grades in order that the Davidson County plan might be coextensive in time with the City of Nashville plan. — 6 — ARGUMENT. I. Were Appellant Negroes Entitled to Disrupt the Desegre gation Plan Approved by the Court for the Davidson County School System So as to Have Exceptions Made in Their Favor? The Court Below Answered the Question “ No” . Appellees Submit It Should Have been Answered “ No” . The effect of plaintiffs-appellants ’ argument on Ques tion No. I, is that any plan which does not immediately admit all Negroes who desire to attend desegrated schools is an invalid plan; this for the reason that if the particular plaintiffs are permitted to attend the school of their choice so would any other parties making application and thus the plan would be destroyed. Such was recognized by the District Court. No challenge has been made of a year by year plan of desegregation as such. Therefore, we will not attempt to justify the same, although we feel from the evidence ad duced and as set forth in the Statement of Facts and as found by the Court, that such a plan was one which com plied with the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States for good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date, but recognizing the public interest. We respectfully submit that unless the Supreme Court of the United States in the Brown ease (Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. ed. 1083), had recognized the necessity of flexibility in reconciling public and private needs that Court would have entered a decree immediately desegregating all classes in all public schools. — 7 — On the contrary, that Court speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Warren said: “ Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and pri vate needs. These cases call for the exercise of these traditional attributes of equity power.” (Emphasis ours.) Thus we see that the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that some private individuals might not be satisfied with a plan which was adopted for the public good. Such was recognized by the District Court in this case, as it was in the case of Kelley v. The Board of Educa tion of the City of Nashville, etc., which was subsequently approved by this Court in 270 F. 2d at 209. Such was likewise recognized by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, Fifth Circuit, 242 F. 2d 156, in the follow ing language: “ . . . a good faith acceptance by the school board of the unlying principle of equality of education for all children, with no classification by race might well warrant the allowance by the trial court of time for such reasonable steps in the process of desegregation as appeared to be helpful in avoiding unseemly con fusion and turmoil.” (Emphasis ours.) For the reason set forth in the Statement of Facts, which we will not restate, the Trial Court here found that rea sonable time was necessary in the process of the desegre gation in order to avoid confusion and turmoil. Those experienced: in education in the City of Nashville and Davidson County recognized that such a plan as was here offered was necessary in order to avoid turmoil and confusion. The only opposing evidence was the theoretical — 8 —- — 9 — testimony of those individuals who, while they had studied the subject of race relations, had had no direct contact with, and were not familiar with from their own personal experiences, the situation in Davidson County. Either the plan is a “ good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date” and should be approved without exceptions being- made which would have the effect of disrupting the plan and destroying it as a plan or in the alternative the plan itself should be rejected by this Court in violation of the very principle which this Court has already established in similar cases. We submit that it is a good faith com pliance when considering problems related to administra tion, arising from the physical condition of the school plan, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units, as well as overcoming deep-seated customs of the area, and that an attempt by plaintiffs-appellants to in effect destroy such a plan because of the “ private” interest of a few individuals should not be permitted. This Court in the case of Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, Ohio, 228 F. 2d 853, pointed out that “ good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date” did not require an immediate transition, regardless of the prac tical problems involved, and recognized that such practical problems would exist and that the primary responsibilty for the solution of the same was with the school authorities. In view of these cases we feel that the- citation to other cases from other circuits recognizing and approving de segregation on a year by year basis is not necessary. This case has been retained in the District Court, as is proper. In the absence of some change in conditions and circum stances so as to require a change in the order of the Dis trict Court and a speeding up of the desegregation plan, frankness requires us to admit that it probably will be that some of the individual plaintiffs will not. attend a 10 — desegregated school in the Davidson County system. This would be true in any instance where such a plan is adopted, and as pointed out in the testimony of the Superintendent of Schools, tlie school board is the school board of all of the children and all in any given category must be treated alike. It thus results that if the relief sought by the plaintiffs-appellants under their first prayer for relief (Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 23) were granted a plan which has already been found to be workable in the immediate area would in effect be destroyed. The argument is made that this Court in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice (then Judge) Stewart in Clemons v. Board of Education, supra, suggested that the decree in this case should have enjoined the school board to im mediately admit the plaintiffs, even though they would be without the scope of the plan. We submit that such an inference is not justified. Mr. Justice Stewart was very careful to point out the distinction between cases where racial segregation on the part of school authorities was required or permitted by the state and any change would require the uprooting of a system, of education based upon decades of state custom and state law, on the one hand; and cases, such as the Clemons case, where segregation had been contrary to the law of the state for almost sev enty years. Such a distinction is clearly set forth in the opinion at page 859 in the following language: “In the cases recently decided by the Supreme Court racial segregation on the part of the school authorities wTas required or permitted by the states involved. The Court recognized in its second opinion in those cases that the transition to an integrated school system in such states would involve many difficult practical problems, varying in each locality, but in each locality requiring the uprooting of a system of education built upon decades of state custom and state law. . . . 11 — By contract the segregation of school children be cause of their race has been contrary to the law of Ohio for almost seventy years.............. I think the ap pellants were clearly entitled to injunctive relief as a matter of right in this case.” (Emphasis ours.) Nor do the cases cited by plaintiffs-appellants in their brief (Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief, p. 15) require a differ ent conclusion from that rendered by the District Judge. It is true that where the District Court has found that the admission of one or two students to classes not integrated under the plan would not adversely affect the plan, such exercise of discretion and recognition of responsibility by the district judge will not be summarily overruled by the appellate court (See, for example, Board of Education v. Groves, Fourth Cir., 261 F. 2d 527). But where there is a reason, as there was here, and as found by the District Judge, that admission of the plaintiffs under an injunction would disrupt the plan, then the District Court has exer cised its responsibility to determine whether the plan is reasonable in all its aspects, including the duty of deter mining whether an exception to the plan in a given case should be made. II. Does the Transfer Provision of the Davidson County School System Desegregation Plan, as Approved by the Dis trict Court and as Approved by This Court in the City of Nashville School System Case, Violate the Fourteenth Amendment? The Court Below Answered the Question “ No” . Appellees Submit It Should Have Been Answered “ No” . The transfer provisions of the plan approved by the District Court here challenged by the plaintiffs-appellants 12 is identical with the section of the plan approved by this Court in the case of Kelley v. Board of Education of City of Nashville, etc., 270 F. 2d 209. We do not feel that any clearer statement of the fallacy of the plaintiffs’-appel lants’ argument could be made than the statement made by this Court, speaking through Judge McAllister, com mencing at page 228 of that opinion, where the transfer provision is discussed, and continuing through page 230 of the report of the case. We see nothing to be gained by recopying that clear statement of this Court’s opinion into this brief and thus unduly lengthening it. Certainly there is nothing in this record to indicate that there are any impediments to the exercise of a free choice by par ents, but as pointed out by this Court in the Kelley case, the District Court has retained jurisdiction during the entire period of the process of desegregation under the plan, and in the event such should appear, the District Court could make such modification as became necessary. Plaintiffs-appellants rely upon the case of Boson v. Rippy, 285 F. 2d 43 (Fifth Cir. 1960). The decision in that case we confess is in conflict with the decision of this Court in the Kelley case. A