Carter v. School Board of Arlington County, Virginia Brief on Behalf of Appellants

    BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR TH E FOURTH CIRCUIT.

No. 6064

CONSTANCE CARTER, an infant, by her Parent and 
Next Friend, ELEANOR TAYLOR, et al., 

Appellants,

vs.

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, 
VIRGINIA, a body corporate, and FLETCHER KEMP, 

Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County, 
Virginia, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States 
for the E astern District of Virginia, 

Alexandria Division

Hill , Martin & Robinson, 
623 North Third Street, 
Richmond, 19, Virginia. 
L eon A. Ransom,
1939 13th Street, 
Washington, D. C.

Lawyers Publishing Co., Inc.—Richmond, Va.



SUBJECT INDEX
PAGE

Statement of the Case ............................. ...................................... 2
Questions Involved ................................................. ......................  4
Statement of the Facts ......................... ......................................... 5
Argument ............................................................................   10

I. The Legal Principles ...................................................  10
II. Appellees Are Discriminating Against Appellants

By Refusing and Failing to Afford Them High 
School Opportunities, Advantages and Facilities, 
Including Curricula, Equal to Those Afforded 
White Children Similarly Situated ......   12
A. Physical Plants, Facilities and Equipment.....  12

Shops ........................................................................ 13
General Shop .................................................  13
Auto Mechanics Shop ................................  13
Mechanical Drawing Room ...........  14
Machine Shop .........        14
Sheet Metal Shop ...........................  14
Printing Shop ..........     14
Wood Shop .................      14

Science Laboratories ..................   15
Libraries—Rooms ................................................. 16

Holdings of Books and Periodicals .........  17
Music Rooms .............................      IS
Art Rooms ........................................ -...................  19
Commercial Facilities and Equipment .........  19

Typewriting Rooms ....................................  19
Bookkeeping Rooms ....................................  19

Auditoriums .......     20
Gymnasiums .........................................................  20
Athletic Fields and Outdoor Facilities ...........  22
Cafeterias .............................................................  22
Distributive Education Rooms ........................  23
Guidance Offices ................................................. 23
Infirmary Facilities .......   23
Teachers’ Rest Rooms ......................................... 23
Administrative Facilities ....................................  24
Grounds .................................................................  24
Classrooms ..........    25
Sanitary Facilities.................................................  25



SUBJECT INDEX-Continued
PAGE

B. Curricula ...............................................................  26
Courses of Study.................................................- 26

Alteration of Courses..................................  28
Grouping of Classes ....................................  28
Vocational Courses ....................................... 29
Summer School ..............................    30

Guidance ...............................................................  30
Co-Curricular Activities ....................................  30
Honorary Awards ................................................. 31

C. Teachers .................................................................  32
Number of Teachers ......................................... - 32
Teaching Experience ........................................... 32
Teachers’ Salaries .......... ................................... - 33
Number of Different Subjects Taught.... .........  33

D. Accreditation .........................................................  34
III. The Discrimination Against Appellants Cannot Be

Justified By Reason of the Smaller Number of 
Negro High School Pupils, as Compared With The 
Number of White High School Pupils, in Arling­
ton County, or By The Comparative Expenditures 
or Investments Made For Education in the High 
Schools of Said County............................................... 35

IV. The Discriminations Against Appellants as to 
Courses of Instruction Cannot be Justified by the 
Claimed Failure of Negro Pupils to Specifically 
Demand the Establishment of Such Courses at
the Negro High School .......................................  36

V. Appellees Are Discriminating Against Appellants
By Requiring Them to Avail Themselves of High 
School Facilities Outside Arlington County, While 
Affording White Children Similarly Situated Such 
Facilities Within Said County ..........   39

Plant Facilities and Equipment .......................... 40
Shops .....................................................................
Science Laboratory .......................---------------  40
Library .....................................   41
Auditorium .............................................................  41
Dining Room .............-...........................................  41
Courses of Study...........................................   42

Conclusion ...............................................................  44



T a ble  o f C ases

Alston v. School Board, 112 F. 2d 992 (C. C. A. 4th, 1940 .....  11
Ashley v. School Board of Gloucester County, 82 F. Supp.

167 (E. D. Va., 1948) .................................................10, 11, 12
Carter v. School Board of Arlington County, 87 F. Supp. 745

(E. D. Va, 1949) ......................................... ...........................  3
Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, 177 F.

2d 924 (1949).................................. ................. .......10. 11, 12, 43
County School Board of Chesterfield County v. Freeman,

171 F. 2d 702 (C. C. A. 4th, 1948)........................................  11
Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U. S. 147 (1948) ........................................  37
McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 235

U. S. 151 (1914) .......................................................................  35
Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S.

337 (1938) ......................................................................10, 35, 44
Mitchell v. United States, 313 U. S. 80 (1941) ........................ 35
Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A. 590 (1936) ................ 10
Piper v. Big Pine School District, 193 Cal. 664, 226 P. 926

(1924) ........................................................................................  44
Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631 (1948) ................TO, 37
Smith v. School Board of King George County, 82 F. Supp.

167 (E. D. Va., 1948) ...................................................10, 11, 12
Wrighten v. Board of Trustees, 72 F. Supp. 948 (E. D. S. C., 

1947) ..........................................................................................  10

C o n stitu tio n s C ited

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment..... 2, 10, 37
Virginia Constitution, Article IX, Section 1 40 .........................  11

P rin c ipa l  Sta tu tes C ited  

United States Code:
Title 8, Section 41 ................................................................ 2, 11
Title 8, Section 43 ................................................................ 2, 11

Code of Virginia; 1950:
Title 22, Section 22-221 .........................................................  11

SUBJECT INDEX-Continued
PAGE



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FO R TH E FOURTH CIRCUIT.

No. 6064

CONSTANCE CARTER, an infant, by her Parent and 
Next Friend, ELEANOR TAYLOR, et al., 

Appellants,

vs.

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, 
VIRGINIA, a body corporate, and FLETCHER KEMP, 

Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County, 
Virginia, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States 
for the E astern District of Virginia, 

Alexandria Division

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS



[ 2 ]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from a final judgment of the District 
Court of the United States for the Eastern District 
of Virginia in a case arising under the Constitution and 
laws of the United States, wherein appellants, plain­
tiffs below, are seeking a declaratory judgment and a 
permanent injunction.

On September 4, 1947, appellant Constance Carter, 
an infant Negro child, residing in the County of Ar­
lington, Virginia, by her mother, filed her original 
complaint (R. I ) 1 alleging that appellee School Board 
of Arlington County, Virginia, and Fletcher Kemp, the 
then Division Superintendent of Schools of Arling­
ton County, Virginia, original defendants below, have 
pursued and are pursuing, the policy, practice, custom 
and usage of denying, on account of her race or color, 
said appellant and other Negro children similarly sit­
uated, educational opportunities, advantages and fa­
cilities equal to those afforded white children similar­
ly situated, and thereby have denied, and are denying, 
her and them the equal protection of the laws secured 
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States, the rights secured by Sections 
41 and 43 of Title 8 of the United States Code, and the 
rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. Both the original com­
plaint, and the amended complaint (App. 1) filed Oc­
tober 15, 1947, seek a judgment declaring that the 
policy, custom, practice and usage aforesaid are vi­
olative of the Constitution and laws aforesaid, and a

1. References are to the appendix page numbers where the portion 
of the record referred to is printed therein, and, otherwise, are to the 
record page numbers.



[ 3 ]

permanent injunction restraining and enjoining said de­
fendants from making such distinctions or any distinc­
tion based upon race or color in the opportunities, ad­
vantages or facilities provided by them for the edu­
cation of white and Negro children residing in said 
County, or, in the alternative, a permanent injunction 
restraining defendants from denying plaintiff, and those 
on behalf of whom she sues, admission to and enroll­
ment in the high school maintained and now used 
exclusively for white pupils.

On September 30, 1947, said defendants filed an 
answer (R. 9) which in substance denied that racial 
discrimination is practiced. Subsequently, defendant 
Kemp’s term of office expired (R. 650) and appellee 
William A. Early, his successor, was duly substituted 
as a defendant (R. 32).

On October 24, 1949, appellants Julius Brevard and 
Peggy Council, each an infant Negro child, residing in 
Arlington County, by their respective parents, filed 
their petition (App. 12) seeking intervention as plain­
tiffs, the petition alleging their own experiences in un­
successfully seeking educational opportunities, advan­
tages and facilities, and praying for the same relief 
sought in the original and amended complaints. In­
tervention was duly permitted (R. 1276).

On September 6-9, 1949, and on October 24-26, 
1949, the Court below heard evidence and oral argument. 
On December 7, 1949, the Court rendered a written 
opinion (App. 343), reported at 87 F. Supp. 745, in 
which appeared the Court’s findings of fact and conclu­
sions of law, and on December 12, 1949, entered final 
judgment (App. 364), dismissing the complaint.



[ 4 ]

QUESTIONS INVOLVED

1. Are appellees discriminating against appellants 
by refusing and failing to afford them high school edu­
cational opportunities, advantages and facilities, includ­
ing curricula, equal to those afforded white children 
similarly situated?

2. Can the discriminations against appellants be 
justified by reason of the smaller number of Negro 
children of high school age, as compared with the num­
ber of white children of high school age, enrolled in 
high schools in Arlington County, or by the compara­
tive expenditures or investments made by appellees for 
education in the white and Negro high schools, re­
spectively, of said County?

3. Can the discriminations against appellants as to 
courses of instruction afforded or taught in high schools 
be justified by the claimed failure of Negro children 
to specifically demand the establishment of such courses 
at the Negro high school?

4. Are appellees discriminating against appellants 
by requiring them to avail themselves of high school 
facilities outside Arlington County, while affording white 
children similarly situated high school facilities within 
Arlington County?

The first three questions are raised in the record by 
the original complaint (R. 1), the amended complaint 
(App. 1), the answer (R. 9 ), and the pettion for in­
tervention (App. 12). All questions are raised in the 
record by the proceedings at the hearings (App. 86- 
89, 141-144, 195-200, 224-230, R. 248-251, 270-271), 
the argument, and the opinion of the Court (App. 
343). The fourth question is additionally raised in the



[ 5 ]

record by appellants’ objections (R. 829-838) and mo­
tion to strike (R. 891-893 ) at the hearings.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Appellants are Negroes, are citizens of the United 
States, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are res­
idents of and domiciled in Arlington County. At the 
time the original complaint was filed, and at the time 
the amended complaint and the petition for interven­
tion were filed, the appellants were all within the statu­
tory age limits for eligibility to attend public schools 
and satisfied all requirements for admission thereto. 
Their respective parents are Negroes, are citizens of 
the United States, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
and are residents of and domiciled in Arlington Coun­
ty. They are taxpayers of the United States and of 
said County and Commonwealth, and are and were re­
quired by law to send their respective children to 
school.

