Wheeler v. Durham City Board of Education Appendix to Brief of Appellants
Public Court Documents
April 28, 1964 - August 3, 1964
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Wheeler v. Durham City Board of Education Appendix to Brief of Appellants, 1964. f93ae5fe-c89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2008df0b-ab5b-441d-b784-03574cd952d2/wheeler-v-durham-city-board-of-education-appendix-to-brief-of-appellants. Accessed October 09, 2025.
Copied!
I n t h e
Ittited #tate CUmtrt nt Appeals
F ob t h e F o u r t h C i r c u i t
No. 9630
W arren H. W h e e l e r , et ol., and
C. C. S p a u l d i n g , III, et ol.,
Appellants,
— v . — v
T h e D urham City B oard o f E ducation, a body politic
in Durham County, North Carolina,
Appellee.
a p p e a l f r o m t h e u n i t e d s t a t e s d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t h e
m i d d l e d i s t r i c t o f n o r t h Ca r o l i n a
APPENDIX TO BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
Derrick A. B ell, J r.
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Conrad O. P earson
M. H ugh T hompson
W illiam A. Marsh, J r.
203i/2 East Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina
F. B. McK issick
209% West Main 'Street
Durham, North Carolina
J. H. W heeler
116 West Parish Street
Durham, North Carolina
Counsel for Appellants
INDEX TO APPENDIX
PAGE
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Plan for De
segregation for the School Year 1964-65 and There
after ............. .............................................................. 9a
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools.............. ......................... ........ 13a
Answer of the Defendant to the Interrogatories Sub
mitted to It by the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 22a
Exhibit No. 1 Annexed to Answer of Defendant to
Interrogatories .................................. 25a
Exhibit No. 2 Annexed to Answer of Defendant to
Interrogatories ..................................... 26a
Exhibit No. 3 Annexed to Answer of Defendant to
Interrogatories ............................................................ 28a
Exhibit No. 4 Annexed to Answer of Defendant to
Interrogatories .......................................................... 29a
Exhibit No. 5 Annexed to Answer of Defendant to
Interrogatories ......................................................... 30a
Exhibit No. 6 Annexed to Answer of Defendant to
Interrogatories ................................... 31a
Exhibit No. 7 Annexed to Answer of Defendant to
Interrogatories ........................................ 32a
Exhibit No. 8 Annexed to Answer of Defendant to
Interrogatories ............. 33a
Stipulation Regarding Certain Maps ................... 37a
Stipulation Regarding Certain Overlays .................... 40a
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham City Schools la
PAGE
Paul W. Brooks
Direct ......... ...... ................... .............................. 47a
Cross ............... 50a
Offering of Exhibits ............ ................................... 52a
Lew W. Hannen
Direct......... ............. 57a
Redirect ..... 88a
Herman A. Rhinehart
Direct ..... 105a
Cross ...................................... ...... .................. . 105a
Redirect ................................ .................... ....... 106a
Edward L. Phillips
Direct.............. .................................................... 110 a
Order ..... .................................................................... . H 3a
ii
Excerpts From Testimony
Colloquy ...................... 44a
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham City Schools
I n the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F ob the M iddle D istrict op North Carolina
Durham D ivision
No. C-54-D-60
W arren H. W heeler, a Minor, by J. H. Wheeler,
his father and next friend, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
— vs.—
Durham City B oard of E ducation, a body politic in
Durham County, North Carolina,
Defendant.
C.
No. C-116-D-60
C. Spaulding, III, a Minor, by C. C. Spaulding, Jr.,
his father and next friend, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
— vs.—
D urham City B oard of E ducation, a body politic in
Durham County, North Carolina,
Defendant.
To the Honorable Edwin M. Stanley, Chief Judge of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina:
The Durham City Board of Education, defendant in the
above entitled actions, pursuant to an Order entered by the
Court on the 24th day of July, 1963, most respectfully sub
2a
mits to the Court the following Plan for the Desegregation
of the Durham City Schools:
P lan for Desegregation of the D urham City Schools
W hereas, pursuant to Chapter 366, Public Laws of
North Carolina, Session 1955, as amended, the Durham City
Board of Education has the duty and responsibility for
assigning children who attend schools in this administra
tive unit to a school;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Durham City
Board of Education,
That in Order to best promote the orderly and efficient
administration of the Public Schools in this unit, the effec
tive instruction for children subject to assignment by this
Board, and to provide for the general welfare of such
children and each of them, and for the proper utilization
of physical facilities presently available, that the children
eligible to attend the schools of this administrative unit
shall be assigned as follows for the school year 1964-65
and thereafter:
1. First grade pupils who are entering school for the
first time shall be initially assigned to the elementary
school located in the attendance area in which said pupil
resides.
The parent or person standing in loco parentis of first
grade pupils entering school for the first time may, within
fifteen (15) days after notification of assignment, apply
in writing to the Board for reassignment to another ele
mentary school. These requests shall be granted in the
order received until the maximum capacity per class room
shall have been attained with priority being determined by
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham City Schools
3a
the order of the receipt of such applications or requests for
reassignment. The maximum capacity per class room shall
be in accordance with the standards for accreditation es
tablished by the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools. A second and third choice may be set forth in
the request for reassignment. In the absence of such choice
it will be presumed that the next succeeding choice of the
pupil is the school to which he or she was initially assigned.
2. Those pupils now enrolled in any elementary school
in this administrative unit, other than Fuller Elementary
School, and who have not completed the course of instruc
tion in said elementary school shall be assigned for the
1964-65 school year to the elementary school which the
respective pupils are now attending.
3. At the end of the current school year (1963-64), the
Fuller School Building which is now being used both as an
elementary school and for administrative school offices
will be discontinued as an elementary school. The present
Fuller School attendance area will be abolished by en
larging the North Durham, Edgemont and East End Ele
mentary Schools attendance areas.
Those pupils who were enrolled in and attended Fuller
Elementary School during the 1963-64 school year and who
have not satisfactorily completed the course of instruction
in the said school will be assigned to the elementary school
which serves the attendance area in which they reside.
4. The parent or person standing in loco parentis of any
pupil now assigned to an elementary school or junior high
school located outside of his own attendance area may,
within fifteen (15) days after notification of assignment
of his child, request reassignment to the elementary school
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham City Schools
4 a
or junior high school serving the area in which the pupil
resides. These requests shall be granted in the order re
ceived until the maximum capacity per class room shall
have been attained with priority being determined by the
order of the receipt of such applications or requests for
reassignment. The maximum capacity per class room shall
be in accordance with the standards for accreditation estab
lished by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
5. Any elementary school pupil and any junior high
school pupil who changes his residence during the school
year from one attendance area to another attendance area
shall for the then current school year remain in the school
which the pupil was attending prior to change of residence;
provided, however, on the request of the parent or person
standing in loco parentis the pupil will be permitted to
transfer to the elementary school or junior high school
serving the attendance area of his new residence.
6. These pupils who have satisfactorily completed the
course of instruction in any elementary school within this
administrative unit shall be assigned to the junior high
school which serves the attendance area in which they
reside. It is the intention of the Board to maintain so far
as practicable the six, three and three grade plan. How
ever, due to the present overcrowded conditions at Carr
Junior High School all pupils who have successfully com
pleted the sixth grade at Lyon Park School, Southside
School and Crest Street School shall be assigned for the
school year 1964-65 to the seventh grade at the respective
schools.
7. Those pupils who have satisfactorily completed the
course of instruction of any junior high school within this
administrative unit shall be assigned as follows:
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham City Schools
5a
Graduates of Brogden, Carr and Holton Junior High
Schools shall be assigned to Durham High School.
Graduates of Whitted and Shepard Junior High
Schools shall be assigned to Hillside High School.
8. Those pupils enrolled in any junior high school in
this administrative school unit and who have not satisfac
torily completed the course of instruction in such junior
high school shall be assigned to the junior high school
which said pupil attended during the preceding school
year; provided, however, those junior high school pupils
who reside in the Shepard Junior High School attendance
area and who were enrolled in Whitted Junior High School
for the school year 1963-64 shall be assigned to the new
Shepard Junior High School for the school year 1964-65.