careful reading of the Boson case, however, and especially the supplemental opinion in the case, would indicate that the United States Court of Ap peals for the Fifth Circuit actually deleted the transfer provision from the plan because such would apply a rule of law to the desegregated public schools from the Dallas School District different from that applicable to other public schools in the State of Texas. That question is not here raised by the plaintiffs-appellants. On the question of classification according to race, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said only that: “ We are so doubtful of the validity of the provi sions of paragraph 6 that we think they should not be included in the plan.” 13 — This doubt seems to have been predicated upon the nota tion by the three members of the Supreme Court of the United States who thought certiorari should be granted in the Kelley case that the transfer provision constituted “ an absolute” ground for transfer of students. Such a conclusion could result only from a failure to con sider the entire plan. Section 4 of the plan as approved by the District Court in both this case and in the Kelley case (70a), provides only that transfer applications will be given consideration when such transfer is practicable and consistent with sound school administration and when “ good cause therefor is shown.” Section 5 then defines one of the “ good causes” and is the section complained of. This, however, does not make it an “ absolute” ground for transfer, but, on the contrary, means that it is a basis or ground which may be given “ careful consideration” by the school board and which may be the basis for transfer when such is practicable and consistent with sound school administration. The Boson case further overlooks the fact that while three members of the Supreme Court of the United States desired to grant certiorari on the transfer provision, the majority of the Supreme Court did not desire to grant such certiorari and accordingly certiorari was denied when the identical question was before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Robert W. Kelley et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Nashville, 361 U. S. 924, 80 S. Ct. 293, 4 L. ed. 2d 240. Accordingly, the defendants-appellees respectfully sub mit that the findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree of the Court below should be in all respects affirmed by this Court and this cause remanded to that Court so that it might retain supervision during the entire period of the — 14 — process of desegregation in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Brown case. Respectfully submitted, K. HARLAN DODSON, JR., 1106 Nashville Trust Building, Nashville 3, Tennessee, SHELTON LUTON, County Attorney for Davidson County, Tennessee, Davidson County Courthouse, Nashville 3, Tennessee, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees. Testimony of Ferris C. Bailey APPENDIX TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF. 66* MELVIN B. TURNER, called as a witness by the plaintiffs for cross-examination on his affidavit, being1 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Cross-Examination on Affidavit, By Mr. Williams: 70 Q. Well, what report has that committee ever made to the Superintendent? A. Well, one recommendation I made was my discipline problems with children of the same race would be multi plied when we integrated. Q. You made that recommendation when, now? 71 A. That is true. Oh, I have maintained that through out and still do. 5 FERRIS C. BAILEY, called as a witness in behalf of the defendants, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Dodson: Q. State your name please. A. Perris C. Bailey. Q. Mr. Bailey, you are a practicing attorney in Nash ville, Davidson County, Tennessee, and have been for a good many years. Is that rig'ht, sir? A. Yes, sir. * Numbers appearing in outer edge of text indicate page numbers of original stenographic transcript of testimony. Q. How long have you been on the Davidson County Board of Education, sir? A. I have been on the Board since 1942 or ’3. I 6 don’t remember the exact date. Q. And prior to that time, I believe you served on the City Board of Education for a period, did you not, sir? A. I served on the City Board from 1930 until January 1st, 1936. # * * * * * # Q. Mr. Bailey, following the hearing here on September 26—I believe that was the date. Anyway, the day we were down here for the original hearing on this, what action did the School Board take, the entire School Board, with reference to doing anything about formulating a plan? A. The—the Chairman of the Board appointed a. Com mittee composed of myself, Mr. S. L. Wright, and Mr. Prank White. Q. All three of you being members of the Board? 7 A. All three being members of the Board, Mr. Frank White being a past Chairman of the Board, and we were requested by the Chairman, Mr. Ed Chappell, to investigate the possibility of working out a plan pertaining to desegregation; and the Committee had several meetings with the staff, and did present the plan which has been filed in this court, and it was unanimously approved by the Board members. Q. In all fairness, Mr. Bailey, the Committee did lean primarily upon the Staff for the accumulation of data and upon Counsel for the suggestion of various possible plans, did it not? A. That’s true because, of course, as Board members, we were not as capable as the staff of producing a plan or producing the reasons for the plan. Q. Now, there has been filed here a report o f the David — 2b — Testimony of Ferris C. Bailey 3b son County Board of Education as unanimously adopted by the Board itself. This plan was presented to the Board, was unanimously adopted? A. Yes. Q. What is your judgment or your opinion, based upon the factual data that was presented to you by the Staff and the various meetings that were held, your experience from being on the school boards, both of the City of Nash ville, and of Davidson County, for many, many years and your experience as, I believe, a lifelong resident of 8 this community------ Is that right? A. That’s right. Q. (Continuing)------as respects this plan? A. Well, it ’s my opinion------ * * * * * * * A. Well, it is my opinion that the plan as presented is a more practical plan and a more workable plan than any other plan that we could possibly adopt. Q. The reasons that are set forth in this (holding up document) report, I take it, are the reasons that were the background of that conclusion? 9 A. That’s correct. * * * * * * * 30 J. E. MOSS, called as a witness in behalf of the defendants, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Dodson: * * * * * * * 31 Q. Mr. Moss, you are the Superintendent of David son County Schools, are you not? A. I am. Testimony of J. E. Moss Q. And have been for how long! A. Twelve years, almost twelve years. Q. And prior to that, were you connected with the Davidson County School System! A. Yes. Q. In what capacities? A. As teacher and supervisor for a period of 25 years prior to Superintendent. Q. Then you have had 37 years------ A. All together. 35 Q. And that was on the September 26th hearing. All right, sir. Now, since September 26th, when we were down here, has the staff done any work on this matter ! A. Yes, sir. Q. Just in fairness, much or little! A. A great deal; a great deal. Q. What members of the staff have been working on it, Mr. Moss! A. Well, myself and Mr. Detchon and Mr. Garrett and Mr. Higgins and Mr. Turner. That was the committee, and they have------ Q. That was the staff committee! A. The staff committee, and they pulled in other per sonnel for special assignments. Q. Now, what—First, what plan or plans were consid ered by the staff, what feasible answers, what possibilities were considered by the staff? A. We studied several plans or considered and discussed several plans. The one that, where some systems started at the 12th grade, we gave that------ Q. (Interrupting) Started at the 12th grade and went down ? — 4b —- Testimony of J. E. Moss 36 A. Yes; one grade at a time, and 12th—start with the 12th grade rather than the first. Then, we studied a plan or discussed a plan where you start one—start in the first grade and—and jump up into Junior High and start another. Q. Now, let me make sure I understand you. You mean it would be one a year, starting with the first through the sixth ? A. Sixth. Q. And one a year at the same time, starting seven through 12? A. Yes. Q. All right, sir. A. Then, we discussed and studied a plan, starting four grades at a time, one, two, three, four, to be even with the City. Q. Let me make sure I understand that. You consid ered a grade-a-year plan, but------ A. (Interrupting) Starting with four grades. Q. (continuing)------starting with the first four already in? A. Start with four grades and a grade a year. Q. Yes. In order to make it coincide with the Nashville Plan? A. Yes, yes. 37 All right, sir. Or with the plan presently used by the City of Nashville, I should say. Q. All right. Did you make studies as to whether or not both would work? A. Yes. We—We found more of our staff members and more of the people we were able to interview favoring the grade a year, starting with the first grade. Q. You discussed this also with your legal counsed, did you not, as to various plans? A. We discussed it with legal counsel. — 5b — Testimony of J. E. Moss Q. Did you give consideration to the so-called Nash ville Plan, the plan that was adopted by the City of Nash ville under the direction of this Court back several years ago? A. We did. Q. Who, if anyone, did you consult with in the City System? A. Well, we did quite a bit of work in the City. We went first to Superintendent Oliver’s office and studied his records. Q. Superintendent Oliver is the man that occupies with the City School System a place comparable to yours with the County System. Is that right? A. That’s right, yes. Q. All right, sir. Then, next? 38 A. Then, after we had studied the records in his office and found how the program was working in the City Schools and brought that back, our counsel ad vised us to go into the schools and see it work directly. So we visited some of the City Schools to study the rec ords and see how children were progressing and what was happening. Q. Did you make an actual physical examination of those records yourselves? A. We made an actual examination of two schools. Q. Now, Mr. Moss, I want to ask you, first, what was the result from that examination of records as respects those students who came in the first grade and have worked right on up, now, to the fourth grade: How are they comparing with their classmates where they came, say, from a school that previously had been an all-Negro school? A. We found that—that the children that started in the first grade and went along a year at a time are doing all right. There isn’t much problem, and they are—they are — 6b — Testimony of J. E. Moss keeping np satisfactorily. But, last year, there was a large number of third and fourth graders that went into the. integrated plan for the first time. Q. Now, you say last year. When do you mean by that! A. Last year, I mean the beginning, this—this Septem ber. Q. September of 1960! 