Appellee School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, 
exists pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia as an administrative depart­
ment discharging governmental functions, and is de­
clared by law to be a body corporate. Appellee Wil­
liam A. Early is Division Superintendent, and holds 
office pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, as an administrative of­
ficer of the free public school system of Virginia.

The public schools of Arlington County are under the 
control and supervision of appellees, acting as an ad­
ministrative department or division of the Common­
wealth of Virginia. Said appellee School Board is under



[ 6 ]

a duty to enforce the school laws of Virginia, to main­
tain an efficient system of public schools in Arlington 
County, to determine the studies to be pursued, the 
methods of teaching, and to establish such schools as 
may be necessary to the completeness and efficiency 
of the school system. Appellee William A. Early, as 
Division Superintendent, has the immediate control 
and operation of the public schools in Arlington Coun­
ty.

The only two schools of Arlington County directly 
involved in this case are the Washington-Lee High 
School and the Hoffman-Boston High School.2 The 
former is operated for the exclusive use of white pupils, 
and the latter for the use of Negro pupils (App. 84, 
244, 248; R. 37, 884, 887, 888).

Washington-Lee is predominantly a senior high school, 
with 1881 senior high school pupils in its total enroll­
ment of 2377 ( R. 38, 87). It has no elementary pupils 
(R. 38, 87). Hoffman-Boston, on the other hand, is 
predominantly an elementary-junior high school, with 
only 48 senior high school pupils in its total enroll­
ment of 270 (R. 38, 87).3

In the past, Negro high school pupils residing in 
Arlington County have largely attended schools in the 
District of Columbia to obtain courses and facilities 
available to white pupils at Washington-Lee, but lack­
ing at Hoffman-Boston (App. 84, 85; R. 652-653, 671- 
673, 740). A number of these pupils pursued Vo-

2, There are 5 secondary schools in the Arlington school system. 
The other three schools are white junior high schools, namely, Claude 
Swanson, Dolly Madison, and Thomas Jefferson (R. 37).

3. During 1946-47, the Arlington School Board paid the tuition of 
21 Negro pupils who were attending senior high schools in the District 
of Columbia ( App. 85; R. 37). The exact number of Arlington Negro 
pupils attending schools outside Arlington is unknown.



[ 7 ]

eational courses (R. 740). The District of Columbia 
in recent years started charging tuition on Arlington 
pupils, and Negro pupils appealed to the Arlington 
School Board for payment of tuition (R. 653, 655). 
During the 1946-47 session, Arlington paid the tui­
tion of 21 Negro pupils (App. 85; R. 37) and, dining 
the 1947-48 school session, agreed to pay, and in fact 
paid, tuition on all pupils involved (R. 652-653, 740, 
755). During the 1948-49 session, the School Board 
decided that it would pay tuition only on Negro seniors 
who had already completed three years of work in 
District of Columbia schools (R. 653-654, 755).

Appellant Constance Carter originally attended high 
school in the District of Columbia because of lack of 
facilities and courses at Hoffmau-Boston (App. 17- 
18). At the opening of the 1947-48 school session, 
she, accompanied by her mother and attorney, con­
ferred with the principal of Hoffman-Boston in an effort 
to obtain certain courses there (App. 19-21; R. 669, 
773). While the evidence is conflicting as to the courses 
then sought and the details of the conversation,4 it is 
uncontroverted that courses in Typewriting and Physi­
cal Education were among those requested (App. 21- 
22), that Hoffman-Boston then had only 8 typewriters, 
an insufficient number, and no typing tables or chairs 
(App. 21, 234-235; R. 775-776, 795-796), and that Physi­
cal Education was taught by regular classroom teachers 
not certificated in that subject (R. 43-44, 671, 774, 795). 
She then sought the desired courses at Washington- 
Lee, but admission was denied because she is a Negro 
(App. 22; R. 670). She thereupon entered Dunbar

4. Appellants’ evidence was to the effect that the principal stated 
that the courses requested were not available at Hoffman-Boston (App. 
19-22).



[ 8 ]

High School, in the District of Columbia, until she 
later entered Hoffman-Boston (App. 19; R, 266-287, 
777-778, 797-798). Her mother has been forced to 
pay tuition for her attendance in the District of Co­
lumbia (App. 18-19; PL Ex. 73, 74, 75, 76).

Appellant Peggy Council attended junior high school 
and obtained a part of her senior high education in 
the District of Columbia (App. 211, 221; R. 1144-1145, 
1148-1151). Arlington paid her tuition, but after it 
ceased doing so she could not pay it herself (App. 212, 
222), but entered Hoffman-Boston at the beginning 
of the 1948-49 session as a pupil in grade 1G-B ( App. 
212, 277; R. 631, 1149, 1150). She desires to enter 
a nursing school (App. 282) and 2 years of Latin 
is prerequisite for admission (App. 218-219, 282, 315; R. 
645,1100-1101,1159-1160). When attending senior high 
school in the District of Columbia, she filled out an 
elective sheet, which the principal of Hoffman-Boston 
later received, upon which she requested a course in 
Latin (App. 280). When she first entered Hoffman- 
Boston, she conferred with the principal, advising of 
her need for Latin, and was assured that she would 
be given a year and one-half of Latin at Hoffman- 
Boston, and that he would see that she would be ad­
mitted to a school in the Distinct of Columbia, after 
her graduation from Hoffman-Boston, at which she 
would be given an additional one-half year of Latin 
(App. 220-221, 222, 279, 281; R. 645). In May, 1949, she 
filled out another elective card upon which she requested 
for the 1949-50 session, courses in Spanish and Short­
hand (App. 278; R. 801), which card she personally 
delivered to the principal (App. 280). At this time, 
she did not understand that Latin would be offered at



Hoffman-Boston for said session (App. 281). In 
June, 1949, being advised that Latin would be avail­
able, she made out another elective sheet, which she 
delivered to her home room teacher, upon which she 
also requested Latin, Chemistry and Shorthand. (App. 
212-218, 280-281). About two weeks before the close of 
the 1948-49 session, she conferred with the principal 
relative to her program for 1949-50 and advised him 
of her desires in order that her program might be 
worked out (App. 216). She also needs Chemistry 
for her nursing career (App. 282-283). She first sought 
this course during the 1948-49 session (App. 237-238). 
She has not been afforded Latin at Hoffman-Boston, be­
cause it has not been taught there since she entered 
(App. 213, 222, 278, 282; R. 645). She has not been able 
to get either Spanish or Chemistry because these are 
alternating courses at Hoffman-Boston, and no Chem­
istry has been taught since she has been there (App. 
213, 282; R. 802), and the only course in Spanish 
taught while she was there was an advanced course 
in Spanish (App. 214; R. 802). No class in Shorthand 
was afforded her until the early part of October of 
the current school year (App. 278; R. 802, 1151).

Appellant Julius Brevard attended Armstrong Techni­
cal High School, in the District of Columbia, during 
the 1948-49 session, taking, among other courses, blue­
print reading which included drafting and automo­
bile mechanics (App. 208; R. 629). Unable to pay 
tuition there (App. 211), he entered Hoffman-Boston 
at the beginning of the 1949-50 session, and on the 
first day requested of the principal a course in auto­
mobile mechanics (App. 208-209; R. 628-629, 789). 
The principal advised him that Hoffman-Boston did



[10J

not have the course, and that he did not know when 
it would have it (App. 208-209; R. 620, 789). The 
answer led him to believe that no effort would be made to 
obtain the course for him (App. 209). He has not 
been afforded this course (App. 209), and there never 
has been a time when anyone at Hoffman-Boston ask­
ed him what he desired to take (App. 210).

Since the remaining facts are so interrelated to the 
decision of the legal issue, complete statements of the 
facts as to specific matters are, for convenience, made 
in connection with the appropriate portions of the argu­
ment, and, to avoid repetition, are omitted here.

ARGUMENT
I

T h e  L e g a l  P r i n c i p l e s

The controlling legal principles are so well settled 
as not to require extended discussion. The refusal 
or failure of an agency of the state to afford its Negro 
citizens, because of their race or color, educational 
opportunities, advantages and facilities equal in all re­
spects to those afforded persons of any other race or 
color is a denial of the equal protection of the laws 
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con­
stitution of the United States,5 * * * and of the rights se­
cured by laws of the United States enacted pursuant

5. Sipuel v. Board o f Regents, S32 U. S. 631 (1948); Missouri ex 
rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938); Corbin v. County School
Board o f Pulaski County 177 F. 2d 924 (C. C. A. 4th, 1949, 
Smith v. School Board of King George County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E , D. 
Va., 1948); Ashley v. School Board o f Gloucester County, 82 F. Supp. 
167 (E. D. Va., 1948); Wrighten v. Board o f Trustees, 72 F. Supp. 948
(E . D. S. C., 1947); Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A 590
(1936).



[ 1 1 ]

thereto,6 and by the Constitution and laws ur the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.7 It is beyond question that 
the appellees in this case are subject to the constitution­
al and statutory mandates.8

In Virginia, separate schools are maintained for white 
and Negro pupils, respectively.9 * These provisions not 
only constitute the sole reason for denying admission 
of Negroes to Washington-Lee (App. 225, 244, R. 708, 
884, 887), but also have necessarily made Washington- 
Lee a large school and Hoffman-Boston a small school 
(App. 249, 267; R. 85-86), which, in turn, has brought 
about many of the differentials between the two schools 
(App. 249, 267; R. 85-86). In these circumstances, 
it is clear that all of the discriminations and inequalities 
suffered by Negro pupils residing in Arlington County 
follow as a consequence of their race, which the law 
makes the sole criterion as to the school which they 
may attend (App. 225, 248; R. 884, 887).

Both appellees and the Court below assumed that this 
case must be decided upon an assumption that the sep-

8. REV. STAT. Sec. 1977, 1979, 8 U. S. C. Sec. 41, 43; Smith v. 
School Board o f King George County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E. D. Va., 1948), 
cited supra note 5; Ashley v. School Board o f Gloucester County, 
82 F. Supp. 167 (E . D. Va., 1948), cited supra note 5.