9. Those pupils now enrolled in either Durham High
School or Hillside High School and who have not satis
factorily completed the course of instruction in said high
school shall be assigned to the senior high school which
said pupil attended during the preceding school year.
10. Notice of initial assignment of pupils shall be made
on the final report card of each pupil at the end of each
school year. The notice of assignment for the next school
year shall be mailed to the parent or person standing in loco
parentis of each pupil within fifteen (15) days after the end
of the school year and shall inform the parent or person
standing in loco parentis of each pupil of his right to apply
for reassignment of the pupil to another school within the
time and manner hereinafter provided in paragraph No. 11.
11. The parent or person standing in loco parentis of
any pupil assigned to any school may, within fifteen (15)
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham City Schools
6a
days after notification by report card assignment, request
reassignment to another school. These requests shall be
granted in the order received until the maximum capacity
per class room shall have been attained with priority being
determined by the order of the receipt of such applications
or requests for reassignment. The maximum capacity per
class room shall be in accordance with the standards for
accreditation established by the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools. A second and third choice may be
set forth in the request for reassignment. In the absence
of such choice it will be presumed that the next succeeding
choice of the pupil is the school to which he or she was in
itially assigned.
12. The parent or person standing in loco parentis of
any child who has not been assigned to a school prior to
the beginning of the school year and also of those pupils
who moved into this administrative school unit during the
school year shall make application for initial assignment
on forms to be furnished by the office of the Superintendent.
These forms will be available at the office of the principal
in the respective school of this administrative school unit.
Said applications shall be delivered to the office of the
Superintendent of the Durham City Schools and he shall
make tentative assignment of each pupil and such assign
ment shall be reported by him to the Board at its next
regular or special meeting for such action as the Board
may take thereon. The tentative initial assignments shall
be made as follows:
1. Elementary school pupils shall be assigned to the
elementary school serving the attendance area in which
they reside;
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham City Schools
7a
2. Junior high school pupils shall be assigned to the
junior high school serving the attendance area in which
they reside; and
3. Senior high school pupils shall be assigned to the
high school serving the junior high school attendance
area in which they reside.
13. All applications for reassignment shall be made on
forms to be furnished by, and available at, the office of the
Superintendent.
14. Pupils assigned in accordance with agreements be
tween this Board and the Durham County Board of Educa
tion as tuition pupils shall attend the schools to which as
signed.
15. The principal of the school to which pupils are as
signed by the Board shall not accept or enroll in his school
any child who has not been properly assigned thereto.
16. The Board shall give special consideration to the as
signment of pupils from one school to another within this
administrative unit regardless of the area of residence in
cases where there are valid academic reasons for the trans
fer, such as the fact that a special course of instruction be
ing pursued by the pupil is not available at the school to
which he has been assigned. The Board may also by mutual
agreement with the parent or person standing in loco par
entis of any pupil change the assignment of the pupil if the
proposed change will in the opinion of the Board and the
parent improve the educational opportunities of the pupil.
17. The Board reserves the right to change the assign
ment of any pupil or pupils on a non-discriminatory basis if
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham City Schools
8a
the necessity therefor may arise by reason of schools becom
ing overcrowded beyond the maximum standards of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
Plan for Desegregation of the Durham. City Schools
18. Notwithstanding the above rules and regulations
with reference to the assignment and reassignment of pu
pils in this administrative school unit, the parent, guardian
or person standing in loco parentis to any pupil who is dis
satisfied with the assignment or reassignment made by the
Board, may, under and pursuant to the Assignment and
Enrollment of Pupils’ Act, Chapter 115, Sections 176-179 of
the General Statutes of North Carolina, within ten (10)
days after notification of such assignment or reassignment,
apply in writing to the Board for reassignment of the pupil
to an difference public school. The application for such re
assignment shall be made on forms adopted, approved and
caused to be printed by the Durham City Board of Educa
tion and available at the office of the Superintendent, The
said application for reassignment shall be delivered to the
office of the Superintendent of the Durham City Schools for
consideration and action by the Board, under and pursuant
to the provisions of the said Assignment and Enrollment of
Pupils’ Act.
This 28th day of April, 1964.
Respectfully submitted,
Durham City B oard or E ducation
B y: H erman A. R hinehart
Marshall T. Spears
Attorney for Durham City Board of Education
111 Corcoran Street
Durham, North Carolina
Chairman
9a
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, respectfully object to the
desegregation plan filed herein by the Durham City Board
of Education on or about April 28, 1964, Plaintiffs object
that said plan is inadequate and incomplete under the con
trolling constitutional standards and specify as grounds
of their objection, the following:
1. The attendance districts adopted by the defendant
Board for elementary schools are improperly predicated
upon racial considerations and operate to impede desegre
gation. The said attendance districts are “ gerrymandered”
on a racial basis, and are not designed to make maximum
use of all available facilities, but instead, continue the pat
tern of overcrowding in certain Negro schools and the under
utilization of certain all-white or predominantly white
schools in order to preserve racial segregation.
The attendance areas for the all-Negro schools in the
system are drawn so as to conform to the Negro residen
tial areas in the city to such a great extent as to insure
that in all probability each of these schools will remain an
all-Negro school. Very few white pupils will be initially
assigned to the all-Negro schools under the present at
tendance areas—only entering students can be so assigned
since all others are continued in their present schools.
These factors, in addition to the continued faculty segre
gation, increase the probability that the few white children
who may be initially assigned to all-Negro schools in their
areas of residence will seek to transfer to predominantly
white schools.
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’ s Plan for
Desegregation for the School Year 1964-65
and Thereafter
10a
The racially gerrymandered school zones also discourage
the movement of Negro pupils to predominantly white
schools, in that although a right of transfer may exist—•
depending upon the availability of space—the racial gerry
mandering works to fill predominantly white schools with
white pupils. It also places the burden of initiating de
segregation largely upon Negro parents and pupils who
are required to comply with certain transfer procedures
(which involve time limits, etc.) in order to obtain deseg
regation.
2. Paragraphs 2, 8 and 9 of the plan, which provide for
the initial assignment of all pupils who have not completed
the courses of instruction in elementary, junior and senior
high schools, respectively, to the schools they are now
attending, operate to continue the previously established
pattern of racially segregated pupil placements, and to
limit the opportunity for pupils to obtain a desegregated
education. This affects the practical efficacy of the right
of transfer as a method of desegregation inasmuch as
transfers are limited on the basis of a school capacity
standard, but some schools are already at or near capacity
as a result of the initial assignments made on the basis
of race.
3. The plan improperly perpetuates the segregated pat
tern of pupil assignments by a feeder system under which
pupils finishing the Negro junior high schools (Whitted
and Shepard) will be initially assigned to the all-Negro
Hillside High School, and graduates of the three predomi
nantly white junior high schools will be initially assigned
to the predominantly white Durham High School.
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Plan for
Desegregation for the School Year 1964-65
and Thereafter
11a
4. The plan makes no provision for the assignment, re
assignment, initial hiring or placement of teachers and
other professional personnel on a nonracial basis, and for
the elimination of the present segregated personnel assign
ment practices, which operate to impede the desegregation
of the school system.
5. The plan makes no provision for the planning of the
size and location of new schools and additions to schools
without regard to race, or for revising existing plans for
construction already prepared in contemplation of a seg
regated school system, thus impeding desegregation of the
system.
6. The plan contains no provisions to insure that pupils
and parents will be adequately notified of their rights to
desegregation under the plan. It also contains no provi
sions to insure that necessary forms for seeking transfer
applications are freely and readily available to parents or
other persons within the community who desire to en
courage parents to exercise their rights to desegregation
under the plan.