39 A. For instance, in—I believe I can quote these fig ures. I have them here. I could look them up if they aren’t correct. But the first year, I believe there was something like a dozen students in the program. Q. They were all, of course, in the first grade! A. They were all first graders. Q. Yes, sir. A. The next year, they had about 30 first and second. Q. All right, sir. A. The next year, there were 40-some-odd first, second, and third graders. Q. All right, sir. A. Then, this fall, that number jumped to 150-some-odd. Q. All right, sir. A. Now, in that 150 there were quite a few fourth graders that came in for the first time, and that’s a group that is not doing well. Q. When you say “ not doing well,” are you talking about emotionally, physically, scholastically, or what, Mr. Moss! A. Both scholastically and emotionally, and—I think that would cover most of them, unhappiness. Q. Let me ask you, based on your experience, what hap pens when a child is unhappy in school or emotion- 40 ally upset in school with respect to their scholastic problems! # « # # % * * 47 Q. Now, Mr. Moss, what is the situation in the County School System as respects the use of the Testimony of J. E. Moss physical facilities, whether or not you have a substantial amount of vacant space, some vacant space, a little vacant space, or no vacant space? A. Our system is very crowded. We—We have about 70 portable rooms, temporary rooms we move around from school to school. Q. Well, has the Davidson County School System failed to build schools since you have been Superintendent! A. No. They have built a good many schools, but we just haven’t built them fast enough. Q. Have you been opening schools each year or not, new schools or new classrooms! A. We have built some each year. Q. Was that situation true in the City School System at the time the plan was put into effect there? Were the physical facilities already overtaxed or not? A. Not—Not in the White schools, no. Q. All right, sir. What has been the trend in the City Schools populationwise as contrasted with the County Schools populationwise over the last several years? A. The White children have been decreasing in the city, whereas the Negroes have been gaining. With us, it ’s been the other way. The—The Whites have gained 48 a great deal, and the Negroes have pretty well stayed normal. I mean there hasn’t been a great growth there. Q. All right, sir. What is the situation in the County School System as respects teacher load. I guess that is the way you express it; ratio pupil to teacher? A. The County has a wider ratio. We have m o re - more students per teacher. Q. What approximately is the ratio now? A. Well, we ran up about one to 30 which means in ele mentary schools it would be up considerably above 30 because you can’t—you can’t have that many in a high school very well. — 8b — Testimony of ,J. E. Moss Q. From an educational standpoint, what is the level you seek? A. We—We try in elementary one—ah, 30 children to a teacher in elementary, and 25 in high school. Q. All right, sir. Is it that high in the City School System? Do you have that many students per teacher? A. No, sir; not according to the records in Mr. Oliver’s office. Q. Now, was that factor challenged to the attention of the staff and the staff to the committee in arriving at this plan? A. Yes, sir; it was. Q. Now, I want to ask you, Mr. Moss, about the 49 concentration of school population and particularly with reference, now, to the concentration of the Negro population around the schools in the City System as contrasted, and I realize there will be another witness from your staff to testify about this, but your own knowl edge, too, as contrasted with that in the County System or that area in Davidson County outside of the City System ? A. In the City School, they are more concentrated. Ours are pretty well scattered. We have small communities all over the County as— — # # * # * * * 50 A. Yes, sir. According to the records in the City Superintendent’s office, they have ten schools inte grated now. Q. Out of how many? A. Out of 46, I believe it is. Q. All right. How many schools in the Davidson County System would be affected? A. Forty some-odd, about 44 I believe is the number. By the Court: Q. How many schools are there? Testimony of J. E. Moss — 10b — Testimony of J. E. Moss A. Eighty-five. Mr. Dodson: That was my next question. By the Court: Q. Eighty-five schools. Does that include high 51 schools and------ A. It includes—yes, sir. Q . ------Junior High? A. It includes High, Junior High and Elementary; yes. Q. How many elementary? A. Sixteen high schools, and take— — Q. Sixteen high schools? A. Yes, sir. And take that from 85, and you have------ By Mr. Dodson: Q. (Interrupting) And you have 69, I believe? A. Sixty-nine, yes. Q. And you say 44 of those would be affected? A. Forty-four of those would—would have some integra tion if all eligible went. Q. If all eligible went? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right, sir. Does the City School System operate a transportation system for its students? A. No, sir. Q. Does the County System? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Turner will be here to testify about this, too, but I want to ask you: What is the situation now with respect to whether or not school buses are operating at full 52 capacity, medium capacity, less than capacity, or running (as Greyhound buses do) with a lot of empty seats? A. They are—they are full capacities. Some of them are very, very crowded. Q. And how many trips per day, both in the morning and in the afternoon, is it necessary that each one of these buses run in order to handle the transportation system? Testimony of J. E. Moss A. They have to make three or four trips and serve—- one bus may serve three or four schools, and I believe some serve even more than that. Q. Who is in charge of the bus? Is there a teacher on the bus? A. No, sir. Q. Who is in charge of the bus itself? A. The driver. Q. What is he charged with------ A. His------ Q. ------ other than driving? A. To drive and then to look out for the safety of the children; of course, handle the discipline on the bus, and he has charge of the children and traffic and everything else. I t ’s his total responsibility. Q. He is the discipline officer as well as the chauffeur. Is that right? A. That’s right. 53 Q. What, then, is the effect on the transportation system and the safety of the children in the event there are breaches of discipline on the bus? A. We certainly don’t need to add any more discipline to his list of troubles. # * * * # # # 55 Q. Mr. Moss, what happens when you put children of 56 different age groups on a bus. Does that increase or decrease these disciplinary problems that you have been talking about? A. It would increase them. Q. It does now, doesn’t it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is consideration given to that in attempting to as sign school buses? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Moss, was that one of the factors that was given consideration by the staff and by the committee in pre senting this plan? A. Yes, it was. Q. You didn’t attempt to weigh each factor with the committee, did you, as to how much weight should be given to it as compared to some other factor? A. No. But we recognized that as a serious problem because we would have—After we get to school, we have got a teacher to look after every group, but on the bus, the driver has as many as 130 children sometimes to handle. And that’s serious. Q. On one bus? A. On one bus, yes. Q. Now, populationwise—I am not talking about just school population, but populationwise, if you will, if 57 you can, compare the concentrations of population by races in the City and in the County outside of the City. A. I can compare school children. I can’t compare the— — Q. Well, compare the school children then if you will. A. For instance, the City Schools have about 17,000 White children and 12,000-something Negroes, where we have forty-five Whites and 2,400 Negroes. Q. As a result, have the Negroes and the WTiites lived closer together in the City or not? A. Well, they have been in more concentrated groups, yes, concentrated communities. Q. And what about the association that has taken place between Negro and White in the City as compared within the County by virtue of that? Has it been more or less association between the two races in the City? A. Well, I would think there’d be more. I wouldn’t know that for sure. Testimony of J. E. Moss Q. All right, sir. Then you can’t testify to that. Was that one of the things that you gave consideration to? A. Yes, sir. # * * # . * * * 58 Q. Mr. Moss, did the committee and the staff give any consideration to when any plan that is put in should become effective? A. Yes; yes. We would like to start any plan at the be ginning of the school year. Q. Why is that? A. Well, there are less