7. The Constitution of Virginia (Art. IX, Section 140) provides; 
“White and colored children shall not be taught in the same school.” 
The Code of Virginia of 1950 (Title 22, Section 22-221) provides: 
“White and colored persons shall not be taught in the same school, but 
shall be taught in separate schools, under the same general regulations 
as to management, usefulness and efficiency.” While the constitutional 
provision does not expressly provide for equality as does the statute, 
it is necessarily to be construed as if it did, for otherwise its invalidity 
would be plain. See cases cited supra note 5.

8. Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, 177 F. 2d 924, 
(C. C. A. 4th, 1949), cited supra note 5; County School Board o f 
Chesterfield County v. Freeman, 171 F. 2d 702 (C. C. A. 4th, 1948); 
Alston v. School Board, 112 F. 2d 992 (C. C. A. 4th, 1940).

9. VA. CONST. Art. IX, Sec. 140; VA. CODE (1950) Title 22,
Sec. 22-221, both cited supra note 7.



[ 1 2 ]

arate school laws of Virginia fix a rigid pattern within 
the framework of which the rights of appellants, and 
other Negro children residing in Arlington County, must 
be determined. But in situations where unequal edu­
cational opportunities and facilities are afforded Negro 
pupils,10 the invalidity and inapplicability of segrega­
tion laws is well settled, and the mandates of the Con­
stitution and laws of the United States cannot be 
avoided by resort thereto.11

As the rights of appellants are measured by the test 
of equality, a determination of the issues necessarily 
involves a comparison of the opportunities, advantages 
and facilities which Arlington County affords its white 
and Negro pupils resident therein.12

II
A p p e l l e e s  A r e  D is c r im in a t in g  A g a in s t  A p p e l l a n t s  

B y  R e f u s in g  a n d  F a il in g  t o  A f f o r d  T h e m  H ig h  

S c h o o l  O p p o r t u n i t i e s , A d v a n t a g e s  a n d  F a ­

c i l i t i e s , I n c l u d in g  C u r r ic u l a , E q u a l  t o  

T h o s e  A f f o r d e d  W h i t e  C h il d r e n  

S i m i l a r l y  S it u a t e d

A. Physical Plants, Facilities and Equipment. 
Washington-Lee consists of a three-story brick struc­

ture with a one-story shop annex. The main building, 
erected in 1925, is of pleasing architectural design, be­

lt). Appellants do not concede the validity of segregation laws under 
any circumstances.

11. See cases cited supra note 5.

12. Corbin v. County School Board o f Pulaski County, 177 F. 2d 924 
(C. C. A. 4th, 1949), cited supra note 5; Smith v. School Board o f  
King George County, 82 F. Supp. 167 E. D. Va., 1948, cited supra 
note. 5; Ashley v. School Board of Gloucester County, 82 F. Supp. 
167 (E . D. Va., 1948), cited supra note 5.



[ 1 3 ]

mg trimmed and embellished with limestone. It has 
approximately 64 classrooms and the facilities here­
after described. Adjacent to the buildings is the spa­
cious athletic stadium. The entire plant occupies a 
site of 11.9 acres. Its total cost was $925,988. (R.
59, 101, 119, 241, 731, 940).

Hoffman-Boston consists of a two-story brick build­
ing and a one-story shop annex. The building con­
structed in 1923, is of plain construction unadorned by 
architectural details. It has 6 regular size classrooms 
and one smaller room that can seat only 18 pupils. The 
grounds around the school are unimproved, and there 
is no athletic stadium or facilities. The entire plant 
occupies a site of 5.7 acres. Its total cost was $109,966. 
App. 239; R. 59-60, 101, 119, 731, 940).

That Hoffman-Boston is tremendously inferior to 
Washington-Lee in the matter of physical plant, fa­
cilities and equipment13 is apparent from a compari­
son of physical plant, facilities and equipment of the 
two schools:
Shops: Washington-Lee has 7 separate shops, as fol­
lows:

—General Shop: Ample area, orderly arrangement 
(App. 61-62), equipped with universal saw, band saw, 
2 jig saws, belt sander, drill press, 4 lathes, grinder, 
jointer, and stock of small tools (App. 61-62; R. 63, 
124, 187; PI. Ex. 53, 54).

—Auto Mechanics Shop: Large area, orderly ar­

13. The physical plant and facilities of a secondary school should be 
designed in such fashion that it will promote attainment of the edu­
cational objectives ( R. 59). Equally important is the matter of equip­
ment (R. 59, 367, 996). To the extent that physical plant, facilities 
and equipment are inadequate, the educational development of the pupils 
will be retarded (R. 59).



[ 1 4 ]

rangement, equipped with 3 motor analyzers, 10 prac­
tice engines, drill press, valve grinder, armature lathe, 
chain hoist, battery charger, air compressor, speedome­
ter, and stock of small tools (App. 62-63; R. 63, 124, 
187; Pi. Ex. 51, 52). Also has a trainer-type airplane 
(App. 62-63; R. 245) and dual control automobile for 
driver training (App. 62-64; R. 245).

—Mechanical Drawing R oom : Ample area, orderly 
arrangement. Equipped with specially designed draw­
ing tables, stools, drawing boards, blueprint machine, 
shop library, and stock of small equipment (App. 63- 
64; R. 63, 124, 187; Pi. Ex. 55).

—Machine Shop: Large area, orderly arrangement. 
Equipped with 11 lathes, 5 milling machines, 3 drill 
presses, forge, electric grinder, electric hack saw, arc 
welder, shaper, and stock of small tools (App. 64-65; 
R. 63, 124, 187; Pi. Ex. 56, 57). Also has a Link train­
er for aviation training (App. 64-65; R. 63, 187; Pi. Ex. 
56, 57).

—Sheet Metal Shop: Ample area, orderly arrange­
ment. Equipped with forming roll, brakes, shear, fold­
er, 9 crimping machines, and stock of small tools (App. 
65; R. 63, 124, 188; Pi. Ex. 58).

—Printing Shop: Ample area, orderly arrangement. 
Equipped with 3 presses, paper cutter, virkotype ma­
chine, 4 cases of type, and stock of small tools (App. 
65; R. 64, 124, 188; PL Ex. 61, 62).

—W ood Shop: Large area, orderly arrangement.
Equipped with 3 lathes, band saw, planer, 2 universal 
saws, radial bench saw, 2 jointers, 2 sanders, 2 drill 
presses, jig saw, and stock of small tools (App. 66; 
R. 64, 124, 188; Pi. Ex. 59, 60). The machines are



[ 1 5 ]

connected to an expensive sawdust-disposal system ( App. 
66; PI. Ex. 59, 60).

Each of these shops is well designed, lighted and 
ventilated, and samples of work done in them evi­
dence their effectiveness and the caliber of instruc­
tion in them (App. 65-68). The cost of the shop build­
ing was $110,000, and the cost of its equipment was 
$21,000 (R. 102).

HofFman-Boston has only one shop — a general shop 
(App. 61; R. 63, 187, 243; Pi. Ex. 67, 68). It con­
sists of only one room (App. 61, 62-63, 70; R. 63, 
187). Its space is inadequate. Its equipment consists 
in 2 lathes, a universal saw, jig saw, post drill, grinder, 
jointer, belt sander, band saw, drill press, and a stock 
of small tools (R. 63, 188; Pi. Ex. 67, 68). It has no 
machines or tools for instruction in Automobile Me­
chanics or Printing (App. 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 172- 
173; R. 63, 187, 243-245, 247, 739-740, 969-970), and 
no machines and little or no tools for instruction in 
Machine Shop, Sheet Metal, Wood Shop, or Mechani­
cal Drawing (App. 64-66, 172-173; R. 244-246). In­
struction in these courses at Hoffman-Boston would 
be impossible (App. 109). The cost of its building, 
which also houses the Home Economics department, 
was only $37,500, and of its equipment $2,000 ( R. 102). 
Science Laboratories-. Washington-Lee has 4 science 
laboratories:14 a Physics laboratory, a Chemistry lab­
oratory, and 2 Biology laboratories (App. 50-52, 52- 
53, 106-107; R. 61-62, 183-186; Pi. Ex. 29, 70). Each 
laboratory is furnished with the necessary desks and

14. Thus, the courses in Biology, Chemistry and Physics can each 
be conducted in a separate laboratory. This is superior to the practice 
of teaching different science courses in a single laboratory or room (App. 
54, 74; R. 368-371).



[ 1 6 ]

demonstration tables, all equipped with the necessary 
gas, water and electric connections (R. 61; Pi. Ex. 29). 
The Physics laboratory has cases for equipment, while 
each of the other S laboratories is equipped with a 
store room for materials and equipment (R. 61). Each 
laboratory has an ample stock of apparatus, equipment 
and supplies (App. 51-53, 107-108; R. 237). The cost 
of its equipment was $34,501 (R. 102).

Holfman-Boston has only one science room in which 
all of such sciences as are at that school are taught 
(App. 52-53, 106-107; R. 61, 236; Pi. Ex. 6, 7). Its 
stock of apparatus, equipment and supplies is much 
less substantial and varied than that at Washington- 
Lee (App. 53-54, 106-108, 191-192; R. 61-62, 183-186). 
The cost of its equipment was only $1,934 (R. 102).

Libraries-Rooms: The library at Washington-Lee con­
sists of a main reading room, reference room, magazine 
room and work room (App. 46-47, 60, 128, 232; Pi. 
Ex. 24, 25). It was originally designed for use as a 
library (R. 60). It is adequately lighted (App. 46- 
47; R. 60, 128) and ventilated (R. 128), is sound­
proofed (R. 128), has a 20 foot ceiling (R. 128), and 
is very attractive (App. 46-48). It has 3480 square 
feet (R. 128). It is amply equipped with all of the 
modern furniture and equipment usual in school li­
braries (R. 60, 137), costing $3,921 (R. 102).

The library at Holfman-Boston consists of one room 
(R. 60, 128, 233; Pi. Ex. 24, 25). It was not originally 
designed for use as a library, but was made by com­
bination of two rooms of classroom size (R. 60, 719). 
Its low 13 foot ceiling does not afford proper ventila­
tion (App. 182-183; R. 606-609). It has no sound­
proofing (R. 128). It is not attractive (App. 48, 180-



[ 1 7 ]

183). It has 1617 square feet (R. 128). Its furniture 
and equipment is smaller in quantity than Washington- 
Lee’s, and does not include a newspaper rack or fil­
ing cabinets which are found at Washington-Lee (App.
183; R. 60, 137), and only 6 of its 24 drawers in its 
card catalog drawer are being used at all for cataloging 
purposes (App. 183).