The School Board has pursued in the past, and intends
to continue (see para. 13 of the plan), the practice of mak
ing reassignment application forms available only in the
office of the Superintendent and not in the offices of the
various school principals as is the practice with applica
tions for initial assignments. Furthermore, these forms
are issued only to parents or guardians or to persons with
written powers of attorney from parents or guardians who
call at the Superintendent’s office in person. The forms
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Plan for
Desegregation for the School Year 1964-65
and Thereafter
12a
are issued only during the brief transfer period, and are
issued only on the basis of one form per child. These
practices are intentionally designed to make it difficult
for Negro parents to obtain applications in order to seek
desegregation, and to prevent interested persons or com
munity groups from obtaining and distributing application
forms in an effort to persuade parents to take advantage
of the desegregation opportunities available under this
Court’s orders. Plaintiffs submit that such application
forms should be made available to all in reasonable num
bers at each of the schools in the City, or in the alternative
distributed directly as a matter of course to all parents
at the time they are advised of initial assignments.
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Plan for
Desegregation for the School Year 1964-65
and Thereafter
13a
To the Honorable Edwin M. Stanley, Chief Judge of the
United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina:
The Durham City Board of Education, defendant in the
above-entitled action, most respectfully submits to the
Court the following Amendments to the Plan heretofore
submitted to the Court on April 28, 1964:
Amendment to Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
W hereas, pursuant to Chapter 366, Public Laws of North
Carolina, Session 1955, as amended, the Durham City
Board of Education has the duty and responsibility for
assigning children who attend schools in this administra
tive unit to a school;
Now, T herefore, Be It R esolved by the Durham City
Board of Education,
That in order to best promote the orderly and efficient
administration of the Public Schools in this unit, the ef
fective instruction for children subject to assignment by
this Board, and to provide for the general welfare of such
children and each of them, and for the proper utilization
of physical facilities presently available, that the children
eligible to attend the schools of this administrative unit
shall be assigned as follows for the school year 1964-65
and thereafter:
1. First grade pupils who are entering school for the
first time shall be initially assigned to the elementary
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
14a
school located in the attendance area in which said pnpil
resides.
The parent or person standing in loco parentis of first
grade pupils entering school for the first time may, within
fifteen (15) days after notification of assignment, apply
in writing to the Board for reassignment to another ele
mentary school. These requests shall be granted in the
order received until the maximum capacity per class room
shall have been attained with priority being determined
by the order of the receipt of such applications or requests
for reassignment. The maximum capacity per class room
shall be in accordance with the standards for accredita
tion established by the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools. A second and third choice may be set forth
in the request for reassignment. In the absence of such
choice, it will be presumed that the next succeeding choice
of the pupil is the school to which he or she was initially
assigned.
2(A). Those pupils who were enrolled during the 1963-
64 school year in any elementary school in this adminis
trative unit, other than Fuller Elementary School, and
who have not completed the course of instruction in said
elementary school and who reside in the attendance area
for said elementary school have been or will be assigned
for the 1964-65 school year to the elementary school in
which they have been enrolled during the 1963-64 school
year.
2(B). Those pupils who were enrolled during the 1963-
64 school year in any elementary school in this adminis
trative unit, other than Fuller Elementary School, and
who have not completed the course of instruction in said
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
15a
elementary school and who reside m some other elementary
school attendance area shall be assigned for the 1964-65
school year to the elementary school located in the attend
ance area in which they reside.
3. At the end of the current school year (1963-64), the
Fuller School Building which is now being used both as
an elementary school and for administrative school offices
will be discontinued as an elementary school. The present
Fuller School attendance area will be abolished by enlarg
ing the North Durham, Edgemont and East End Elemen
tary Schools attendance areas.
Those pupils who were enrolled in and attended Fuller
Elementary School during the 1963-64 school year and who
have not satisfactorily completed the course of instruction
in the said school will be assigned to the elementary school
which serves the attendance area in which they reside.
4. The parent or person standing in loco parentis of any
pupil now assigned to an elementary school or junior high
school located outside of his own attendance area may,
within fifteen (15) days after notification of assignment of
his child, request reassignment to the elementary school or
junior high school serving the area in which the pupil re
sides. These requests shall be granted in the order received
until the maximum capacity per class room shall have been
attained with priority being determined by the order of the
receipt of such applications or requests for reassignment.
The maximum capacity per class room shall be in accord
ance with the standards for accreditation established by the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
16a
5. Any elementary school pupil and any junior high
school pupil who changes his residence during the school
year from one attendance area to another attendance area
shall for the then current school year remain in the school
which the pupil was attending prior to change of residence;
provided, however, on the request of the parent or person
attending in loco parentis the pupil will be permitted to
transfer to the elementary school or junior high school
serving the attendance area of his new residence.
6. Those pupils who have satisfactorily completed the
course of instruction in any elementary school within this
administrative unit shall be assigned to the junior high
school which serves the attendance area in which they re
side. It is the intention of the Board to maintain so far as
practicable the six, three and three grade plan. However,
due to the present overcrowded conditions at Carr Junior
High School, all pupils who have successfully completed the
sixth grade at Lyon Park School, Southside School and
Crest Street School shall be assigned for the school year
1964-65 to the seventh grade at the respective schools.
7. Those pupils who have satisfactorily completed the
course of instruction of any junior high school within this
administrative unit shall be assigned as follows:
Graduates of Brogden, Carr and Holton Junior High
Schools shall be assigned to Durham High School.
Graduates of Whitted and Shepard Junior High
Schools shall be assigned to Hillside High School.
8(A). Those pupils who were enrolled during the 1963-
64 school year in any junior high school in this administra
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
17a
tive unit and who have not completed the course of instruc
tion in said junior high school and who reside in the
attendance area of said junior high school have been or will
be assigned for the 1964-65 school year to the junior high
school in which they were enrolled during the 1963-64 school
year; provided, however, those junior high school pupils
who reside in the Shepard Junior High School attendance
area and who were enrolled in Whitted Junior High School
or some other junior high school during the 1963-64 school
year have been or will be assigned to the new Shepard
Junior High School for the 1964-65 school year.
8(B). Those pupils who were enrolled during the 1963-
64 school year in any junior high school in this administra
tive school unit and who have not completed the course of
instruction in said junior high school and who reside in
some other junior high school attendance area shall be as
signed for the 1964-65 school year to the junior high school
located in the attendance area in which they reside.
9. Those pupils now enrolled in either Durham High
School or Hillside High School and who have not satisfac
torily completed the course of instruction in said high
school shall be assigned to the senior high school which said
pupil attended during the preceding school year.
10. Notice of initial assignment of pupils shall be made
on the final report card of each pupil at the end of each
school year. The notice of assignment for the next school
year shall be mailed to the parent or person standing in
loco parentis of each pupil within fifteen (15) days after the
end of the school year and shall inform the parent or person
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
18a
standing in loco parentis of each pupil of his right to apply
for reassignment of the pupil to another school within the
time and manner hereinafter provided in Paragraph No. 11.
11. The parent or person standing in loco parentis of
any pupil assigned to any school may, within fifteen (15)
days after notification by report card assignment, request
reassignment to another school. These requests shall be
granted in the order received until the maximum capacity
per class room shall have been attained with priority being
determined by the order of the receipt of such applications
or requests for reassignment. The maximum capacity per
class room shall be in accordance with the standards for
accreditation established by the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools. A second and third choice may be set
forth in the request for reassignment. In the absence of
such choice, it will be presumed that the next succeeding
choice of the pupil is the school to which he or she was
initially assigned.
12. The parent or person standing in loco parentis of
any child who has not been assigned to a school prior to the
beginning of the school year and also of those pupils who
moved into this administrative school unit during the school
year shall make application for initial assignment on forms
to be furnished by the office of the Superintendent. These
forms will be available at the office of the principal in the
respective school of this administrative school unit. Said
applications shall be delivered to the office of the Superin
tendent of the Durham City Schools, and he shall make ten
tative assignment of each pupil and such assignment shall
be reported by him to the Board at its next regular or spe
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
19a
cial meeting for such action as the Board may take thereon.
The tentative initial assignments shall be made as follows :
1. Elementary school pupils shall be assigned to the
elementary school serving the attendance area in
which they reside;
2. Junior high school pupils shall be assigned to the
junior high school serving the attendance area in
which they reside; and
3. Senior high school pupils shall be assigned to the high
school serving the junior high school attendance area
in which they reside.