interruptions. You can—You can plan for the beginning of a year. I t ’s difficult to plan for a program that starts in the middle of the year. And our Board has for several years followed a plan of register ing in the spring. As was brought out before, that has proved very effective and saves a great deal of time in the fall, and we hope we can continue to follow that sort of plan. 59 Q. You say it would cause confusion to attempt to do it at midyear, during the year? A. Yes. Q. Well, now what happens to teacher time and what happens to education of the students when you have con fusion? A. Well, it ’s interrupted, and—and children lose. We— We never move children in the middle of the year if we can avoid it. Even if a child moves all the way across town, if he can get back to the place where he started, we—we will permit him to stay there. Q. For the balance of that school year? A. For the balance of that school year, and then trans fer at the end of the year. Q. I believe there is some state law to that effect, isn’t there, or do you know? — 13b — Testimony of J. E. Moss A. I don’t know of any law to that effect. Q. Well, what happens to a student or a child when they are moved during the middle of a school year ? What happens to their own educational progression? A. Most of the time they become unhappy and they— their grades show up reduced. Q. Now, from telephone calls that you have received, letters that you have received, and communications on the street and elsewhere, you and the other members of the staff, would you say that there is public concern 60 over the integration of the schools, or not? A. There certainly is. Q. Would that be, in your opinion—and I am talking about based on your experience with all factors in school life. Would that be more, or less, if this is held over until the beginning of your school year next year? A. The people would be better satisfied if we could wait over till next year. Q. What about the teachers? A. The teachers would, too. Q. What about attempting to prepare the student body? A. We need this time to get teachers and students and parents adjusted to it, and it would work much better if we had that time. Q. This plan provides, does it not, Mr. Moss, for a re quest for transfer? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you examine the records of the City of Nash ville? I don’t want you to testify to them in detail, but did you examine them to see whether there had been a request for transfer under that? A. Yes. Q. You anticipate the same would be------ A. Our records show a large number would ask for transfer. Testimony of J. E. Moss 61 Q. You anticipate the same would be true in the county? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right, now, can you just automatically handle those requests for transfers, or would they require any time? A. It would take time to draw these zones fairly. That shouldn’t be done in haste. Q. Now, I am talking about the request to transfer it self. When is the easy time, the time that that can be handled without a disruption of the school system? A. When school is not going on or in the spring when we register. * * * * * * * 63 Q. Now, then, an application was made here by some of these students originally to go to the Antioch School or Glencliff, as they said, and I want to ask you if you have checked to see which zone they would be in now. A. They would be in the Antioch zone. Q. All right, sir. So assuming no segregation of schools at all, they would go to the Antioch School. Is that right? A. That is correct. Q. Now, I want to ask you about the Antioch School and the physical facilities there as contrasted with the other schools in the County System. Are there more classrooms with people not in them, or------ A. It is one of our worst spots. We added eight class rooms there this year, and we still have either four or live portables there that we hoped to move away and couldn’t. Q. Well, is it a fair statement to say that even right now it is bursting at the seams? A. It is. Q. What about your teacher-pupil ratio there? Is it 64 out of line or is it in line with the rest of the system? A. Well, I can’t give you those facts, but I know it -— 15b — Testimony of J. E. Moss would be pretty heavy, because always in the crowded spots teachers are more crowded, because if he had more rooms there, we might add another teacher. Q. Were those factors reported by the staff, considered by the staff, and reported to the committee, and considered by the committee in the formulation of this plan? A. Yes, sir. Q. And this report? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right, tell us what you know about it. (Let’s put it that way) as respects the difference between stu- 65 dents in the Negro class or the Negro race and stu dents of the White race, first grade, second, and on up, from these achievement tests? A. We have a system of testing and guidance in the County Schools as all school systems have, at least all good systems, and we give what is called a standardized test, a readiness test to the first graders to see if they are ready to work with figures and are ready to learn to read. The tests in the first four grades are given by the teacher and graded by the teacher. Those in five, six, seven and eight are given by the teacher, but they are cards that can be machine scored, and they are scored for the most part out at A and I. Now, our records show, and Mr. Petty will tell you if he comes up here, that the Negro children and the White children are pretty close together in the first grade. Now, as they go along the Negro children fall behind. This is true in the county, and it was also true in the city. I investigated the records of Mr. Oliver, and it is true there. By the time they get to the sixth grade they are a year to a year and a half behind the White students. Q. Was that one of the factors that was considered by the staff, reported by the staff to the committee, and con — 1 6b -- Testimony of J. E. Moss sidered by the committee both with respect to the advis ability of the grade-a-year plan and when it should be put into effect? 66 A. It certainly was. # = & # * * * # 68 Cross-Examination, By Mr. Williams: 73 Q. Do you think there is something wrong with the teachers in the integrated schools in Nashville that they are just falsely labelling these children as having made unsatisfactory progress! A. No, I think the cause lies deeper than that. I think you have got the children upset, and they are not doing their best. When you move them—If you start when chil dren are small, when they are first graders, it is a little different proposition than at an older age, or third or fourth grade. * # # # # * * 85 A. If you start with a grade a year, you have got little children that have no fixed prejudice, they have no racial consciousness, they are more interested in the teacher than they are in students, and they will get started off better and do a better educational job. 86 Q. Yes, sir. That’s primarily based on your theory that they have no racial prejudice? A. That’s based on a lot of things, including the study of the City School System. # # # # # # # 155 A. I am sure the Board will work out these zones, that they will be made available to all people, all schools, and that’s a thing that we need time on. That’s the reason we are begging for this spring registration. — 17b — Testimony of J. E. Moss 1(56 Q. Well, M]r. Moss, I don’t have reference just to the Maxwell children. I am talking about all Negro children and all White children. After all, they have a stake in this, too, you know. A. Let me make this statement: W"e—we, again, work for the people, and there has been a custom for, lo, these many years, and any change in our thinking should come gradual and slow to avoid hurting children, both Negro and White. 173 Redirect Examination, By Mr. Dodson: Q. Mr. Moss, when a school child—I am not talking about an integrated or segregated school. When a school child gets behind in its work, be it he or she, do they tend to subsequently catch up, or get further behind? A. Get further behind. Q. And if they start out behind they tend to get further behind, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. You of your own knowledge know the public famil iarity with the Nashville Plan here, do you not, in this community? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that considered by the staff, the committee, and the Board in connection with------ - 174 A. Yes. Q. ------proposing this plan? A. Yes, sir. Q. Something they were always familiar with! A. Yes. •— 18b —< Testimony of J. E. Moss Testimony of William Henry Oliver 179 WILLIAM HENRY OLIVER, a witness called on behlf of the defendants, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Luton: Q-. This is Mr. Oliver? A. Yes, my name is William Henry Oliver. Q. What is your profession or occupation, Mr. Oliver? A. I am Superintendent of the Nashville City Schools. Q. And how long have you been Superintendent of the Nashville City Schools? A. I became Superintendent of the Nashville City Schools officially on the first of January, 1958. Prior to that time, I had served for six months as Assistant Super intendent. Q. Now, prior to your being Assistant Superin- 180 tendent, what did you do, Mr. Oliver? A. I had been at East Nashville High School for 25 years, the last 18 of which I served as principal. Prior to that I had taught two years at Hume-Fogg High School. Prior to that I had had two or three years’ experience teaching elsewhere. Q. So that, I believe, adding up all together, you have about 30 years’ experience as an educator. Is that correct? A. I have had 30 in the Nashville City Schools and two and a half outside of the Nashville City Schools. Really 32y2 years—33%, excuse me. * * * * * * * 182 Q. Can you identify that document that I handed you there? Is that a photostat of one of your of ficial records? A. This is a copy of the enrollment in my schools, all of the schools. It just happens that I had a meeting of my supervisors staff this morning and read to them all these figures; and as I look at these now, they seem to be quite correct. I don’t believe this is a photostatic copy, but I think that the figures are correct. And according to this, we have 17,372 White students. Q. And how many Negro students? 