Additionally, the library at Hoffman-Boston is situ­
ated immediately next to the auditorium (App. 182- 
183; R. 945), and the principal’s office is located in the 
library workroom in the comer (App. 181-183). 
These, coupled with lack of soundproofing, and its low 
ceiling, makes it noisy (App. 182-183, 184-185; R. 606- 
609). Its low ceiling height, in relation to the size 
of the room, and the positioning of the principal’s 
office, detract from its aesthetic value (App. 180-183; 
R. 607, 608).

—Holdings of Books and Periodicals: Washington- 
Lee’s library contains 8,682 volumes of books and 90 
subscriptions to periodicals. (App. 322; R. 179-181). 
The library at Hoffman-Boston contains only 1,07 i vol­
umes for the entire junior-senior high school depart­
ment, and 21 periodical subscriptions (App. 322; R. 
179). The book holdings at Washington-Lee cost $12,- 
000 ( R. 102), are well diversified and many have recent
copyright dates (App. ............, 146-147). Such books
as Hoffman-Boston’s library has cost only $1,921 (R. 
102), and in 1947-48 were generally very old books, 
many of which had been donated by other libraries 
(App. 146-147). Additions to the Hoffman-Boston li­
brary since that time, while helpful, do not make it



[ 18 ]

equal to the Washington-Lee library (App. 147-148).15

Music Rooms-. Washington-Lee has two specially 
equipped facilities for instruction in Music. The first 
is the Choral Room (App. 48-49; R. 60, 126, 234, 977; 
PL Ex. 71), a large special room with a capacity of 
63 (R. 126). It is equipped with a director’s stand, 
a grand piano, movable chairs, filing cabinets, book­
shelf (App. 48-49). It has hung paintings on the 
wall (PL Ex. 71), Celotex block ceiling (R. 126), and 
the room is well soundproofed (R. 126). An adjoin­
ing room is lined with cabinets for storage of instru­
ments (App. 48-49).

Washington-Lee also has an auditorium specially 
designed for band and orchestra instruction (App. 31- 
32; R. 60, 126, 223, 977; Pi. Ex. 72). This has a stage 
(App. 31-32; R. 223), music stands (App. 31-32), ad­
equate storage space (App. 48-50) and about 100 mov­
able chairs (App. 31-32). This room can also be used 
as a multi-purpose room (App. 31-32). There is also 
another instrument storage room (R. 126).

Hoffman-Boston has no studio, auditorium or other 
special room for instruction in Music (App. 31-32, 99- 
100, 190-191; R. 60, 126, 223, 234-235, 977). The 
Music classes meet in a very small room which was 
formerly used as the principal’s office (App. 32, 49- 
50; R. 126, 361-362; Pi. Ex. 11), which has no stage 
(App. 32), piano (App. 50-51), or storage space (App. 
49-50) and is too small for a band or orchestra (App. 
102-103; R. 361-362).

15. The American Library Association Report, universally accepted 
as a standard, establishes a minimum of 2,000 volumes for the 
smallest possible high school unit (App. 179, 180). While Washington- 
Lee needs more duplicate copies, Hoffman-Boston would need substan­
tially the same number of books and periodicals to compare favorably 
with it (App. 105, 110-112, 178-180; R. 54).



[ 1 9 ]

Art Rooms: Washington-Lee has two rooms employed 
for instruction in Art. One is the Art Studio, which is 
excellently lighted and ventilated (R. 129), and equip­
ped with adequate and special facilities for instruction 
in Art, including adjustable swinging easels which great­
ly facilitate drawing, (App. 25-27; R. 60, 129, 2.17; 
Pi. Ex. 40). There is also another separate Art facility 
(R. 129).

Holfman-Boston has no Ail Studio or room, or equip­
ment the same or similar to that at Washington-Lee 
(App. 26-27, 99-100, 102-103, 190-191; R. 60, 129, 
217).

Commercial Facilities and Equipment — Typeioriting 
Rooms: Washington-Lee has two large rooms specially 
equipped for instruction in Typewriting, (App. 57; Pi. 
Ex. 37, 38), including an ample number of typewriters, 
special typing tables and chairs, a mimeograph machine 
and a mimeoscope (App. 33, 57-59, 257). Holfman- 
Boston utilizes one small room which is not specially 
equipped for Typewriting (App. 57-58; Pi. Ex. 10). 
It has a small numper of typewriters (App. 239; R. 
182), no mimeograph machine (App. 57; R. 182) or 
mimeoscope (R. 182), and simple folding chairs serve 
as typing chairs (App. 59).

—Bookkeeping Rooms: Washington-Lee has a sep­
arate room equipped with special equipment for in­
struction in Bookkeeping (App. 34-35; R. 223; Pi. Ex. 
39), including bookkeeping desks, typewriters, adding 
and calculating machines and other equipment (App. 
34-35, 113; R. 223-224). Holfman-Boston has no spe­
cially equipped room for instruction in Bookkeeping, 
or machines, or other equipment of the same type or



f 20 J

similar to that at Washington-Lee (App. 35-36, 113; 
R. 182, 224, 996).
Auditoriums: Washington-Lee has a large, modern main 
auditorium, with balcony (App. 28; R. 60, 123, 952), 
comfortable fixed-type oprea seats (App. 28, 250; R. 
60, 952), projection booth (App. 29; R. 60, 123, 952), 
slanting floor (R. 388), a deep stage with draw cur­
tains (App. 28-29, 250-251; R. 60, 220), and a seat­
ing capacity of 1151 (R. 123; Pi. Ex. 17). The girls’ 
gymnasium, hereafter discussed (post, pp. 20-21), is 
immediately behind the stage (App. 28; R. 220).

At Hoffman-Boston, a large room, with a flat floor, 
is used as an auditorium (App. 31; R. 60, 221, 358; 
Pi. Ex. 3). The seats are folding chairs (App. 29- 
30, 250; R. 60, 222, 798-799, 952). It has a small 
elevated platform rather than a stage (App. 29-30; 
R. 60, 221, 944). It has no balcony (R. 952), fa­
cilities for motion pictures (App. 252; R. 60-221) and 
can seat only 300 persons (App. 29; R. 123). The
ceiling is only 14 feet high (R. 798) and posts sup­
porting it obstruct vision (App. 30). A small room 
on one side of the platform is used for storage, and an­
other on the other side is used as the women teachers’ 
rest room (App. 56, 119; R. 221-222, 239).

Gymnasiums: Washington-Lee has two gymnasiums
(App. 41, 44, 100; R. 60, 123, 228, 230, 724, 944). The 
girls’ gymnasium is very large, is located immediately 
behind the stage of the main auditorium, being sep­
arated from the latter by large sliding doors (App. 
28; R. 220; Pi. Ex. 18, 19). These doors can be 
opened to permit persons seated in the auditorium 
to witness games and other activities in this gym­
nasium, or they may be closed to permit separate and



simultaneous use of this gymnasium and auditorium 
(App. 76-77; R. 219-220, 952-953). It has seats addi­
tional to those in the main auditorium (App. 28; R. 
1219). The boys’ gymnasium (Pi. Ex. 28) is also 
large, and is capable of a use independent of that 
made of the girls’ gymnasium (App. 76-77, 100).

Each gymnasium is well equipped (App. 29, 41- 
42, 44), has a basket ball court (App. 29, 41-42. 44; 
R. 944), adjoining dressing rooms (App. 42-44; R. 60, 
228, 229), team rooms (Pi. Ex. 21), locker rooms (App. 
42-44; R. 60, 229, 230, 231, Pi. Ex. 22, 27), shower 
rooms (App. 42-44, 152; R. 60, 228; Pi. Ex. 20) and 
lavatory facilities (App. 42-44; R. 60). Each can be 
used for a wide variety of games and athletic contests 
(App. 44; R. 123).

Hoffman-Boston has no gymnasium (App. 40-41, 44, 
100-101, 190; R. 231, 681, 799, 944). The so-called 
auditorium can only be used for limited calisthenics 
(App. 46). It is not in fact a convertible au­
ditorium-gymnasium; the ceiling is too low for 
gymnasium purposes, the lights hang down too low, the 
lights and windows are unprotected ( App. 101), and 
the ceiling supports in the floor constitute hazards 
(App. 44-45; R. 944). It is too small to permit the 
playing of games (App. 44-45, 190) and the seats must 
be removed before it can be used at all (App. 45). 
It has little or no equipment for gymnastics (App. 
190), no basketball court (App. 44-45; R. 896, 944), 
dressing, team, locker, shower or lavatory facilities (App. 
152; R. 60, 231-232) or other facilities similar to those 
afforded at Washington-Lee (App. 100-101; R. 231- 
232).



[ 2 2 ]

Athletic Fields and Outdoor Facilities: Washington-
Lee has a large athletic stadium with a graded foot­
ball gridiron (App. 27; R. 59, 347, 939a; Pi. Ex. 41), 
a track (R. 59), a concrete grandstand (App. 27; 
R. 59, 218, 347, 939a) beneath which are team and 
shower rooms (R. 218, 939a). This facility is equip­
ped with seats on three sides (R. 939a) and artificial 
lighting facilities for night events (R. 218). Addi­
tionally, there is another smaller field used for soft- 
ball and other group games and physical education 
activities (R. 688-689), and there are tennis courts (R. 
59).

Hoffman-Boston has no stadium, gridiron, track, ten­
nis courts, grandstand, team or shower rooms, seat­
ing or artificial lighting facilities (App. 27-28; R. 59- 
GO, 218, 726, 941-942). It has an open space, which 
is not level (App. 27-28; R. 349), not marked off (R. 
349) and has too much grade for effective use (App. 
27-28; R. 349). The total space available is inade­
quate for outdoor recreation (App. 111-112) and it 
has no facilities the same or substantially similar to 
those at Washington-Lee (R. 218, 942).

Cafeterias: Washington-Lee has a large, modern at­
tractive and well arranged cafeteria (App. 34-35, 267; 
R. 61, 139, 225, 725; Pi. Ex. 32) with a large seating 
capacity (R. 61, 139), amply arranged kitchen (App. 
34-35; R. 61) and steam tables (R. 61). In it an 
excellent lunch program is conducted (App. 267; R. 
139). Hot plate lunches, soups, vegetables, salads, de­
serts and beverages are served (R. 139).