13. All applications for reassignment shall be made on
forms to be furnished by, and available at, the office of the
Superintendent.
14. Pupils assigned in accordance with agreements be
tween this Board and the Durham County Board of Educa
tion as tuition pupils shall attend the schools to which as
signed.
15. The principal of the school to which pupils are as
signed by the Board shall not accept or enroll in Ms school
any child who has not been properly assigned thereto.
16. The Board shall give special consideration to the as
signment of pupils from one school to another within this
administrative unit regardless of the area of residence in
cases where there are valid academic reasons for the trans
fer, such as the fact that a special course of instruction be
ing pursued by the pupil is not available at the school to
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
which he has been assigned. The Board may also by mutual
agreement with the parent or person standing in loco par
entis of any pupil change the assignment of the pupil if the
proposed change will in the opinion of the Board and the
parent improve the educational opportunities of the pupil.
17. The Board reserves the right to change the assign
ment of any pupil or pupils on a non-discriminatory basis if
the necessity therefor may arise by reason of schools be
coming overcrowded beyond the maximum standards of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
18. Notwithstanding the above rules and regulations
with reference to the assignment and reassignment of
pupils in this administrative school unit, the parent, guard
ian or person standing in loco parentis to any pupil who is
dissatisfied with the assignment or reassignment made by
the Board, may, under and pursuant to the Assignment and
Enrollment of Pupils’ Act, Chapter 115, Sections 176-179 of
the General Statutes of North Carolina, within ten (10)
days after notification of such assignment or reassignment,
apply in writing to the Board for reassignment of the pupil
to a different public school. The application for such reas
signment shall be made on forms adopted, approved and
caused to be printed by the Durham City Board of Educa
tion and available at the office of the Superintendent. The
said application for reassignment shall be delivered to the
office of the Superintendent of the Durham City Schools for
consideration and action by the Board, under and pursuant
to the provisions of the said Assignment and Enrollment of
Pupils’ Act.
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
21a
This .......day of June, 1964.
Respectfully submitted,
D urham City B oard of E ducation
B y : H erman A. R hinehart
Chairman
Amendment to the Plan for Desegregation of the
Durham City Schools
Marshall T. Spears
Attorney for Durham City Board of Education
111 Corcoran Street
Durham, North Carolina
22a
Answer of the Defendant to the Interrogatories
Submitted to It by the Attorneys for
the Plaintiffs
A copy of the said interrogatories was received by the
attorneys for the defendant on May 29, 1964.
1. Question : List the name of each public school
operated by the Durham City Board of Education during
the 1963-64 school year and indicate with respect to each
school the following information as of the most recent
date for which figures are available.
(a) Grades served.
(b) Number of classrooms and pupil capacity.
(c) Total number of Negro pupils and number in each
grade.
(d) Total number of white pupils and number in each
grade.
(e) Difference between numbers of pupils enrolled and
capacity of school (i.e., number of pupils in excess of
capacity or below capacity).
(f) Average class size for kindergarten, regular and
special classes and average for all classes. For secondary
schools give average number of pupils per section by
subject.
(g) Pupil-teacher ratio.
A nswer.: See Exhibit No. 1 attached hereto for answer
to sub-sections (a), (b), (e), (f), and (g). See Exhibit No.
2 attached hereto for answer to sub-section (c). See Ex
hibit No. 3 attached hereto for answer to sub-section (d).
23a
Answer of the Defendant to the Interrogatories Submitted
to It toy the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
2. Question : List all schools now under construction,
and indicate with respect to each:
(a) Location.
(b) Expected date of occupancy.
(c) Pupil capacity.
(d) Probable area to be served.
(e) Number of Negro and white pupils living in area
to be served in grades to be served.
A n s w e r : No schools are now under construction.
3. Question : List the number of Negro and white
teachers and other professional personnel in each school
in the system as of the most recent date for which such
figures are available.
A nsw er : See Exhibit No. 4 attached hereto.
4. Question : State by race the number of new teachers
hired during each of the past five school years and the total
number of teachers employed during each such year.
A n s w e r : See Exhibit No. 5 attached hereto.
5. Q uestion : State with respect to each school attend
ance area indicated on the maps adopted for the assignment
of pupils during the 1964-65 school year the following:
(a) Number of Negro school pupils residing within each
such area and attending the grades for which such area
applies.
24a
Answer of the Defendant to the Interrogatories Submitted
to It by the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
(b) Number of white school pupils residing within each
such area and attending the grades for which such area
applies.
(Use best available estimates or projections if precise
figures are not available.)
A nswer: See Exhibit No. 6 attached hereto.
6. Question: List the schools planned to operate dur
ing the 1964-65 school term, and state with respect to each
school:
(a) Grades to be served.
(b) Number of classrooms and pupil capacity.
(c) Number of pupils initially assigned to school (or
to be initially assigned) by grade and race, for the 1964-65
school term.
A nswer: See Exhibit No. 7 attached hereto for answer
to sub-sections (a) and (b). See Exhibit No. 8 attached
hereto for answer to sub-section (c).
This the 12th day of June, 1964.
Lew W. Hannon
Superintendent of Durham City Schools
25a
EXHIBIT NO. 1 ANNEXED TO ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT TO INTERROGATORIES
DURHAM. C IT Y SCHOOLS
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y , JUNE, 1964
EXHIBIT KO. I
SCH OOL
G r 1 No.
jC lass
% iRoorrc
C A P A C IT Y
i.........................
EXCESS
E N R O L L
M EN T
A V E R A G E
CLASS
S H E
P U P IL -
TE A C H E R
R A T IO
D urham High 1 0 -1 2 ! 59 1770 +26 26 26
B rogd en J r . High 7 -9 24 720 -9 4 31 27
7 -9 29 870 +95 28 27
H olton J r . High 7 -9 21 630 + 11 29 28
Club B ou leva rd 1 -6 31 630 -2 4 28 28
E dgem ont 1 -6 15 450 -37 25 25
‘̂ F u ller 1 -6 210 -63 19 19
H ollow ay S treet 1 -6 17 510 -20 26 26
! L akew ood 1 -6 13 390 -1 6 27 27
! M oreh ead 1 -6 13 390 12 29 29
! N orth D urham 1-6 13 390 -40 26 26
|
1 E . K. P ow e 1 -6 22 660 -1 1 4 27 27
i Y. E. Sm ith 1-6 20 600 +9 29 29
Southside 1 -6 12 360 -17 5 24 24
G eorg e Watts 1 -6 13 390 + 39 31 31
H ills id e 9 -1 2 45 1350 +47 27 25
W hitted J r . High 7 -9 38 1 320 : 309 28 26
B urton 1 -6 23 690 63 31 29
C re s t S treet 1 -7 7 210 -23 22 22
E ast End 1 -6 24 720 0 30 30
F a y e tte v ille S treet 1 -7 21 630 -47 30 29
L yon P a rk 1-7 19 570 -2 4 28 27
P e a rs o n 1 -6 30 900 1-64 29 29
Spaulding 1 -6 20 600 +77 31 31
v'/alltown 1 -7 9 270 -31 26 26
* F u lle r S ch ool not u sed fo r c la s s r o o m p u rp oses
A v e ra g e s iz e o f s p e c ia l c la s s e s is 18.
a fte r June, 1964.
26a
EXHIBIT NO. 2 ANNEXED TO ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT TO INTERROGATORIES
Q u estion i - c DU RH AM C IT Y SCHOOLS
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y - JUNE 1964 EXHIBIT NO, 2
N U M BE R O F N EGRO P U P IL S A T EACH G RAD E L E V E L
196 3-6 4
SCH OOL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ..
D urham High 7 5 10
B rogd en Ju n ior High 7 13 3
C a r r Ju n ior High 19 52 12
H olton Ju n ior High 8 3 4
C lub B ou leva rd
E dgem on t 2 2 2 2 1
F u lle r 6 11 4 6 6 7
H ollow a y S treet S 4 6 2 10 6 *1
L ak ew ood
Iviorehead 11 5 13 6 5 7
*
4
N orth D urham 3 3 3 3 3 1
E . K. P ow e 1
Y. E. Sm ith 1 1
*
2
Southside 2 1 2
G e o rg e Watts 4 2 2
T ota l
j
36 bo
!