183 A. And 12,815 Negro students, giving a total of 30,187. I think those figures are correct, sir. # # # # # # # 187 A. Mr. Attorney, may I take the liberty of saying that I think that the Court made a very wise de cision and that our experience with the plan has justified my feeling. Excuse me for taking the time. Thank you. # # # * * * # 190 Q. Now, Mr. Oliver, as His Honor has just indi cated, and we do want you to elaborate on that, with respect to the feature of the City Plan which has to do with transfers, that is, the transfer upon application of a student. Will you state to His Honor whether there have been transfers or applications, therefore, from either race pursuant to that provision? A. There have been many transfers. The plan provides for transfers. I don’t want to take up too much time, but maybe I should state this: According to our plan, every elementary school has a zone, and that zone is established without regard for race. Each school has a zone of its own, and the doors of the schoolroom in that zone are open to all children who live in that zone, regardless of race. Now, in many of our zones we have both White and Negro children. In some we have a great majority of Negro children and in others we have a great majority of White children. We offer a child or his parents the priv ilege of requesting a transfer from that zone to some other zone if the parents of a child prefer that the child attend — 20b — Testimony of William Henry Oliver 21b — school with members of his own race. In other words— Now, these are not the only reasons, but these are some of the reasons for transfer. If a child is in the racial minority, either in his class or in his school, he, through his parents may request a transfer to some other 191 school outside of that zone, in order that he may be in school with other children of his own race. The way it works is: The transfer is granted for one year at a time. The student can change his mind after one year if he wants to. In other words, if there is a Negro child in a White school zone, let us say, he has a choice each year as to which one he attends. He is not bound one year by the choice of another year. The first year, for instance—I remember the figures very well. The first year, we had 115 little Negro children who were eligi ble in the first grade to attend White schools. A hundred and five of them requested transfers. The other ten went to the schools in the zones in which they lived where most of the children were White. We had 55 White children living in what we might call the Negro school zones, and they all asked transfers, and they were granted. Now, we think that through the press, radio, television, and through the principals and teachers, everybody in our community knows our plan rather well. We do not send individual letters or notices to children’s parents telling them what zone they are in. We thought of doing that, but we were afraid that someone might think that we were trying to influence parents one way or another as to where they sent their children to school. So we didn’t do 192 it. We never have done it. Furthermore, we do not require the child to go in person to the school from which he wants a transfer. The reason for that is: You take a White school in whose zone there are just maybe three or four little Negro chil dren. It is embarrassing to those children, and originally Testimony of William Henry Oliver it might have been dangerous for them to go to this school in person to ask for the transfer. We say to the parents: “ Send yonr child where you want the child to go, and if that is a school in whose zone the child does not live, then the principal gives the child a transfer request card to take home. His parent signs the card and sends it back to the principal, and the principal sends it to the super intendent, and the superintendent passes on the request. I might say that I personally have passed on every re quest for transfer that has ever been made in the Nash ville City Schools, and I have granted the requests which have been made. I don’t know whether I have made that clear or not, but I want it to be clear that the parent has an absolute choice as to whether his child attends school in the zone in which he lives or not. He has the right to go there. If the parent thinks it is to the interest of the child to go to a school in another zone in order to be with children of his own race, the parent may request permission 193 for the child to be transferred and get it. If that isn’t clear, I would appreciate your questioning me further on it. Q. Mr. Oliver, I think you have made it abundantly clear. The sum and substance of it all is that in compli ance with the plan, you have made it voluntary for those who want to avail themselves of that voluntary feature. 196 The Witness: Well, I think that the smaller the child is, the younger the child is, the less the prob lem of adjusting to the new situation. Of course, we have had a number of children who started in desegregated schools who had never been in a segregated school, and our records indicate, and our observation convinces us that they achieve normal success; whereas, others who Testimony of William Henry Oliver have transferred from, let us say, a segregated to a de segregated school later, have had more difficulty in ad justing themselves socially and scholastically. I think that the problem is less at the beginning than it is higher up. Cross-Examination, By Mr. Williams: 202 Q. Now, your plan says that a student may—that if his parents or guardian make written application for him to transfer to a school outside a zone, that request will be given consideration and granted and then a subse quent paragraph of your plan which is exactly the same as the Davidson County plan, sets forth these racial cri teria based on the majority or minority in the classroom or in the school. That’s correct, isn’t it! A. As some of the reasons which may be offered for a request, that is right. Q. Yes, Mr. Oliver, will you explain to the Court how it becomes a transfer if a Negro child who lives in the zone for Warner and who has been attending Elliott, or, rather, who would have attended Elliott under your separate Negro zoning system, how does it become a transfer if he is just permitted to go on to Elliott without ever having seen Warner, as a matter of fact, without having known that he was zoned in Warner? A. Well, he has to get a transfer. A student has to get a transfer from one school district to another, even if he hasn’t been to one school. 203 Q. Then, what you mean by transfer is that it ’s a transfer made on paper and it ’s made at the segre gated school to which he goes, isn’t it? A. A transfer, of course, is made on paper. Testimony of William, Henry Oliver Q. Yes, sir. A. Any transaction of that kind is. The student doesn’t have to have it made at the segregated school to which he goes. He may go to the school in his own and get it there if he wants to. We don’t require them to go there. We are just, of course, trying to protect them from em barrassment and danger, but a student may go to a school in his own zone to get his transfer if he wants to. Q. While you are on that, Mr. Oliver, is it your opinion that it facilitates peaceful desegregation for the public officials who are attempting to carry out desegregation to be always talking about protecting somebody from danger and that there might be danger and there might be vio lence? Is that your opinion as an expert? A. I think I ’d be very foolish and blind not to recognize that there was some danger, and I think that I would be rather thoughtless of the children if I hadn’t tried to de vise some way to protect them from it. Now, this plan was started in 1957, and I think there was abundant evi dence that there was some danger. •v. -It- -5£* -4£*-n~ '7r -tv- 'A- 216 A. I t ’s not just a matter of which school a child lives closest to. You can’t just draw the boundary lines exactly midway between schools, but I would say this: If your child lives inside the City of Nashville, he lives in the zone of some elementary school. I don’t know wdiich one. It doesn’t matter. But the whole city is zoned, and if you live inside the city, your child lives in some ele mentary school zone. Regardless of what school zone that is, your child may attend that school. Now, if that happens to be a school in which your child would be in the racial minority, you may ask for a transfer for him to go elsewhere if you wish. Is my answer clear? * # * # # * # — 24b — Testimony of William, Henry Oliver 217 FLOYD A. DETCHON, a witness called on behalf of the defendants, being first dnly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Dodson: W -ft- -ft- -vr -7r A 218 Q. In what capacity? A. I was the principal of an elementary school. Q. And how long as a principal of an elementary school ? A. About 15 years. Q. And then subsequently what happened? A. I went to the Attendance Division of Davidson County Schools. Q. And it ’s with the Attendance Division that you are now associated? A. No. I am now working in the Research Department. Q. How long were you with the Attendance Division? 