Hoffman-Boston has no cafeteria or lunch room fa­
cilities or program of any sort (App. 35-36, 99-100, 113- 
114, 268; R. 61, 139, 225, 724-725, 799, 849). Chil­



[ 2 3 ]

dren attending this school must either go home 
to lunch, or bring lunches with them (R. 725, 849). 
Each of the three principal witnesses for defendants 
testified that this situation was undesirable (App. 267; 
R. 691, 849).

Distributive Education Rooms: Washington-Lee has
a Distributive Education Room or office (App. 38- 
39; R. 226-227; PL Ex. 43) with facilities, equipment, 
and literature available for teachers to work with pupils 
with a view to making a correlation between their 
school work and actual work in the field, thus facili­
tating the transition of the pupil from school to work 
(App. 38-39, 115-116; R. 226-227). Hoffman-Boston 
has no Distributive Education facilities or equipment 
at all (App. 39-40; R. 227).

Guidance Offices: Washington-Lee has a special room 
equipped and utilized for pupil guidance (App. 39- 
40, 116-117; R. 227; Pi. Ex. 36). In it all guidance 
activities can be conducted privately and effectively 
(App. 117-118). Hoffman-Boston has no guidance fa­
cilities at all (App. 40-41, 116-117: R. 227).

Infirmary Facilities: Washington-Lee has an infirmary
equipped with 6 beds and first aid equipment (App. 
110; R. 60, 724). The office of the school health de­
partment for the County is located in this building, thus 
providing effective emergency service (R. 60). Hoff­
man-Boston has no infirmary, clinic, or first-aid room 
(App. 110; R. 60, 724).

Teachers’ Rest Rooms: At Washington-Lee there are
several rest rooms for men and women teachers (App. 
54-56; R. 61, 122; Pi. Ex. 26, 33, 34). Each is an 
impressive, well-equipped facility, with lavatory facili­



[ 2 4 ]

ties, lounge chairs and sofas, mirrors and other furni­
ture and equipment (App. 55-57; R. 122).

At Hoffman-Boston there are no rest room facilities 
at all for men teachers (R. 122), and the single fa­
cility for women teachers is a 12 by 6 foot room ad­
jacent to the auditorium platform containing a toilet, 
a mirror and 4 chairs (App. 55-57, 119; R. 122, 221- 
222, 238-239; Pi. Ex. 9). This room is also used as 
storage for tumbling mats and other equipment (App. 
56-57; R. 239, 342-343). It contains no lounge chairs, 
wash basin, coat rack, or other equipment or appoint­
ments (App. 57; R. 122), and is also used as a dressing 
room for dramatics (R. 122).

Administrative Facilities: Washington-Lee has a large, 
well-equipped principal’s office (Pi. Ex. 30), a well- 
equipped business office (App. 33; R. 224-225; PL 
Ex. 31), and an elaborate intercommunication and 
public address system (App. 34; R. 235; Pi. Ex. 30). 
Hoffman-Boston has no business office (App. 33-34; 
R. 225) or intercommunication or public address sys­
tem (App. 34; R. 235, 354). The principal’s office 
is in the library workroom, a very small room, with 
no outside window or waiting room facilities, meager 
equipment, and is noisy and ill ventilated (App. 33- 
34, 118-119, 181-182, 183; R. 233, 235, 352-353, 606).
Grounds: Washington-Lee is situated upon a fully de­
veloped and well-kept site (Pi. Ex. 63, 64). There 
are sidewalks and paved driveways throughout the 
grounds (R. 939-940). It is one of the most beautiful 
high schools in the state (App. 59-60).

Hoffman-Boston’s school grounds are undeveloped 
and are in much need of improvements (R. 942; Pi. Ex. 
14, 15, 16). Half of its grounds is unusable (R. 942).



[ 2 5 ]

It is ungraded, has no paved walkways or driveways 
on the site (App. 188-189; R. 941). Consequently, mud 
and other elements in rainy and other inclement weather 
present a health hazard (App. 188-189). There is 
no comparison that can be made between the two schools 
so far as attractiveness is concerned (App. 36-37, 59- 
60, 119-120, 188-189).
Classrooms: Classroom facilities at Washington-Lee
(PL Ex. 35) are superior to those (PL Ex. 12) at Hoff- 
man-Boston (App. 36-38). Washington-Lee has rooms 
(Pi. Ex. 42), larger than average, which can seat a 
large number of pupils, and may be used as resource 
or multiple-purpose rooms or for teaching purposes 
where assembly of a large group is necessary (App. 
37-38).
Sanitary Facilities: Washington-Lee has lavatories for
girls and boys on each floor and for boys in the shop 
building (R. 61; Pi. Ex. 23, 44, 45). There are ab- 
bexl spray-type industrial washbowls in each shop (R. 
61). Hoffman-Boston only has lavatories for girls and 
boys on the first floor only, and a toilet for boys boxed 
in a comer of the shop (R. 61). Elementary and high 
school pupils use the same facilities (App. 192).

PIoffman-Boston is not as well maintained as Wash­
ington-Lee (App. 38; R. 226; Pi. Ex. 13, 49). Broken 
window panes are in evidence at Hoffman-Boston (R. 
242; PI. Ex. 14).

In view of these great differentials,16 the conclu­
sion is inevitable that Hoffman-Boston is greatly in­
ferior to Washington-Lee in physical plant, facilities 
and equipment.17

16. Experts attested the important educational value of the omitted
facilities: Shop (App. 109, 173); Science (App. 54-55, 74-75; R.



[ 2 6 ]

B. Curricula18

Courses o f Study: Until the 1949-50 school session,
Washington-Lee provided three separate curricula: (1) 
the academic, (2) the commercial, and (3) the general, 
and awarded separate diplomas for completion of each 
(App. 120-122; R. 45, 147-148, 856). In addition, it 
actually had a vocational curriculum (App. 121-122). 
Hoffman-Boston has never actually offered anything 
other than the general curriculum. (App. 120-122; 
R. 45, 147, 148).19

Washington-Lee has abandoned the practice of award­
ing separate diplomas for completion of the different 
curricula (R. 147, 856), but the courses comprising

368-369); Library (App. 118, 178-180); Music (App. 191, 192-193; 
R. 423); Art (App. 103, 191); Commercial (App. 113, 193; R. 997); 
Auditorium (App. 189); Gymnasium, Athletic, Physical Education (App. 
101, 144, 153-154, 156, 189); Cafeteria (App. 114-115); Distributive 
Education (App. 38-39, 115-116); Guidance (App. 116-117, 193); In­
firmary (App. 190, 201-202); Teachers’ Restrooms (App. 119); Ad­
ministrative (App. 184). See also the Jenkins Report, R. 33-76.

17. Experts testified that the following facilities at Hoffman-Boston 
were individually inferior to those at Washington-Lee: Shops (App. 67-
68, 74, 108-109; R. 318, 417); Library (App. 47-48, 104-106, 110, 
147, 178, 180, 185; R. 233-234); Science (App. 107, 191; R. 307); 
Distributive Education (App. 39, 115); Guidance (App. 193); Art 
(App. 27, 100, 103, 191); Music (App. 50, 100, 102, 191); Cafeteria 
(App. 99-100, 192); Infirmary (App. 190); Business Office (App. 33; 
R. 225); Teachers’ Restroom (App. 57, 192; R. 946-947); Auditorium 
(App. 31, 100, 189); Gymnasium (App. 46, 101-102, 190); Com­
mercial (App. 99, 108; R. 995); Physical Education (App. 99-100; R. 
488, 505, 509); Athletic (App. 249); Buildings and Sites (App. 188- 
189). See also the conclusions expressed in the Jenkins Report, R. 
33-76.

18. It is regarded as superior practice for a high school to provide 
a number of different curricular patterns in order to meet the individual 
needs of pupils of varying abilities and interests (App. 122-123, 163- 
166; R. 45, 493, 524).

19. A number of the required subjects in the academic, commercial 
and vocational curricula were not and are not taught (App. 120-122, 
333-334, 337-339; R. 45). The general curriculum has the least number of 
required courses, is the easiest to complete, normally does not permit 
the pupil to enter a standard college without conditions, and does not 
provide proficiency in any vocation (R. 45-47).



[ 2 7 ]

each of its several curricula are still actually taught 
each year (App. 333-334, 337-339). The courses offered 
at Hoffman-Boston comprise nothing more than a gen­
eral curriculum (App. 120-122, 333-334, 337-339; R. 45).

There are at least 37 courses separately offered and 
taught at Washington-Lee which are neither offered 
nor taught at Hoffman-Boston, as follows (App. 123-
124, 127, 213, 235-237, 264, 
R. 738).
Speech I 
Speech II 
Journalism I 
Journalism II
Adv. General Mathematics 
Solid Geometry 
Commercial Arithmetic 
Economics 
Psychology 
World History 
Economic Geography 
Latin-American History 
Latin I 
Latin II 
Fine Arts 
Commercial Art 
Music Appreciation 
Orchestra 
Mixed Chorus

276-277, 333-334, 337-339;

Commercial Law
Business Correspondence
Bookkeeping
Machine Shop
Sheet Metal
Automobile Mechanics
Printing
Mechanical Drawing 
Retail Sales 
Consumer Buying 
Driver Training 
Woodworking 
Glee Club, Boys 
Glee Club, Girls 
Junior Girls’ Glee Club 
Cadets, Boys 
Cadets, Girls 
Cadet Band

These are courses commonly taught in American 
high schools, the important educational value of which 
was attested by expert testimony in this case.20 *

20. Speech (App. 166-167); Journalism (App. 166-167, 259); Solid
Geometry (App. 167); Commercial Arithmetic (App. 167-168); Gen­
eral Mathematics (App. 168-169); Economics (App. 169-170); World



[ 2 8 ]

The only “course” offered at Hoffman-Boston and not 
available at Washington-Lee is a partial unit in brick­
laying taught in connection with the general shop course 
at the former school (R. 47).

—Alternation o f Courses: At Washington-Lee, the
courses are taught each and every year (App. 337-339). 
Such courses as Hoffman-Boston affords are offered 
pursuant to a regular practice of alternating the courses 
over a period of three years, that is, the alternating 
courses are taught only once each three years (App. 337- 
339).

A curriculum offering courses to the pupils each year 
is superior to one which offers only alternating courses 
(App. 74), and the practice of alternation is generally 
considered undesirable and contrary to best practices 
(App. 138-139, 186-187). Therefore, difficulties arising 
from alternation of courses21 exist at Hoffman-Boston, 
to the decided disadvantage of its pupils,22 which do 
not exist at Washington-Lee (App. 138-139).