27 19 26 26 34 68 19
| i
7 | 5 I 10 |
*7
* s p e c ia l c la s s e s o f ungraded e le m e n ta ry p u p ils . T ota l 314
27a
Exhibit No. 2 Annexed to Answer of
Defendant to Interrogatories
Q uestion 1 -c EXHIBIT NO. 2
DURHAM C IT Y SCHOOLS
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y , JUNE 1964
N U M BE R O F NEGRO P U P ILS A T EACH G R A D E L E V E L
1963-64
SCHOOL 1 2 , 3 . 4 , 5 , 6 8 9 10 11 12
j
H ills id e High
■
256 516 276 253
V/hitted Jun ior H igh 405 563 325
B urton n o 123 114 136 109 113
C re s t S treet 39 25 24 23 22 23 20
E ast End 130 100 131 105 113 77
F a y e tte v ille S treet 75 72 80 68 63 88 87
* *
17
L yon P a rk 89 73 78 68 59 74 58
❖
21
P e a rso n 166 152 158 154 129 133
*
18
Spaulding 102 100 92 87 85 107 69
W alltown 29 38 35 31 42 26 31
T otal 740 683 712 672 622 641 670
1
563 I 581j 516 276 253
*18 *38
* S p ecia l c la s s e s tota l 56 o f ungraded e lem en ta ry p u p ils .
* A ca d e m ica lly ta len ted sixth grad e p u p ils .
28a
Q u estion 1 -d DURHAM C IT Y SCHOOLS
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y - JUNE 1964
N U M BE R O F W H ITE P U P IL S A T EACH G R A D E L E V E L 1963-64
EXHIBIT NO. 3 ANNEXED TO ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT TO INTERROGATORIES
EXHIBIT HO. 3
SCH OOL i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a 12
D urham High 535 619 508
.
B rog d en Ju n ior H igh 194 185 165 16
C a rr Jun ior High 272 258 272
H olton Ju n ior High 187 179 165
C lub B ou lev a rd 93 101 94 97 94 85
E dgem on t 49 66 42 54 58 43
F u lle r 10 10 13 20 10 8
H ollow a y S treet 74 66 59 66 70 55
*
17
L ak ew ood 65 67 60 56 63 44
1
M o re he ad 43 48 47 55 58 51
*
21
i N orth D urham 48 56 51 43 53 38
E . K. P ow e 77 83 91 77 83 66
. Y. E . Sm ith 114 92 71 100 86 67
*
17
Southside 26 32 22 26 26 2 9 :
I •
1 G e o rg e Watts 45 66 62 68 64 60
❖ ❖ |
26 |
T ota l 644 387 312 662 670 572 653 622 602 535 619 508
*55 *16
* S p ec ia l c la s s e s o f u ngrad ed e le m e n ta ry p u p ils .
* * A ca d e m ica lly ta len ted six th grad e p u p ils .
29a
EXHIBIT NO. 4 ANNEXED TO ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT TO INTERROGATORIES
Q uestion 3 EXHIBIT NO. 4
PE R SO N N E L
S ch ool N egro White
D urham High 77
B rogd en Jun ior High 27
C a rr Jun ior H igh 39
H olton Jun ior High 26
Club B ou lev a rd 23
E dgem ont 15
F u lle r 8
H ollow ay S treet 19
L akew ood 14
M oreh ead 15
N orth D urham 14
E. K. P ow e 21
Y. E. Sm ith 24
Southside 11
G eorge W atts 15
H ills id e High 60
W hitted Jun ior H igh 56
B urton 27
C re s t S treet 10
E ast End 25
F a y ettev ille S treet 23
L yon P a rk 22
P e a rs o n 34
Spaulding 24
W a ll town 11
T ota l 292 348
EXHIBIT NO. 5 ANNEXED TO ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT TO INTERROGATORIES
EXHIBIT NO. 5
Question 4
NUMBER OF NEW TEACHERS EMPLOYED
Year Negro W hite Total
1959 18 63 81
I960 12 73 85
1961 23 65 38
1962 19 71 90
1963 26 85 111
Note: Negro teachers tend to "stay put. " Many white teachers have husbands
tem porarily at Duke University and the University of North Carolina
graduate schools; turnover is large . Hence, "new" refers to replace-
ments as well as to additional teachers.
A n m : Additional personnel employed over and above the total for the previous
school year was as follows:
YEAR WHITE NEGRO total
1959-60 15 11 26
1960-61 1 13 lh
1961-62 7 17 2k
1962- 63
1963- 6%
3
16
1%
11
17
27
1*2total 66 103
31a
EXHIBIT XO. 6 ANNEXED TO ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT TO INTERROGATORIES
EXHIBIT NO. 6
Q uestion 5a and 5b
N U M BE R OF PU PILS IN EACH A T T E N D A N C E A R E A
S ch ool White Neg:
D urham High 1770 88
B rogd en Jun ior High 598 14
C a rr Jun ior High 874 59
H olton Ju n ior High 602 38
Club B ou leva rd 593 0
E dgem ont 370 32
Holloway S treet 440 60
L akew ood 446 0
ivio rehead 351 32
N orth D urham 330 70
E. K. P ow e 525 26
Y. E, Sm ith 560 4
Southside 155 20
G eorge Watts 430 12
H ills id e 27 1371
Shepard Jun ior High 0 580
vVhitted Jun ior High 28 1085
Burton 2 700
C re s t S treet 0 186
E ast End 54 728
F a y ettev ille S treet 0 473
L yon P a rk 17 514
P e a rso n 0 909
Spaulding 0 562
V a lltow n 2 208
32a
EXHIBIT NO. 7 ANNEXED TO ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT TO INTERROGATORIES
Q uestion 6 -a & 6 -b DURHAM C IT Y SCHOOLS
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y - JUNE 1964 EXHIBIT 110. 7
---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ---- 196 4-6 5 estim a te
t
SCHOOL GRADES
' s
C A P A C IT Y
.D uxhaiE L iiigh_ .
P
1 0 -12 1770
B roa d en Jun ior Hiah 7 - 3 720
C a r r Jun ior High 7 -9 870
H olton Ju n ior High 7 -9 630
C lub B ou lev a rd 1 -6 630
E dgem on t 1 -6 450
H ollow ay...Streel___ 1 -6 510
.L a k e a io n d ______________________________________ 1 -6 1Qfi
M o reh ead 1 -6 390
North. D urham 1 -6 390
E . K . P ow e 1-6 660
1 -6 6nn
S m ith sid e . 1 -7 360
G e o rg e W alts 1 -6 390__
H ills id e H igh 1 0 -1 2 1350
Shepard Ju n ior High 7 -9 510
Y G iilled.Jtuiiar_H igh_-__ 7 -9 __ L320__
B urton 1 -6 690
C r e s t S treet 1 -7 210
E a st End 1 -6 720
S tr p ^ t___________________________ 1 -6 630
L v on P a rk 1-7 570
P e a r s o n 1-6 900 |
Spaulding 1 -6 600 ;
V /alltow n 1 -6 270 i
33a
v u e s t io n o —c
DURHAM C IT Y SCHOOLS EXHIBIT HO. 8
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y , JUNE 1964 *
EXHIBIT NO. 8 ANNEXED TO ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT TO INTERROGATORIES
N U M BE R O F N EGRO PU P IL S A T E A C H G R A D E L E V E L
1964-65 in it ia lly a ssig n ed
SCHOOL i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 T ota l
Durham High 12 7 5 24
B rogd en J r . High 24 41 5 70
C a rr Jun ior High 19 130 63 212
H olton J r . High 14 6 3 23
C lub B ou levard 0
E dgem ont i 2 2 1 1 3 10
H ollow ay S treet i 6 4 5 3 6
*
3 28
L akew ood 0
M oreh ead 13 5 9 13 2 6
*
5 53
N orth D urham 2 4 3 3 5 1 18
B. K. P ow e I 1
Y. E . Sm ith 3 1
❖
2 6
Southside 2 1 1 i 5
G eorg e Watts 1 3 2
i
6
* S p ecia l c la s s e s T ota l 455
N ote: U n reg is te red f ir s t -g r a d e pupils not in clud ed .