219 A. About ten years. Q. And then how long have you been in the Research Department? A. This is my second year in the Research Department. * * * * * * * 225 Q. All right, sir. Can you state for me what the present situation is with respect to the facilities? A. Well, we have------ Q. Were you operating at capacity, less, or more? A. The majority of our schools are crowded, over crowded. Q. Mr. Moss has testified generally about the new build ings that have been constructed over the last several years. You heard him testify. Is there anything you can add to that? A. No, sir; I don’t think so. — 25b — Testimony of Floyd A. Detchon Q. How many portable buildings are presently in use? A. About 70. Q. Mr. Moss was asked about the number of new school buildings that have been constructed. I want to ask you if, in addition to the construction of new schools, there has been a construction program under way of additions to existing schools or additional school rooms? A. Yes, sir; that’s true. Q. Each year? A. Each year. Q. Yes. What is the situation, if this falls within your field, of teacher load in the Davidson County School 226 System? A. Yes, sir; I have some figures on that. Q. Can you state what they are please? And if you have it both with respect to the Negro school and the White school under the present system, I would be glad to have it that way. A. Our teacher-pupil ratio for the White elementary g<3h00l—and I want to give them separately because we expect the elementary school to handle a little bigger load pupil-teacher ratiowise than in high school. Q. Yes, sir. A. So the elementary figure is 31.6 for the White schools. For the Negro elementary schools, it is 33.8. White high schools, 28.4; Negro high school, 29.2. And as a whole, both high and elementary, 30.56. Q. Are you prepared to state, or is it within your field of work with the County Board of Education to state, what the desirable pupil-teacher ratio is that you seek to obtain in the system? A. We would like to get elementary schools on a 30-per- teacher average; whereas, high schools, we prefer to have 25. ■— 26b —- Testimony of Floyd A. Detchon :X= * # # # * * — 27b — Testimony of Dr. Herman A. Long 240 DR. HERMAN A. LONG, a witness called on behalf of the plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: * W -fiF "TV W 'K- 275 Cross-Examination, By Mr. Dodson: Q. Doctor, did you testify in the Nashville case! A. Yes, I did. Q. And your opinion was the same then that it is now! A, I think so. Q. You never taught in the public schools here in Dav- vidson County? A. I didn’t. Q. Nor the City of Nashville? A. No, I didn’t. Q. You never were a supervisor in any of those schools? A. No. I have been teaching, however, though, for— — Q. You have been teaching in private—In Fisk? A. At Fisk, at Miles College in Birmingham, Alabama. I was Dean of Instruction at Miles College before I came to Fisk University. Q. Your teaching and your supervisory work has been on a college level? A. On a college level, although I have supervised stu dents who have been teaching in the public schools. 276 Q. Now,.let’s don’t get too deep in this psychology and sociology. I didn’t do too well in that subject. Let’s get down to Union-Street and Church-Street talk. I t ’s true, is it not, Doctor, in all fairness, that every area has its own problems and that the problems are different in the various areas? That is a correct statement, isn’t it? A. I think it is. Q. As respects this problem of school integration or integration elsewhere. That’s a correct statement, isn’t it? 28b — A. I think what yon are saying is that there are unique factors in almost every human situation, and I would cer tainly have to say this is true, and there are also common factors. Q. You are running away from the Union-Street talk on me now. A. I am saying the same thing you are saying. Q. That’s what I want to know. You agree with my statement, then, is that right? A. That’s right. # # # * # * = * Testimony of Melvin B. Turner 311 MELVIN B. TURNER, a witness called on behalf of the defendants, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Luton: Q. You are Mr. Melvin B. Turner? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Turner? A. Supervisor of Transportation, Davidson County School System. Q. Speak out loud so that man sitting way back in the corner can hear you now. How long have you been the Supervisor of Transporta tion in the County School System? A. Twelve years. This is the 13th year. Q. What are your principal duties as the Supervisor of Transportation ? A. My principal duties is to provide for adequate bus service to all children within our county regardless of race who are eligible for such service, provide safe and efficient bus service. Q. Now, when you say who are eligible, what is the meaning of that! What children are eligible for bus transportation ! A. Eligibility is based on a-mile-and-a-quarter dis- 312 tance from school, and handicapped children of any distance are eligible for service. * * * * * * * 313 Q. Now, Mr. Turner, how many drivers do you em ploy per bus? A. Only one driver. Now, we have substitute drivers, but we only have one driver with a bus. Q. At one time? A. At one time. Q. Do you have any other supervisory personnel 314 on the bus in addition to the driver? A. We do not, sir. Q. Now, then, in addition to driving the bus, then, what other principal duties does the bus driver have? A. Ilis responsibility is sort of a dual nature with the— He is charged with the safe operation of his vehicle and also with the safety of the children who ride his bus, and is responsible for their proper conduct while riding the bus. Safety and discipline is his dual responsibility. Q. In addition to, of course, driving the bus properly? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, Mr. Turner, do you know whether desegregation of the county schools will present any problems in trans portation, in county school bus transportation? A. It will, sir; yes, sir. Q. What are the problems that you can think of that it would present? A. Well, the first problem, sir, would be rerouting of buses under the desegregated plan, and that would be quite entailed. Q. Let me ask you this: Under the present plan your — 29b — Testimony of Melvin B. Turner pupils are segregated on buses just like they are in schools, are they not? A. Yes, they are. 315 Q. So that you say the principal problem presented, then, would be the rerouting of your buses? What other problems would it present, if any? A. Well, relative to rerouting, when we reroute, we change enrollments on the buses. That means that princi pals and drivers both have to make out new registers of the pupils, and that also changes schedules in which buses will operate when you rearrange routes. Where we ran one street at an early time, maybe on the rearrangement they will run at a late time, or vice versa. Rearrangement does change the time, and the pupils must be well informed of this or they will miss their bus for a while and are left standing. And then another thing, under some rearrangements school schedules are affected. We think that the success of our being able to transport so many children, three and two-tenths trips per bus, is dependent upon, one thing, the staggering of school schedules. So we do stagger school schedules to permit efficiency of transportation. # # # # # * # 316 Q. Now, do you know that some of the plaintiffs in this case are the Maxwell children. Do you know the family to which I refer? A. I do. Q. Do you know where they live? A. Yes, sir, I know where they live. Q. Now, under the present setup, if they went to high school, or any of the Maxwell children, what school would they go to under the present setup? A. They would go to Haynes High School. Q. Now, then, they have asked to go to Antioch School. Now, you know the locations of those two schools? — 30b — Testimony of Melvin B. Turner Testimony of Melvin B. Turner A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, will you tell us if they went to Antioch School what would be the difference, if you can say, between the consumed time in their going to and coming from 317 school? A. The scheduling and because of load equalization, we—it ’s a continuous process of routing buses, and those changes from time to time, what is true now may not be at a later time or may not have been true last year. But presently I ’d like to say this: If those children went direct to each school it would only entail 10 minutes to Antioch and 25 to Haynes if they went direct. But now neither route is direct. Now, going to Haynes and with a bridge out presently, those children would be about 40 minutes getting to Haynes and 40 minutes getting home from Haynes, or getting to their bus stop, which would be a half a mile from their home. That would be true in either case, that they’d be a half a mile from the bus stop. Now, the peculiar routing, as I have explained, to Antioch there would be right at 30 minutes entailed at morning, and in the afternoon they’d have two routes home. And there is a—on the one, be there room for them, they would get in in about 15 minutes; on the other they would be 40 minutes, but now I think they’d get home in 15 minutes right now. Q. Now, there are white children under the present setup living in the same general neighborhood as the Maxwell children, are there not? A. Yes, sir. 318 Q. And they now go to Antioch High School, is that correct ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, what would you say (the best you can give it) is the difference between the time of departure from their homes in the morning by bus of those Antioch High School white students and that which would be true of the Max well children if they went to Haynes School? A. In that particular area, going to Antioch I don’t believe I have the question just too------ Q. We will take it in parts. At what time would the white children in the Maxwell neighborhood board the bus to go to Antioch School in the morning? A. Directly in front of their road, they would board the bus at five minutes, approximately, of eight, be at Antioch at 8:25. Immediately behind his house on the street—he lives on a dead-end street, and it lacks about 200 feet open ing into another street. Right there he can see a bus that would parallel this one at morning, but there is 20 minutes difference in the return that afternoon. That’s the reason why I was speaking of the way it presently is and is sub ject to change. If buses are overloaded we have to re route, and they are victims of rerouting. Sometimes they are benefited while others are penalized. Q. All right. Now, the departure time that would 319 have to be true of the Maxwell children to go to