—Grouping of Classes: In standard practice at
Washington-Lee, the senior high school courses are pro-

History (App. 169-170); Latin, Business Correspondence, Bookkeeping 
(App. 170); Mechanical Drawing, Fine Arts, Art Appreciation (App. 
171); Music Appreciation, Mixed Chorus, Boys’ Glee Club, Girls’ Glee 
Club (App. 172); Machine Shop, Sheet Metal, Automobile Mechan­
ics, Printing, Woodworking (App. 173); Retail Sales, Consumer 
Buying (App. 173-174); Boys’ Cadets, Girls’ Cadets, Cadet Band, Or­
chestra (App. 174); Driver Training (App. 62-63, 174-175); Guidance 
(App. 117).

21. The difficulties encountered by Peggy Council (ante, pp. 8-9) 
are typical.

22. The chief disadvantages, among others, of such a system are 
(1 ) it prevents the organization of courses on a sequential basis; (2 ) 
prevents homogenius grouping of pupils by age, grade and maturation 
levels; (3 ) seriously handicaps maladjusted, transferring or failing stu­
dents who frequently are unable to get the courses when needed, and 
(4 ) requires a greater extension of teaching faculty, in the way of addi­
tional preparation and decreased specialization and thoroughness of the 
teacher (App. 136-139, 186-188).



[ 2 9 ]

gressively organized into half units of content (App. 
337-339; R. 47).

Such has not been the practice at Hoffman-Boston. 
There, all pupils in grades 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A, 11 B, 12A 
and 12B were taught throughout in the same classes dur­
ing the 1947-48 session, all pupils in these 7 half- 
grades taking exactly the same schedule and being taught 
the same content (R. 49), Under this arrangement, 
progression of the subject matter of the courses of 
study could not be accomplished, and the students 
were permitted no electives (R. 49). During the cur­
rent school session, the courses in English, Civics, Phy­
sics and Typewriting are taught to all pupils in grades 
11B, 12A and 12B in the same room, by the same teach­
er, at the same time (App. 214-215, 217-218, 238-239), 
and Physical Education is being taught to all pupils 
in grades 10B, 11A, 11B, 12A and 12B in the same room 
by the same teacher at the same time (App. 214-215).

Vocational Courses: The vocational courses at Wash­
ington-Lee afford both general and vocational shop- 
work23 (App. 265-266; R. 966). Hoffman-Boston offers 
only general shopwork (App. 265; R. 968, 970-971, 
1007). The single shop at Hoffman-Boston could not 
afford an adequate program (App. 233), and it is un­
known whether the single shop instructor there could 
give or has been trained to teach all of the vocational 
courses there offered at Washington-Lee ( R. 1071-1072).

23. Vocational shopwork at Washington-Lee is a technical voca­
tional course in which the pupil spends one-half of his day in the vo­
cational course, and the other half of his day in taking his related or 
required subjects (App. 265; R. 741, 967-969). This is intended to 
train the pupil for specific types of occupations (App. 265-266). Gen­
eral shopwork affords only a beginners’ or background course only en­
abling the acquisition of skills for development in the specialized vo­
cational courses (App. 265-266; R. 967-969).



[ 3 0 ]

Summer Schools A summer session has obvious value 
in affording pupils the opportunity to take additional 
courses, retake courses failed, or strengthen themselves 
in weak subjects (App. 175-177; R. 49-50). Wash­
ington-Lee regularly provides an 8-week summer school 
for its pupils (R. 49-50, 156), and its 1948-49 session 
offered English and Mathematics at all levels and 9 
courses in other fields (App. 336). Hoffman-Roston 
has no summer school (App. 336).

Guidance: There are two trained guidance counsel­
lors at Washington-Lee (R. 735). Hoffman-Boston 
has no guidance counsellor (App. 116-117, 230; R. 
735). Guidance has an important value to the edu­
cation of the pupil, and can at all times be afforded 
by a specialist than a teacher (App. 40-41, 116-118, 
145-146, 200).

Co-Curricular Activities: The curriculum at Washing­
ton-Lee includes a vast number of club and pupil ac­
tivities24 which are absent from the curriculum at Hoff­
man-Boston, as follows: (App. 128-129, 176-178; R.
52, 155):

* Boys’ Glee Club Bible Club
0 Girls’ Glee Club Football
* Mixed Chorus Basketball
* Junior Girls’ Glee Club Baseball
' Orchestra Track
*Band Crew
a Boys’ Cadet Corps Golf
* Girls’ Cadet Corps Tennis

24. The educational value of a well-rounded program of co-curricular 
activities is important and well-recognized (App. 128-129, 176-178; 
R. 51). All of the so-called “extra-curricular” activities are actually a 
part of the pupil’s total educational experience (App. 128).



[ 3 1 ]

Student Newspaper Staff Archery
Year Book Staff 
Hi-Y Organizations 
Tri-Y Organizations

Literary Society 
Debating Club 
Various subject Clubs

The 8 activities marked with an asterisk are in fact 
curricular subjects in the schedule which carry credit 
(App. 129; R. 155). None of the club or pupil activi­
ties available at Hoffman-Boston carries credit (App. 
129). The listing above does not denote the indi­
vidual subject clubs at Washington-Lee, which would 
make the list considerably longer (App. 129).

Honorary Awards: Washington-Lee has a chapter of
the National Honor Society (App. 134-135; R. 70), a 
national organization having chapters in the leading high 
schools in the United States (App. 133-134; R. 70). 
Membership in this organization is one of the most 
coveted student awards, and only first-class high schools 
are eligible for chapters25 (App. 133-134; R. 70). Wash­
ington-Lee may also confer the Bausch and Lomb Hon­
orary Science Award (App. 134; R. 70).

Hoffman-Boston does not have a chapter of the Na­
tional Honor Society, nor may it confer the Bausch 
and Lomb Honorary Science Award (App. 134; R. 
70). The fact that its pupils cannot compete for these 
honors is a decided disadvantage to them26 * (App. 
134).

25. In this connection, Washington-Lee holds the following citation: 
“By virtue of its standards, this school is qualified to confer this award 
for scholastic attainment.” (R. 70).

26. It has long been a custom in American high schools to give
special recognition to students of scholastic excellence (R. 70). The 
undisputed evidence was that honorary awards build the morale and 
prestige of pupils, provide homogeneity among the pupils obtaining 
them, and are of valuable assistance to them in obtaining acceptance 
by. colleges, scholarships, and employment (App. 133-134, 194-195).



[ 3 2 ]

C. Teachers

Number of teachers: Washington-Lee has 79 full-time 
senior high school teachers (R. 107, 108, 110, 114), 
including an ample number of vocational teachers. 
Hoffman-Boston has only 12 full-time teachers, who 
teach in both the junior and the senior high school de­
partments (App. 239), only one of whom teaches vo­
cational work (App. 91). The number of teachers at 
Hoffman-Boston is insufficient to permit the teaching 
of the number or variety of courses taught at Wash­
ington-Lee27 (App. 89-92).

Teaching Experience: The experience of the teacher
is an objective index to teaching competency (R. 39)28 * 
In general, experienced teachers are better and more 
effective teachers than inexperienced teachers (App. 
92-93, 148, 160-161; R. 39).

Teachers at Washington-Lee have a greater average 
of teaching experience, both in Arlington County and 
elsewhere, than teachers at Hoffman-Boston (App. 148, 
160-161; R. 110, 409, 677). The median Washington- 
Lee teacher had 11 years of total teaching experi­
ence in 1947-48 (R. 40, 41) and 12.8 years in 1948- 
49 (R. 110). The median Hoffman-Boston teacher 
had only 6 years of total teaching experience in 1947- 
48 (R. 40, 41) and only 5.6 years in 1948-49 (R. 110).

27. For example, the single vocational instructor at Hoffman-Boston 
could not teach, certainly as well, all of the distinct vocational courses 
as well as they are taught by the several vocational teachers at Wash­
ington-Lee each of whom is a specialist in his field. (App. 89-92). 
The same considerations apply in the academic field, particularly in the 
language and science courses (App. 91-92).

28. Arlington, like most other school systems, gives salary and other
preferences to teachers as their teaching experience increases (R. 39- 
40).



[ 3 3 ]

Washington-Lee has 28 teachers with more than 15 
years total teaching experience, while Hoffman-Boston 
has none (R. 110).

Teachers Salaries: Differences in competency of teach­
ers are further reflected in the salaries paid teachers 
in the two schools.29 The median salaries paid Wash­
ington-Lee teachers for 1946-47, 1947-48, and 1948- 
49, were $2,861, $3,149, and $3,242, respectively (R. 
42, 105). The median salaries paid Hoffman-Boston 
teachers for the same years were $2,274, $2,724, and 
$2,699, respectively ( R. 42, 105). In these three years, 
only one teacher, for only 1947-48, at Hoffman-Boston 
received a salary which was greater than the median 
salary of teachers at Washington-Lee ( R. 40, 42, 105). 
As all teachers are paid from the same salary scale 
(App. 98-99; R. 40, 675), these differentials are due 
to factors of competency rather than race (App. 99; 
R. 40, 499).

Number o f Different Subjects Taught: Teachers at
Hoffman-Boston have to teach a number of different 
unrelated subjects, while teachers at Washington-Lee 
are almost in fields of specialization30 (App. 94-97,

29. Salaries of teachers in Arlington County are based upon factors 
of experience, collegiate training and rating, reputation and scholastic 
ability (R. 675-676). The basic assumption of the salary schedule is 
that as training and experience increase, the teacher’s value to the 
pupil increases (R. 40).

30. A teacher is seldom equally competent in all of the subjects he 
is certificated to teach (R. 40-41). In terms of both training and in­
terest, the teacher is usually most competent in his field of major specializa­
tion (R. 43). The general practice in larger schools is to confine a 
teacher to teaching primarily subjects in his major field, and, secondarily, 
in his minor field, of college preparation (App. 163-164; R. 593, 594, 
597). Instruction in a school in which each teacher teaches a single 
subject will usually be superior to instruction in a school in which teachers 
generally teach two or more unrelated subjects (App. 163-164; R. 
43, 593-599).