34a
DURH AM C IT Y SCHOOLS
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y - JUNE 1964
N U M BE R OF NEGRO PU P IL S IN IT IA L L Y ASSIGNED
1964-65 estim a te
Exhibit No. 8 Annexed to Answer of
Defendant to Interrogatories
Q u e s t i o n 6 - c E x h ib i t No.
SCHOOL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 __li_ 1 7.
H ills id e High 586 486 326
Shepard J r . High 204 198 165
W hitted J r . H igh 418 402 337
B urton 125 100 117 124 127 107
C r e s t S treet 40 30 26 22 22 21
E ast End 168 127 103 143 116 125
F a y e tte v ille ot. 76 85 69 72 64 63
L yon P a rk 72 88 77 75 71 64 67
*
20
P e a r s o n 169 149 149 141 150 133
*
18
Spaulding 90 102 100 90 90 90
W a lltow n 30 33 39 34 34 | 38
35a
Q uestion 6 -c
Exhibit No. 8 Annexed to Answer of
Defendant to Interrogatories
DURH AM C IT Y SCHOOLS
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y - JUNE 1964
EXHIBIT HO. 8
N U M BE R O F W HITE PU P IL S IN IT IA L L Y
ASSIGNED
SCHOOL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
H ills id e High
vVhitted Jun ior High 9 7 8
B urton 1 2 1
C re s t S treet
E ast End 8 10 5 10 13 8
F a y e tte v ille S treet
L yon F a rk 3 4 2 2 3 3
P e a rs o n
Spaulding
W alltow n
_ j 1
36a
Exhibit No. 8 Annexed to Answer of
Defendant to Interrogatories
EXHIBIT HO. ?'
DURHAM C IT Y SCHOOLS
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y , JUNE 1964
N U M BE R OF W HITE PU P ILS A T EACH G RADE L E V E L
1964-65 estim a te *
SCH OOL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
D urham High
|
644 550 640
B rog d en J r . High 195 175 180
❖
16
C a rr Ju n ior H igh 272 258 272
H olton J r , H igh 188 201 184
C lub B ou lev a rd 104 100 105 95 97 92
E dgem ont 76 69 50 43 61 54
H ollow ay S treet 68 60 66 59 62 72
*
11
L a k ew ood 60 74 75 65 55 62
M oreh ea d 50 42 51 48 50 59 20
N orth D urham 48 56 51 43 58 38
E , K . P ow e 75 82 88 87 82 77
Y . E. Sm ith 90 105 95 70 105 95
*
17
Souths ide 21 29 j 29 22 25 28 28
G e o rg e Watts i 35 ! 35 i 51 ! 54 62 52
* S p ec ia l c la s s e s
37a
The parties to the above captioned cause, by their at
torneys, enter into the following stipulation with respect
to certain maps and overlays intended to be offered into
evidence by plaintiffs at the hearing on the proposed plan
of desegregation which was filed herein by the Durham
City Board of Education on or about April 28, 1964. The
parties are agreed as to the accuracy, authenticity and
competency of the exhibits described below, with the ex
ception indicated below.
1. A map of the City of Durham, indicating the school
administrative unit, and the location of elementary schools,
together with three attached overlays:
a. The base map is a city map prepared by the Durham
City Department of Public Works.
b. Certain areas marked in red crayon on the base map
indicate the principal, Negro residential areas in Dur
ham. The areas marked in red are intended to indi
cate those residential areas which are 100% Negro
and it is agreed that they are accurate with possibly
a negligible number of exceptions. It is agreed that
there are possibly a smal number of Negroes residing
outside the areas marked in red.
e. An overlay attached to this map contains black lines
which accurately represent the elementary school at
tendance districts adopted by the Board in May, 1962.
The competency of this overlay is not stipulated.
d. An overlay attached to this map contains orange lines
which accurately represent the elementary school at
tendance districts adopted by the Board in 1964 for
use in the 1964-65 school year.
Stipulation Regarding Certain Maps
38a
e. An overlay attached to this map contains green lines,
which accurately represent the junior high school at
tendance districts adopted by the Board in 1964 for
use in the 1964-65 school year.
2. A map of the City of Durham, indicating the school
administrative unit, and the location of junior high schools,
together with one attached overlay.
a. The base map is a city map prepared by the Durham
City Department of Public Works.
b. Certain areas marked in red crayon on the base map
indicate the principal Negro residential areas in Dur
ham. The areas marked in red are intended to indi
cate those residential areas which are 100% Negro
and it is agreed that they are accurate with possibly
a negligible number of exceptions. It is agreed that
there are possibly a small number of Negroes residing
outside the areas marked in red.
c. The black lines on the base map represent the junior
high school attendance districts adopted by the Board
in 1964 for use in the 1964-65 school year. The map
indicate locations of junior high schools also.
d. An overlay attached to this map contains an orange
line, which accurately outlines the combined bounda
ries of the Shepard and Whitted Junior High Schools
which, under the proposed desegregation plan, will
feed pupils to Hillside High School. The orange lines
separate the last mentioned area from the areas of
the other junior high schools which, under the pro
posed desegregation plan, will feed pupils to Durham
High School. The locations of the two high schools
are also marked on this overlay.
Stipulation Regarding Certain Maps
39a
The above stipulation is not intended to preclude either
party from examining or cross-examining witnesses with
respect to the matters contained therein or from offering
other proof with respect to such matters.
Respectfully submitted,
Stipulation Regarding Certain Maps
Dated 11th June, 1964
W i l l i a m A. M a r s h , J r .
Of Counsel for plaintiffs
M a r s h a l l T. S p e a r s
Of Counsel for defendant
40a
The parties to the above captioned cause, by their at
torneys, enter into the following stipulation with respect
to certain overlays intended to be offered into evidence
by plaintiffs at the hearing on the proposed plan of de-
segregation which was tiled herein by the Durham City
Board of Education on or about April 28, 1964. The par
ties are agreed as to the accuracy, authenticity and com
petency of the exhibits described below, with the exception
indicated below.
1. In our stipulation of June 11, 1964, presented to the
Court on June 15, 1964, Counsel agreed that a certain map
representing the school administrative unit and location
of elementary schools, together with three attached over
lays, was correct:
a. Counsel now agree that the overlay indicating ele
mentary schools capacities, total initial assignments,
and total pupil population in each zone, is correct.
b. This overlay, when attached to the Map showing ele
mentary schools, contains orange lines which ac
curately represent the elementary schools attendance
districts adopted by the Defendant Board in 1964 for
use in the 1964-65 School Year.
c. The figures arrived at on this overlay are taken from
the defendant’s Exhibit No. 8 in its Answer to the
interrogatories submitted by the Plaintiffs Mav 27,
1964.
d. These figures illustrate that in some instances there
are more pupils initially assigned than the capacity
of the school; and in some instances that the number
of pupils initially assigned do not fill the capacity of
Stipulation Regarding Certain Overlays
41a
the school. Further, these figures illustrate that the
number of pupils who live in these zones are less
than the capacity of the schools, and in some instances,
the number of pupils who live in these zones out
number the capacity of the schools.
2. In our stipulation of June 11, 1964, presented to the
Court on June 15, 1964, Counsel agreed that a certain map
representing the school administrative unit and location of
junior high schools, together with three attached overlays,
was correct:
a. Counsel now agree that the overlay indicating junior
high schools capacities, total initial assignments, and
total pupil population in each zone, is correct.
b. This overlay, when attached to the Map showing
junior high schools, contains orange lines which ac
curately represent the junior high schools attendance
districts adopted by the Defendant Board in 1964 for
use in the 1964-65 School Year.
e. The figures arrived at on this overlay are taken from
the defendant’s Exhibit No. 8 in its Answer to the
interrogatories submitted by the Plaintiffs May 27,
1964.
d. These figures illustrate that in some instances there
are more pupils initially assigned than the capacity
of the school; and in some instances that the number
of pupils do not fill the capacity of the school. Fur
ther, these figures illustrate that the number of pupils
who live in these zones are less than the capacity of
the schools; and in some instances, the number of
pupils who live in these zones outnumber the capacity
of the schools.