Haynes School, what time would that be? A. Seven-thirty, they would depart; and at 8:10 they would be at Haynes right now. Q. All right. Now, then, with respect to what time they get home in the afternoon, what time would the white chil dren from Antioch who live in the vicinity of the Max wells get home in the afternoon? A. From Antioch in the vicinity of them, at their par ticular stop, would be home just shortly after four o ’clock. Q. Shortly after four? A. Four-ten, approximately. Q. Approximately 4:10. What time would the Maxwell children arrive home from Haynes? A. That would be 4:30 with our bridge out, and that Testimony of Melvin B. Turner route has been increased, incidentally, ten minutes in the past month. Q. By what? By the bridge? A. By more pick-ups. Q. How long has the bridge been out? Is that just some thing recently? A. The bridge has been out since school opened this fall and may be out another month or two. Q. When that is restored it would be what? 320 A. When it is restored it would be about a 30-minute trip and that is near 12 miles, about the time it would take a child to walk a mile or a mile and a quarter to school. Q. Now, some other plaintiffs, the Driver children and the Clark children, do you know where they live? A. Yes, sir; they are over in Bordeau. Q. All right. Now, if they were to attend a school now operated as a white school, what school would that be? A. That would he Bordeau------ Q. How far------ A. Elementary and Cumberland High. Q. Do you know where they live? Do you know where the Driver children live? A. Yes, sir. Just—not which house, but approximately. Q. Do you know7 how far it is from Bordeau School? A. It would be near the mile. Mr. Williams: If Your Honor please, I object to his tes timony. He says he doesn’t know which house; therefore, he can’t know. By Mr. Dodson: Q. Do you know what street? A. I know which street. I have checked on it. The Court: That will be close enough. What grade 321 are these children in? Mr. Williams: The Driver children, if Your Honor please? Testimony of Melvin B. Turner — 34b — Testimony of Melvin B. Turner The Court: Yes. The Witness: Oh, the third, fourth or fifth. Mr. Williams: I t ’s second, fourth and sixth. The Court: That’s all the children except the Maxwell children? Mr. Williams: No, sir. There is little Deborah Clark who is------ - The Court: Yes, Clark. What grade is she in? Mr. Williams: Fifth grade. The Court: All right. By Mr. Luton: Q. Now, how far does the Clark family—do you know where they live? A. I did know a month ago. I have forgotten which one lives where now. Q. Do you know the distance? Have you had in your mind, have you computed the distance? A. That was—they were all between the—about between three-quarters and a mile, right in that range, what I esti mated it to be. I didn’t measure it, I estimated it. Q. That would be within the mile-and-a-quarter 322 limit------ A. Yes, within a mile and a quarter of Bordeau. Q. ------within which they have to walk to school— — A. That’s correct. O. ------if transportation is not afforded? A. Yes. Q. Now, Mr. Turner, do you know of many instances where the departure time in the morning of white children is as early or earlier than what you mentioned for the Maxwell children, what it would be for them? A. Only three miles from where the Maxwell children live, children attending Antioch High School catch a bus on the—at five of seven. Antioch High opens at 8:30. They have an hour and a half. In the afternoon, they’d be on this same 4:10 bus, and they would get home at 4:30; and that would be 45 minutes after school was out in the afternoon, an hour and a half before school takes in at morning. These are white children attending Antioch High School. Now, those who catch a bus at 7 o ’clock for 8:30 high schools are at a minimum. We don’t have large groups. There are just a few in remote area, but we—we don’t have too many that way. We do have a few at several of our high schools picked up around 7 o ’clock, or even before, for the 8:30 high school. Of course, the same is true 323 for Haynes. Some are picked up before 7 o ’clock for their 8:30 opening. # * * * # # # 336 Redirect Examination, By Mr. Luton: Q. Mr. Turner, just one question: You did say that there are White children who take an hour and a half getting to or from school who live—— A. Oh, yes. I am speaking of from Antioch High School. There are children right at an hour and a half— The ones most remote by routing, not by distance as the crow flies, are right at an hour and a half getting home; whereas, the children in the same community are getting in from Haynes because they did not have too many stops at too many high schools. * # # # # # # R. EMMETT PETTIE, 337 called as a witness in behalf of the defendants, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Dodson: Q. For the record will you please state your name? A. R. Emmett Pettie, better known as Bob. Testimony of R. Emmett Pettie Q. Mr. Pettie, what is your age? A. I will be 47 next month. Q. What is your residence? A. 1402 Woodmont. Q. That’s in Davidson County? A. In Nashville, in Davidson County. Q. Mr. Pettie, by whom are you employed? A. Davidson Comity Board of Education. Q. And have been for how long? A. This is the 14th year. Q. In what capacity? A. For three years I was a classroom teacher, and this is my eleventh year as the county school psychologist. Q. What is your background, experience, education and training, sir? Relate it in its entirety? A. Oh, I had two years of college work at Junior Col lege at Martin, Tennessee, before it was made a four-year college. I had some work at the University of Tennessee, some at University of Pittsburgh. I got my Bach- 338 elor’s from Peabody, got my Master’s from Peabody. I have done a little over two years of graduate work beyond my Master’s, taking courses at both Peabody and Vanderbilt. Q. And your work presently, you are licensed as what? A. Psychological examiner. Q. Psychological examiner. You have some work toward a doctorate, do you not? A. I have more than two years beyond the masters. Q. What experience have you had in the field of psy chological testing other than in the Davidson County School System, if any? A. No experience other than training. Q. And that training was in conjunction with your col lege work? A. That’s right. . — 36b — Testimony of R. Emmett Pettie Q. Now, will you explain to me and to the Court what your duties are, your actual duties in the Davidson County School System; that is, what do you do in the way of psychological testing? A. There are several facets to the work. One is to plan for a group testing program for the entire county system. One is to do individual testing of those children who are referred for various reasons. Another is to work with teachers in in-service. Another is to work with the rest of the staff in planning for an improved program 339 for the entire school system. * = * # * * # # 347 Q. All right. Now, you were present in the—Oh, no. I want to ask you something else. What, then, is the conclusion, the psychological conclusion that is to be drawn from the figures that you have just given us? A. I don’t think you can call it psychological or not, Mr. Dodson, but the figures on last spring’s testing, and I went back and checked other years to see if it was a pattern------ Q. Well, was it, or not? A. Yes. Q. All right, A. It shows that there is very little range at the first- grade level. Q. In other words about the same? A. The variance is very little, but as they move up a grade, it consistently gets wider, the achievement level. Q. The achievement level? A. Yes. Q. What does the achievement level mean with refer ence to the preparedness or ability of the child to 348 enter into a particular grade? A. I don’t know whether I understand that or not, Testimony of R. Emmett Pettie Q. What does it indicate to you. as an educator? What does 4.5 indicate to you as an educator? A. 4.5 indicates to me that that child has the informa tion at hand that would make him. able to operate on the concepts that we would have in the fifth month of the fourth grade. Q. All right, sir. It doesn’t reflect upon whether or not he had the intelligence to acquire? That may be a factor or may not. Is that correct? A. That’s right. Q. But it is actually what he has acquired. A. Bight. Q. And the ability to acquire that information, you refer to in another type of testing as intelligent quotient? A. That’s right. Q. All right. Now, what are the factors, or factor if there is just one, that bring about achievement ratings or achievement levels? A. You mean what things influence a child’s making- progress at the expected rate? Q. Eight. A. Motivation is one of the big factors. Q. What do you mean by motivation? 349 A. A child’s own desire to learn for one thing. The parents’ desire for their child to learn and pro viding the opportunity is a motivation factor. Environ ment has something to do with it. Opportunity has another thing to do with it, Instruction has something to do with it. Materials provided to acquire information is an important factor. Q. All right. Now, let me ask you, if you know, is there any distinction between the materials furnished to work with in the schools that are presently operated as all-Negro schools and those that are operated as all-White schools in the Davidson County system? — 38b — Testimony of R. Emmett Pettie A. They share alike. Q. What about the textbooks! A. They use the same ones. Q. Same ones? A. Uh-huh. They use the same guides, curriculum guides. Q. Is there any difference in the material of any kind that is furnished to the two different groups? A. Not that I know of. Q. Are you familiar with the standings (I am talking about the professional standings or the professional back ground or the educational background) of the teachers in the Negro schools as comapred with those in the 350 White schools ? A. I can give you information that is two years old. Q. All right. Has there been any substantial change since then? A. No. Q. Well, we will reverse it. What is teacher salary based on? 351 A. Teacher salary is based on training and experi ence or length of service. Q. What was the last, or in-service? A. Length of service. Q. Length of service plus what? A. Training. Q. By training do you mean degrees, educational back ground ? A. That is right,. Q. All right. Those are the factors which raise the salary? A. That’s right. Q. Otherwise, you have a basic salary? Is that correct? A. That’s right. — 39b — Testimony of R. Emmett Pettie Q. All right. Now, having made that statement, will you go ahead with the statement you started to make on the salaries? A. The highest average was the Negro men; teachers, of course. Q. Yes. A. Next was the Negro women. Next was the White men, and the lowest average pay was the White women teachers. This was two years ago. Q. And you say if there has been any change, it would be a lowering of the White teachers? 