162-163). Only 2 of the 79 teachers at Washington- 
Lee in 1946-47 and only 3 of the 81 teachers there 
in 1947-48, taught more than a single subject (R. 43), 
and no teacher taught more than 2 unrelated subjects 
during this period (R. 43). All 5 of the teachers 
at Hoffman-Boston in 1946-47, and 6 of the 7 teachers 
there in 1947-48 taught two or more unrelated sub­
jects (R. 43). In 1948-49, only 6 of the 79 teachers 
at Washington-Lee had to make more than three daily 
preparations, while during the same year 9 of the 11 
teachers at Hoffman-Boston had to make more than 
three daily preparations (App. 95; R. 114).

D. Accreditation

Washington-Lee is accredited both by the South­
ern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools and 
by the Virginia State Department of Education (App. 
131, 268; R. 68). Until 1948-49, Hoffman-Boston was 
accredited by neither (App. 131, 268). It is still not 
accredited by the Southern.Association (App. 132, 268; 
R. 937) and is accredited by the Virginia State Depart­
ment of Education only on a probationary basis (App. 
131, 268).31

[ 3 4 ]

31, Accreditation is a thing of great value, not only to the school, 
bat also to its pupils (App. 131; R. 68). The standards of regional 
accrediting agencies are usually higher than those of state accrediting 
agencies (App. 147-148; R. 497). A public institution of higher learning 
in Virginia might admit without qualification graduates of a school ac­
credited by the state accrediting agency (App. 132). Graduates of a 
school accredited by a regional accrediting agency may normally go 
to any institution, public or private, in the United States and enter with­
out examination, but if the school is not accredited by a regional ac­
crediting agency, a majority of the colleges in the United States either 
will not admit the graduate or will admit them only by special ex­
amination (App. 130-131). Thus, non-accreditation by the Southern 
Association would adversely effect the entrance by a Hoffman-Boston 
graduate into most colleges in the United States (App. 132) and its 
pupils who desire to enter college, either private or public, located outr 
side Virginia are greatly disadvantaged (App. 130-132; R. 69-70).



Experts testified as to the inherent difficulties and 
inferiorities of small as compared with large high schools 
(App. 71-72, 75; Pi. Ex. 99). The conclusion reached
by them (App. 68, 99, 135-136, 195) that the opportuni­
ties, advantages and facilities afforded Hoffman-Boston 
pupils are greatly inferior to those afforded Washing­
ton-Lee pupils, is inescapable.

■ Ill
The Discriminations Against Appellants Cannot Be

Justified B y  Reason'of the Smaller Number of 
Negro H igh School Pupils, as Compared with 

the Number of W hite H igh School Pupils, 
in Arlington County, or B y  the Compara­

tive E xpenditures or Investments Made 
for E ducation in the H igh Schools 

of Said County.

The position of appellees and the Court below rests 
largely upon the fact that the enrollment at Hoffman- 
Boston is much smaller than at Washington-Lee. The 
simple answer is that the constitutional right to equali­
ty in educational opportunities is personal, and that 
the fact of smaller number of pupils at Hoffman-Boston 
is no justification for a refusal to afford such right when 
requested,32 or for the difficulties arising from its small­
ness. This is educationally (App. 73, 74-75, 142-144, 
195-196, 198-200, 225-226), as well as legally, sound.

The expenditures and investments per capita (App. 
347-348) in the high schools in question are equally ir­
relevant. Conclusions as to the relative merits of two

[ 3 5 ]

32. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938), cited supra 
note 5; McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe  Railway Co ., 235 U. S. 
151 (1914); Mitchell v. United States, 313 U. S. 80 (1941).



[ 3 6 ]

schools drawn from per capita expenditures and in­
vestments is acceptable procedure where the schools 
are of comparable size, but it is well known that where, 
as here, there is greatly disparity in the size of the 
populations of the schools being compared, per cap­
ita figures are worthless (App, 86-89).

IV
The Discriminations Against Appellants as to 

Courses of Instruction Cannot B e  Justified 
B y  the Claimed F ailure of Negro Pupils 

to Specifically Demand the E stablish­
ment of Such Courses at the Negro 

H igh School.

At Washington-Lee, all courses in the curriculum are 
available each year to every eligible pupil without prev­
ious demand or request therefor (App. 224, 225, 228). 
Appellees’ claim, and the holding of the Court below, 
is that a Negro pupil at Hoffman-Boston seeking in­
struction there in courses available to pupils at Wash­
ington-Lee as a matter of course must be subjected 
to an entirely different procedure:

1. He must make a precedent demand or request 
for the course before it will he afforded, either at 
Hoffman-Boston or elsewhere, and await its establish­
ment, even though the same course is already being 
taught at Washington-Lee (App. 224, 228-229; R. 
712).

2. Upon receipt of a demand or request for a course 
at Hoffman-Boston for instruction in which it has no 
facilities or where it is requested only by a few pupils, 
the principal has no authority to establish the course,



[ 3 7 ]

but can only refer the request to the School Board 
for such arrangements it is able to make (App. 705- 
706, 237-238; R. 784, 790, 802, 811-812). The course 
will not be given unless and until the School Board so 
directs (R. 811-812).

3. In addition, the pupil must survive an investi­
gation or test before a determination is made (App. 
230, 269-270).33

That it is not incumbent upon Negro pupils to seek 
the establishment of additional educational facilities was 
recently made clear in the Sipuel case34 where a Negro 
refused admission to the only state-supported law school 
in Oklahoma because of her race sought mandamus 
to compel her admission. The courts of that state 
denied the writ on the ground that she should have 
requested the establishment of a separate law school. 
The Supreme Court of the United States held this po­
sition to be untenable.35 * *

33. The Vice-Chairman of the Board testified that if only one Negro 
pupil wanted at Hoffman-Boston a course taught at Washington-Lee, 
the Board would not be justified in establishing it unless the pupil 
was “tested”, and it appeared that it would do the pupil some good, 
the pupil showed enough talent and aptitude for the course and ability 
to use it, and “there was any practical reason why tax money should 
he spent to offer one course to one pupil” (App. 270), in which case 
she would recommend to the Board that a teacher give the pupil “special 
time”, or let him take a special course for a regular course, or send 
the pupil elsewhere to obtain the course (R. 1080-1083).

34. 332 U. S. 621 (1948) cited supra note 5.

35. The Court said: “The petitioner is entitled to secure legal education 
afforded by a state institution. To this time, it has been denied her 
although during the same period many applicants have been afforded 
legal education by the State. The State must provide it for her in 
conformity with the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any pther 
group.” (332 U. S. at 632-633) When the case again came before the Court
(Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U. S. 147 (1948) it was said: “The Oklahoma Su­
preme Court upheld the refusal to admit petitioner on the ground that she 
had failed to demand establishment of a separate school and admission to it. 
On remand, the district court correctly understood our decision to hold 
that the equal protection clause permits no such defense.” (333 U. S. 
at 150).



[ 3 8 ]

Appellees’ position here is an effort to technically
justify a great wrong. The record in this case shows 
that no white pupil has ever been required to demand 
a course and wait for its establishment (App. 224, 225, 
228), but can take the same as a matter of course.36 
Courses are offered in high schools in the light of the; 
potential rather than actual demand (App. 196-197; 
R. 583, 584).37 Indeed, pupils register for the courses 
they know are to be offered during a particular ses­
sion, rather than seek courses not listed in the offering 
— a practice which has proven thoroughly futile at 
Hoffman-Boston.38

86. The Vice-Chairman of the School Board admitted that a Negro 
child desiring a course available to white children at Washington- 
Lee could not get the course at Hoffman-Boston no matter what his 
ability is, while if white he could get it at Washington-Lee no matter 
what their ability is (App. 270-271).

87. The better procedure in establishing courses is to plan the 
entire four year program and organize the courses in progressive order 
(App. 226-227). It is very inferior administration and bad practice 
to establish a course here and there as and when a pupil requests il 
(App. 226-227). The organization of courses and determination of 
offering is usually made by a committee of faculty members and ad­
ministrators who study the needs of the pupils (App. 149-150, 197- 
198, 202-205; R. 583, 584). Experts are frequently called in either 
for complete surveys or consultation (R. 589). Where the-occasion de­
mands, questions may be discussed with parents and other interested 
persons (App. 203-204). The study includes student population for 
previous years, population trends in the community, the potential needs 
of pupils who will matriculate in the future, and other factors (App. 
197). This seems to have been the process employed for the estab­
lishment of courses at Washington-Lee.

38. The evidence shows plainly that in the past Hoffman-Boston
pupils have made requests for courses in the most intelligent and
reasonable manner possible for a school child, but have not received 
them. Peggy Council requested Latin on at least four separate oc­
casions prior to the current school year, and also requested Spanish 
and Chemistry, neither of which courses she has received ( ante,
pp. 8-9). Calvin Davis graduated without receiving the vocational 
course his mother formally requested of the School Board (post, foot­
note 47). Julius Brevard’s request for automobile mechanics has not 
been honored (ante, pp. 9-10). The principal of Hoffman-Boston testi­
fied that he has frequently had pupils request certain courses, which



[ 3 9 ]

V
Appellees  Are Discriminating Against Appellants By

Requiring Them  to Avail Themselves of H igh 
School F acilities Outside Arlington County, 

W hile Affording W hite Children Similarly 
Situated Such F acilities W ithin 

Said C ounty.

Appellees claim to have established the general pol­
icy of sending Negro vocational pupils resident in Ar­
lington County to Manassas Regional School. 25 miles 
distant at Manassas, Prince William County, Virginia, 
to there obtain courses not offered at Hoffman-Boston 
though offered and taught at Washington-Lee (App. 
226, 242; R. 651-652, 715-716, 740-742, 833, 1069).

Manassas is owned and maintained by the School 
Boards of Prince William, Fairfax and Fauquier Coun­
ties (App. 246, 306; R. 831-832) pursuant to the plan 
specified in the statutes of Virginia and the rules and 
regulations of the State Board of Education (R. 97) 
which vest exclusive authority with respect to the op­
eration and management of the school, and in all other 
matters most vital to said school, in a Joint Commit­
tee for Control (App. 241-243), composed of two 
school board members, each with voting power, from 
each of the three participating school boards (App. 
241-243; PI. Ex. 87).

Arlington does not share in either the ownership, con­
trol or operation of Manassas (R. 879-880). It simply 
pays tuition for the privilege of attendance by its

were not given them because none presented formally an application 
therefor (R. 779), and that at the beginning of each school year pupils 
requested a variety of courses which Hoffman-Boston did not give 
(R. 785, 810-811, 816).