Stipulation Regarding Certain Overlays
42a
The above stipulation is not intended to preclude either
party from examining or cross-examining witnesses with
respect to the matters contained therein or from offering-
other proof with respect to such matters.
Respectfully submitted,
W i l l i a m A. M a r s h , J r .
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs
M a r s h a l l T. S p e a r s
Of Counsel for the Defendant
Stipulation Regarding Certain Overlays
43a
Excerpts From Testimony
* * * * *
Mr. Nabrit: If it please the Court, one or two prelim
inary matters first. The first is that the plaintiffs are pre
pared to request permission to withdraw one of the objec
tions they filed to the Plan, the Objection Number Two in
our objections. We have reconsidered the problem that
related to that and feel that, all other things being equal
in terms of school zones and so forth, we think in light of
the problem about the school zones, in light of the fact
that there was an open enrollment plan for grades one to
nine during the past school year which has resulted in a
considerable number of children being placed in schools
out of their zones at their own request, that our objection
should not stand.
The Court: Well, let me see if I understand.
Mr. Nabrit: So we would like to strike Paragraph Num
ber Two from the pleadings. Perhaps to explain it in a
—4—
sentence, Your Honor, the objection related to the provision
in several parts of the Plan that provided that pupils who
were already attending school would be initially assigned
to the same school they were in last year; that is, all pupils
except those in the first grade of junior high school and
the first grade of senior high school who were under the
Plan initially placed, of course, would have the opportunity
to transfer, where there is a change from last year. The
initial placement of all the systems under the school zones
is what we had sought, but our objection assumes, number
one, that they would be fair zones—we don’t think they are.
In any event, carrying out our objection we think might
undo some of the progress that resulted from the Court’s
order last summer, so we withdraw it.
—3—
44a
Mr. Spears: May it please the Court, when we were
here sometime about the middle of June in which their
objection was made to Paragraphs Two, Eight, and Nine
of the Plan, following that the Board had a meeting and a
copy of a resolution amending the Plan as to Paragraphs
Two and Eight provided that all children in the elementary
school area would be assigned to a school in that area, or
residing in the junior high school area would be assigned
to the school in that area. Now that was submitted to the
attorneys for the plaintiffs in the conference that we had.
We have the Plan here which we had prepared at the
—5—
time. Now I understand that they withdraw their objection
to Paragraph Number Two of the Plan originally submitted
by the Board in the latter part of April, and also withdraw
their objection to Paragraph Number Eight of the Plan as
originally submitted, and Paragraph Number Nine as orig
inally submitted by the Board.
Now if they withdraw their objection and the Court per
mits it, then we have no objection if they withdraw their
objection to Paragraphs Two, Eight, and Nine.
Mr. Nabrit: What we did, Your Honor, was withdraw
our objection to Number Two, which did refer in part to
those three sections.
The Court: Do you have some further plan that you
want to submit!
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, just for the record, if I may
dwell on this to clear it in my own mind, the Board, as
you will recall in the Plan submitted to Your Honor, as
signed pupils entering their school system for the first time
according to those zones and the Plan purported to reas
sign pupils back to the school where they had attended the
Colloquy
45a
year before. Now the basis for that at the time the Board
submitted it was because so many pupils had been admitted
to the schools—for example, Negro pupils being admitted
to white schools outside of their attendance zones by reason
of the orders of the Court in the past year. The Board felt
— 6—
that to take those children out that had already been inte
grated into the system and put them back into their zone,
which in some cases would put them in a predominantly
Negro zone, it might undo some of the progress that had
been made. But we realize at the same time that that does
not adhere strictly to the mandate of the Fourth Circuit
which, of course, requires that if you have a geographical
attendance zone, that you’ve got to assign those pupils
back in that zone.
So following the hearing that Judge Spears referred to,
the Board reconsidered this and actually approved the
assignment of all pupils to the attendance zones in which
they resided, subject to the approval of the plaintiffs. In
effect, we gave them a choice. We said we are willing to do
exactly what the Court says we have to do and assign these
pupils to their attendance zones; or, if you would prefer,
we will reassign them under the Plan as previously sub
mitted to the Board to the schools where they attended the
prior year.
So, having submitted that alternate proposal to them to
meet their objection in Paragraph Number Two, we were
first advised that they would not even agree or disagree.
But then this morning we were advised that they were
withdrawing their objection to that portion of the Plan.
Now the Board has approved both of those resolutions,
and of course we are perfectly willing to withdraw that
second proposal if that’s what they desire and if it meets
Colloquy
46a
Colloquy
with the approval of the Court. But we want the Court
to understand that we are willing to reassign all pupils to
the school within their attendance zones in accordance with
the decision of the Court. However, I assume if the parties
agree—I don’t know if the Court would have any objection
to it or not; but we are willing to do either one.
The Court: Well, gentlemen, as I understand it, so far
as a plan is concerned, you either have to have a total plan
—it’s either a total plan or it’s no plan. As long as there
is valid objections to the total plan submitted, either by
the plaintiffs or by the Court—of course, it doesn’t neces
sarily have to be a plan that the plaintiffs agree to ; if the
Court feels that the plan adheres to the pronouncements
of the Court in this area, whether the plan is agreed to or
not, it can be approved. But it must be a total plan. I don’t
know how you can get out plans and say, “Well, we’ll pick
out this.”
Mr. Jarvis: Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, Tour
Honor. In an effort to resolve as many issues as possible
prior to this hearing, we proposed that to eliminate that
objection. We felt that if that objection was eliminated,
perhaps it would reduce the issues here at this hearing to
the question of gerrymandering and personnel; and I think
with the withdrawal of their objection, perhaps it is reduced
to just those two issues. On the other hand, if their ob-
—8—
jection is not withdrawn and we cannot agree to that, then
that leaves open the question of those other features of
the Plan which they originally objected to.
# # # # *
—7—
47a
Paul W. Brooks—for Plaintiffs—Direct
— 18—
Thereupon: P a u l W. B r o o k s was called as a witness on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and, being first duly sworn, was
examined and testified on his oath as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Wheeler:
Q. Mr. Brooks, would you give the Court your name,
please? A. Paul W. Brooks.
Q. Will you also state to the Court what your position
of employment is? A. Director of Planning for the City
of Durham, North Carolina.
Q. Mr. Brooks, how long have you occupied this posi
tion? A. Approximately eight years.
Q. We would like to show you a copy of a study entitled,
“ Master Plan Report Number 7, Labor and Analysis,
City of Durham, North Carloina, Planning Department.”
Would you state to the Court briefly whether or not this
study was made in your office? A. Yes, it was prepared
by the City Planning Department.
Q. Were these studies done under your supervision?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Are you familiar with the contents? A. Yes, I am.
—19—
Q. The contents of the studies. Would you say briefly
what they contain, what the nature of the studies are? A.
Yes. It’s essentially a statistical summary of U. S. census
data pertaining to population statistics, having to do with
age, race, income, and in addition summarized statistical
data collected from local agencies having to do with social
welfare types of operation. The data is related to census
tracts which are subdivisions of the city set up by the
census for comparing census data from census to census.
48a
Q. Would you kindly give the Court the date on which
this study was published! A. 1962.
Q. Would you also state whether or not the report con
tains any material or data which would tend to show where
persons of different race live in the city, where the con
centrations of population are? A. Yes. It compares the
census tracts in the city, the subdivisions in the city pre
pared by the Census Bureau, and very definitely shows
locations of white, nonwhite residents in the city.
Q. Thank you very much. Can you tell the Court whether
or not the Board of Education of the public schools of
Durham participated in this study? A. Yes. In prepar
ing material which is just factual data collected from the
various agencies that exist, we contacted the School Board
— 20—
and located schools and have dates of original construction
in this particular report. It also shows the acres at the
time this report was made that each school had, class
capacity, enrollment, membership. That’s essentially the
information, basic facts and data about the schools at the
time we did this report, location of schools and enrollment.