352 A. It would not change appreciably. 354 Q. Now, I want to ask you this one additional ques tion and then I am through: Assume, for the mo ment, that you place a child, be it a Negro child or a White child, in a substantially lower (and by that I mean a year lower) achievement average, with the other group the norm of a year higher, what is the effect on that child educationwise ? A. Now, we have to assume that, within that grade that you are placing this one child, that there is a varia tion. Q. Yes, sir. A. But if the average variation is one grade less, it makes the competition for that individual child who is one grade behind, his average is one grade behind the average, that much harder. He not only has to produce what they are doing, but catch up that much. It makes it more difficult for the teacher, too, because the 355 range is made that much wider. — 40b — Testimony of R. Emmett Pettie 41b — 374 DR. EUGENE WEINSTEIN, a witness called on behalf of the plaintiffs, being first, duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: * * # # * # # 392 Cross-Examination, By Mr. Dodson: Q. Doctor, did yon ever teach in any of the public schools ? A. I have not taught in public school. Q. Were yon ever in a supervisory capacity in any public schools? A. I have never worked for, directly, a public school system. I have done research in them. Q. Did you ever attend a public school south of the Mason-Dixon. line? A. I did not. Q. Doctor, you have been living in this area now for two years. Is that right? A. A little over two years. That is correct. 395 Q. If I understand it, the study that you made here was based on interviews? A. That is correct. Q. And those interviews were all with Negro parents? A. Correct. Q. No interviews with White parents? A. No, wasn’t part of the problem of study. Q. No interviews with teachers, either Negro or White? A. No, it wasn’t part of the study problem. Q. No interviews with children, either Negro or White in the school grades? A. No, this was not a problem addressed in the study. Testimony of Dr. Eugene. Weinstein Q. Doctor, you refer to this attitude against separating children. As a matter of fact, children are separated in families constantly, aren’t they, between kindergarten, elementary, junior high and high school'? A. Yes. This happens. Q. And parents still go on and send them to school, though, don’t they? A. Certainly. * * # # # * # 399 JITSUICHI MASUOKA, a witness called on behalf of the plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Williams: Q. Will you state who you are, sir? A. Just call me J. Masuoka. Q. Dr. J. Masuoka? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Masuoka, you are very soft spoken. If these gentlemen are going to hear you, you are going to have to make a special effort to speak loudly. Sir, are you a resident of Nashville, Tennessee? A. Yes. Q. How long have you been living here, sir? A. About 19 years. 400 Q. I believe you are a native of Japan, are you not, sir? A. Yes. Q. And are you a naturalized citizen? A. I was naturalized in this very court six years ago. I was naturalized here six years ago. Q. Dr. Masuoka, where are you employed? A. Fisk University. — 42b — Testimony of Jitsuichi Masuoka Q. In what capacity, sir? A. Acting chairman of the Social Science Division. I don’t know what they mean by that. Q. Where did you receive your formal education, sir? A. I had my AB from the College of Emporia. Q. Is that Kansas? A. Yes. MA from University of Hawaii in Honolulu, and Ph. D. from University of Iowa in Iowa City. Q. Have you done any post-doctorate studies, sir? A. I did. I have a post-doctorate fellowship from the University of Chicago to do some study in race problem in the City of Chicago, Q. Was that the Louis Wirth study, sir? A. Louis Wirth, yes. Q. Dr. Masuoka, I neglected to ask you in what field you received your doctorate, what field or fields? A. Well, my field is Sociology, but I did my MA 401 thesis on racial attitudes of Japanese in Hawaii, and for my Ph. D. dissertation was Changing Japanese Family in Hawaii. However, I did most of my research in the area of race relations, in the area of race relations; but my interest is not confined to Negro-White problems per se, because I believe strongly if I were to get objectivity of any kind, I have to study distant phenomena. To me, the situation immediately right under my nose is too difficult, to cope with. Therefore, I have been studying comparatively general type of problem that is found generally all over the world, particularly in the big cities. Q. Now, Dr. Masuoka, I believe you were in Hawaii in 1954 as a representative of somebody. Will you state who that was, sir? A. I was participant of Conference on Race Relations in World Perspective. At this conference, scholars drawn from all over the world gathered together at the Univer Testimony of Jitsuichi Masuoka sity of Hawaii to consider the problem of race relations. I was one of them. Q. You were one of the representatives of the United States at that time? A. Yes. Q. I believe that last year you were away from Fisk University. Will you state what you were doing at that time, sir? 402 A. I was given Fulbright Visiting Professor to Metropolitan University in Tokyo. Q. Have you ever------ And you spent a full year there last year? A. A full year, yes. Q. Have you ever served as visiting professor on the faculties of any other universities, sir? A. In Japan? Q. Well, in Japan or in the United States. A. Well, when I was in Japan, I was one of these Fulbright traveling lecturers. In this capacity I lectured at 12 different universities on the topic of American families today. They were very much interested, wanted to know what American family look like or what the problems are, so I give a lecture throughout Japan, 12 universities on that topic, in addition to my teaching capacity as a visiting professor at Tokyo. ̂ ̂ ^ 27 A. E. WRIGHT, a witness called on behalf of the defendants, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Dodson: Q. State your name to the Court, please. A. A. E. Wright. Q. Mr. Wright, how old are you, sir? A. Sixty years of age. Testimony of A. E. Wright Q. You have been with the school systems around here since before I even started to school, haven’t you? How long have you been with them? A. I have been teaching about 35 years. Q. That’s not quite before I started, but almost. In what capacities have you served in the school sys tems in Davidson County, Tennessee? A. I have served as classroom teacher, basketball coach, high school principal, supervisor, and now assistant su perintendent in charge of personnel. Q. And how long have you been assistant superintend ent in charge of personnel? A. I believe for seven years. 28 Q. Prior to that, and in your work as supervisor, did you have any contact with the assignment of personnel? A. Yes, I assisted in the assignment of personnel. Q. As superintendent, did you have anything to do with the actual assignment of personnel or anything to do with the requests for assignment of school personnel? A. As assistant superintendent. Q. I mean not as assistant superintendent, I mean as principal, not as superintendent of schools. A. As principal. Q. Of a high school? A. Yes. They often ask ns to interview applicants, if they fit our needs, and we still follow that policy today. Q. Now, in order that we might get to the question, ex plain, if you will, to the Court, how teacher personnel for the entire system, first, is selected, new personnel. How do you go about selecting them? A. We have an application form that we present to the applicant. That form gives the personal data that is neces sary, such as age, marital status, where they have had their training, and also the transcript of their college work. We have also asked them about any experiences, — 45b — Testimony of A. E. Wright and if they haven’t had experiences, we want a complete breakdown on their practice teaching, where they 29 have done it in their college work. We also want to know something about their family background, where they came from. We want to know what religion they belong to, what extracurricular activities they have had in college, and whether they can handle basketball or forensic or drama, or large areas that we are interested in. Q. Is this the—I guess “ Per” stands for “ personnel,” “ Personnel Form No. 2, Application for Position in the Davidson County School System.” Is that the form of application to which you refer? A. That is the form of application that every applicant fills out before we employ them or even have an interview with them. Q. Yes, sir. * * * * # # # 70 JOSEPH R. GARRETT, called as a witness in behalf of the defendants, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Dodson: Q. For the record, please state your name? A. Joseph R. Garrett. Q. Mr. Garrett, your age? A. Thirty-nine. Q. Your residence? A. Davidson County. Q. Your occupation? A. Attendance teacher in charge of child welfare and attendance, Davidson County Board of Education. Q. And you have been with the Davidson County Board of Education for how long, sir? A. Twelve years. — 46b — Testimony of Joseph R. Garrett 98