[40]

pupils (App. 241). One Arlington Negro pupil is at­
tending (App. 271, 287; R, 1089, 1118). He travels 
daily to and from Manassas on a school bus owned and 
controlled by Fairfax County (App. 245-246, 271),

Plant, Facilities and Equipment-. Manassas consists in 
a group of old, unattractive buildings (Df. Ex. Y, CC, 
DD) and a newly constructed vocational building (Df. 
Ex. E E ). The latter, and the academic building, which 
is in bad condition (App. 313), are of principal con­
cern here.
Shops: Manassas has only (R. 1130) a general car­
pentry shop (Pi. Ex. 79), a general masonry shop 
(Pi. Ex. 77) and a general mechanics shop (Pi. Ex. 
78). As the photographs attest, these shops have vir­
tually no equipment (App. 302; R. 1125-1126).39

Science Laboratory : Has only one science laboratory
(R. 1129; Pi. Ex. 83). It is in a very dilapidated 
condition (App. 313; R. 1224). It has very little 
apparatus, equipment or supplies (R. 1128; Pi. Ex. 
83). Its facilities for experimentation are not used 
(App. 313), and the laboratory itself has not been 
used for a long time (App. 313). The value of its 
science equipment is less than $1,000 (App. 309-310).

39. Typical is the general mechanics shop in which, it is claimed, 
instruction in Automobile Mechanics is afforded (App. 289-290). The 
instructor testified that he had a few hand tools (App. 289, 295), but 
no motor analyzers, valve grinders, armature lathes, chain hoists, bat­
tery chargers, practice engines, experimental speedometers or other 
equipment (App. 293-295) such as is found at Washington-Lee. He 
referred to a Chevrolet truck there, but neither he nor the administrative 
officer knew how or for what purpose it got there, or to whom it 
belonged, its year model, or the miles it had traveled (App. 289-292, 238- 
239). He was unable to name from the witness stand what other tools or 
equipment he had (App. 292-293). It was also said that the pupils 
would use anything which was available, including the school’s farm 
machinery (App. 239; R. 1267).



[41]

Library: Located in one small room, unattractive, 
equipped with 6 tables and 30 chairs, ventilation doubt­
ful (R. 1127; PL Ex. 80, 81, 95). It has no reference 
room, magazine room, or workroom (Pi. Ex. 80, 81, 
95). It has only 3122 volumes (Pi. Ex. 95), and 48 
magazines (App. 310).

Auditorium: Its single auditorium is the third-floor attic 
of the classroom building (App. 300, 312; R. 1128, 1258; 
PI. Ex. 84, 85). It is small, terribly overcrowded, in­
adequate, inaccessible and unattractive (App. 312; Pi. 
Ex. 84, 85). It has only three exits, and the building 
is not fireproof (App. 300; Pi. Ex. 84, 85). Its seats 
are partly the old wooden long bench type, and part­
ly metal seats attached to the floor (R. 1259; PI. 
Ex. 84, 85). It has no projection booth or stage (Pi. 
Ex. 84, 85).

Dining Room: A small room, which can seat only 40
or 50 pupils, is employed for the purpose ( App. 299-300; 
R. 1128; Pi. Ex. 86). It has a small quantity of old 
equipment (R. 1128; Pi. Ex. 86).

Its classrooms are in very poor condition and ill- 
equipped (R. 1127, 1224; Pi. Ex. 86). It has no in­
door space available for physical education (App. 310). 
The lavatories in the academic building are in bad 
condition (R. 1224). It has no lockers, except in the 
vocational building (App. 301).

It has no gymnasium, band auditorium, music room, 
art room, bookkeeping classroom, distributive educa­
tion room, guidance office, or teachers rest room ( App. 
309, 311-312). Its vocational facilities, auditorium, cafe­
teria, library, athletic facilities, classrooms, science fa­
cilities and lavatories are each inferior to the facili­
ties at Washington-Lee (App. 311-312; R. 1220).



[ 4 2 ]

Courses o f Study: The shops at Manassas are only gen­
eral exploratory shops. Manassas has no separate spe­
cialized courses in Automobile Mechanics, Mechanical 
Drawing, Machine Shop, Sheet Metal, Printing, or Wood 
Shop as has Washington-Lee (App. 295). For some 
it has no facilities at all; whatever is taught with 
reference to the others is what may be touched upon 
in the general exploratory courses.40

Its academic curriculum41 * * suffers similarly when com­
pared with Washington-Lee. The only academic courses 
at Manassas which are not at Hoffman-Boston are 
World History and General Mathematics (App. 284- 
287; PI. Ex. 87, 89). Thus, there at least 35 aca­
demic and vocational courses at Washington-Lee which 
are not offered or taught at Manassas (see ante, p. 
27).

Manassas is about 25 miles from Arlington (App. 
226). Attendance at Manassas would require this dis­
tance to be traveled each day. To require Negro 
pupils to obtain a high school education under these 
circumstances is to subject them to the same inequali-

40. The General Mechanics instructor testified that instruction there­
in in Automobile Mechanics for about 6 weeks had consisted entirely 
in teaching the pupils how to change tires and minor maintenance (App. 
290), that he had taught them “quite a bit of theory” (App. 293) 
following which he would “let them change a wheel just to be chang­
ing a wheel” (290), largely on his own car (App. 290, 292). He 
admitted that the course was only a beginners’ course (App. 295; 
R. 1188). It is clear that Julius Brevard could not obtain at Manassas 
a course in Automobile Mechanics equal to that afforded at Washington- 
Lee (App. 313-314).

41. Vocational pupils from Arlington attending Manassas would take
both their vocational and related or desired academic work there ( R.
753, 754).



[ 4 3 ]

ties, hardships and inconveniences which in the Corbin42 
case this Court held to invalidate a similar arrange­
ment.43

It is plain that Arlington does not intend to discharge 
its obligations to Negro pupils, but to unload them 
on some other authority owing them no responsibili­
ties.44 In the very arrangement it now seeks to justi­
fy, its officials have evidenced a striking indifference 
toward the welfare of Negro pupils.45 Aldington es­
tablishes its own policies in Aldington schools which 
it exclusively owns and operates, and these have resulted 
in a high standard of educational offering to white 
pupils. This is not and cannot be done at Manassas, 
which is operated by others and in accordance with 
their own lower standards.46 * It is clear that such ar­
rangement does not afford Negro pupils the equality of

42. Corbin v. County School Board o f Pulaski County, 177 F. 2d 
924 (1949), cited supra note 5.

43. The fact that some white pupils residing in Arlington County 
receive vocational instruction at Manassas Technical School, also in 
Manassas, is immaterial. Such pupils go there, not because of their 
race, but because they happen to be late in seeking the courses at 
Washington-Lee or because in the normal course of operations the 
classes there are filled when they apply (App. 243-244). All Negro 
vocational pupils for whom Hoffman-Boston has no facilities must at­
tend Manassas Regional, and no Negro pupil is permitted to compete 
for the available facilities at Washington-Lee (App. 243-245).

44 For some time Arlington depended upon the District of Columbia 
to educate its Negro pupils (Ante, pp. 6-7). It would revert to this 
practice if Manassas cannot afford Negro pupils the courses sought 
(App. 231; R. 753, 756)..

45. The arrangements were made without precedent investigation to 
determine the vocational facilities ( App. 277; R. 768) or academic 
offering (R  767) at Manassas, or whether it afforded the course deemed 
desirable for and offered at Washington-Lee (App. 231; R. 768).

46. The general policy of the Committee for Control is to operate 
Manassas in conformity with the policies of Prince _ W d-iam County
(App 306- PI Ex 90). This caused dissatisfaction both within 
and without the school (App. 306). Teachers are paid in ac­
cordance with the salarv scale of Prince William County (App. 3 0 ;) ,



[44]

legal right or protection in47 the privilege of a voca­
tional education which the Constitution requires.48

CONCLUSION

The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates 
that appellees have discriminated and are discriminat­
ing against appellants and other Arlington County Negro 
pupils, on account of their race or color, in educational 
opportunities, advantages and facilities in violation of 
the Constitutional and statutory provisions hereinbefore

whose average salary for teachers is lower than Fairfax and Fauquier 
Counties (PI. Ex. 96, pp. 272-273) and tremendously lower than 
Arlington’s (PL Ex. 96, p. 271) which pays the highest in the state 
(App. 245; R. 676, 678-679) and thus is in position to attract su­
perior teachers (R. 676-677, 871-872). The teachers remained very 
dissatisfied and the pupils suffered (App. 308). Inauguration of the 
12-year system at Manassas was delayed until the Prince William School 
Board decided it wanted and could afford that system (App. 308-309). 
Construction of the new vocational building was delayed for several 
years for similar reasons (App. 309). In May, 1949, a study was 
made of the vocational set-up at Washington-Lee for purposes of 
setting up at Manassas an adequate vocational program to be 
modeled after Washington-Lee. A program therefor was carefully 
worked out and presented to the Joint Committee at its June meeting 
(PI. Ex. 90) which included the necessary equipment. The Joint 
Committee did not accept the report (App. 302-304). In the past, 
numerous other recommendations have been made to the Joint Committee 
(PI. Ex. 91, 92, 93) which the Committee ignored (App. 304-305).

47. The Arlington School Board received a letter from the mother 
of one Calvin Davis requesting a vocational course offered at Washington- 
Lee but not at Hoffman-Boston, and requesting that the course be 
offered at Hoffman-Boston or that his tuition to Manassas be paid 
(App. 232). The Board declined to put the course in at Hoffman- 
Boston and never in fact paid his tuition to Manassas (App. 233). 
Davis could not register at Manassas, and returned to and attended 
Hoffman-Boston until his graduation without ever having received the 
course he desired (App. 240). The Assistant Superintendent of Schools 
of Arlington testified that he did not check with Manassas to determine 
whether Davis was admitted there (R. 765-766) and that he was not 
familiar with the outcome of the incident (App. 232-233).

48. Missouri ex. rel Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938), cited 
supra note 5; Piper v. Big Pine School District, 193 Cal 664, 226 P. 
926 (1924).



[ 4 5 ]

referred to (ante, pp. 10-11). It is therefore sub­
mitted that the judgment appealed from is clearly 
erroneous and should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

Oliver W. Hill ,
Martin A. Martin,

Spottswood W. Robinson, III, 
L eon A. Ransom,
Counsel for Appellants.

Hill , Martin & Robinson,
623 North Third Street,
Richmond 19, Virginia.