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you very much. That’s all.
The Court: Are you going to identify that? Do
you want to offer it in evidence? You’d better get
it marked.
Mr. Wheeler: We’d like to now identify it.
The Court: Well, let’s get it over here for the
Clerk and get it marked and get it in evidence.
Mr. Nabrit: Perhaps we’d better call it Plaintiffs’
Exhibit A-1964, because we have had a series of
trials.
Paul W. Brooks—for Plaintiffs—Direct
49a
(The document above referred to was marked
for identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
A-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: We offer it in evidence.
Mr. J arvis: The defendants object to the admis
sion of this document into evidence.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Jarvis: May I be heard, Your Honor, just
briefly?
—21—
The Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Jarvis: We don’t object to certain portions of
it that are competent to this case, but this deals with
a wide variety of statistics relating to the City of
Durham that have absolutely no bearing.
The Court: Well, I think it’s known that that
doesn’t have any bearing on the case.
Mr. Jarvis: I think we have already stipulated
that any part of it that is competent, as I understand,
is not based on any statistics that Mr. Brooks per
sonally or anyone under his supervision prepared,
but it’s based on a compilation from other agencies.
The Court: Let me see the book.
Well, of course, I ’ll only consider what’s relevant.
Objection overruled.
(The document above referred to, heretofore
marked for identification, was received in evi
dence as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: We have no further questions of this
witness, Your Honor.
Paul W. Brooks—for Plaintiffs—Direct
50a
Cross Examination by Mr. Spears:
Q. Mr. Brooks, the Planning Department doesn’t tell the
people in the City of Durham where they should live, do
Paul W. Brooks—for Plaintiffs—Cross
they? A. Not at all.
Mr. Spears: Come down.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: Now do I understand this Amendment
to the Plan for Desegregation of Durham City
Schools, that that is being presented now today by
the Defendant Board as you say a plan that com
plies with the pronouncements of the Court?
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, it is submitted as an
alternative to the other. We are in effect giving them
a chance to have their cake and eat it too, if they’ll
just tell us which they want. This deals with just
the possibility of eliminating that part of the contro
versy, that issue, and reduces this just to a question
of whether or not gerrymandering exists and the
question of where the personnel should be assigned.
We do want it as part of the record, but we do not
want to offer that over their objection as a new plan.
We will abide by the first plan if that’s what they
want. It’s just a question of the good faith on the
part of the School Board. We do want that as a part
of the record just to show that we did try to work out
something in that regard.
The Court: Well, it’s a question of who has the
—2 3 -
burden of proof here now; as to whether or not
you are assuming the burden of showing that either
51a
the original plan or the amendment, as amended,
will bring about a complete desegregation or bring
about an assignment of pupils in the entire Durham
school system without regard to race: Do you want
to assume that burden?
Mr. Jarvis: I don’t know that I understand that
exactly.
The Court: I say do you want to assume the bur
den to show that the original plan as amended will
bring about a complete desegregation of the Durham
school system and assign every child in the system
initially without regard to race ?
Mr. Jarvis: No, sir, we would not like to have to
take that burden.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, as far as who has the
burden of going forward with putting on the evidence,
I don’t think it matters very much. But as far as
who has the burden of establishing the advocacy of
this plan, I think the second Brown decision, 349
U. S. Report, clears that.
The Court: Well, as I understand, what the School
Board is really saying here, that they are submitting
this not as a plan for a complete 100-percent deseg
regation of the Durham school system, but as a good-
—24—
faith progressive step. Is that about what you are
saying?
Mr. Jarvis: Yes, sir.
The Court: So suppose you go ahead and put in
the evidence, and then we’ll have it all before the
Court.
Mr. Nabrit: Would you like for us to proceed,
Your Honor?
Colloquy
52a
The Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Nabrit: I would like to begin, Your Honor,
by offering in evidence the interrogatories served by
plaintiffs on the School Board and the answers to
those, which I believe are already on file with the
Clerk.
The Court: Well, I think they are already into
evidence. Do you want to give them an exhibit num
ber? Or you can simply refer to them.
Mr. Nabrit: Well, we’ll call the interrogatories
and answers together as submitted by the defendants
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B-1964.
(The documents above referred to were marked
for identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B-64.)
The Court: The first exhibit is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
A-64, and the interrogatories and the answers are
B-64. I have them here in the file.
Mr. Nabrit: The booklet was A.
—25—
The Court: That’s right. I said the first exhibit
was Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A-64 and the interrogatories
and the answers thereto would be Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
B-64.
(The documents above referred to, heretofore
marked for identification, were received in
evidence as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I would offer as Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit C the maps and overlays which are re
ferred to in the stipulation, the document called
“ Stipulation in Regard to Certain Maps.” I believe
Offering of Exhibits
Offering of Exhibits
it was filed—it’s dated June 11, 1964; I believe it
was filed with the Clerk of Court at our hearing on
June 15. Has it been marked filed, Your Honor!
The Court: Yes, June 15, 1964, “Regarding Cer
tain Maps.”
Mr. Nabrit: Now the Paragraph Number 1 of
that stipulation refers to a base map of the elemen
tary schools of the City of Durham. The stipulation
indicates that the “ areas marked in red crayon on
the base map indicate the principal Negro residential
areas in Durham. The areas marked in red are
intended to indicate those residential areas which
are 100% Negro and it is agreed that they are ac
curate with possibly a negligible number of excep-
—26—
tions. It is agreed that there are possibly a small
number of Negroes residing outside the areas
marked in red.”
I would like to mark this map as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit C-64.
(The map referred to was marked for identifi
cation as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C-64.)
Mr. Jarvis: Mr. Nabrit, are you just marking the
base map at this time?
Mr. Nabrit: The base map.
The Court: Then those overlays you want to as
sign a number to?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir, C-l, C-2, and C-3.
The Court: All right. Put it Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
C-l-64 and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C-2-64, and so forth;
that ought to be all right.
54a
Mr. Nabrit: Well, the overlay referred to in Para
graph lc of the stipulation, containing the black
lines representing the attendance districts adopted
in May 1962, we’ll mark as C-l.
(The overlay above referred to was marked for
identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C-l-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: The overlay with orange lines re-
-—27—
ferred to in Paragraph Id of the stipulation will be
marked G-2-64. This has the elementary school
areas adopted in 1964.
(The overlay above referred to was marked for
identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C-2-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: The overlay with the green lines is
referred to in Paragraph le of the stipulation and
contains the junior high school attendance districts;
it will be marked C-3-64.
(The overlay above referred to was marked for
identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C-3-64.)
Mr. Spears: Stipulation one what? I didn’t get
that?
Mr. Nabrit: This is the one referred to in Stipu
lation le. It has green lines.
Mr. Spears: I don’t have any Stipulation le.
The Court: Yes. If you have the stipulation filed
here on June 15, 1964.
Mr. Nabrit: Now, Your Honor, before I offer
this I would like to state that my understanding is
that all this is stipulated admissible except Exhibit
C-l-64, which contains only the 1962 attendance
Offering of Exhibits
55a
areas; and the Board stipulated as to the accuracy
of these but not as to their competence. The pur-
—2 8 -
pose of offering this was to afford a basis of com
parison with the zones adopted two years ago,
which the evidence will indicate—-well, I think the
interrogatories already do—a number of things
which have happened since then, such as the elimi
nation of this Fuller School next year and the fact
that this whole pattern has changed in that neigh
borhood. The zones of the neighboring schools have
been enlarged and expanded and things like that.
I would think that as a matter of indicating how
the 1964 zones came into being, it would be relevant
to see the prior map which bears a fairly close re
lationship with the changes.
The Court: Well, are you offering the entire
map?
Mr. Nabrit: So I would like at this time to offer
Exhibits C, C-l, C-2, and C-3.
The Court: Well, just C-3?
Mr. Nabrit: C-3-64.
The Court: That’s right. There are just three
overlays ?
Mr. Nabrit: There are three overlays and the base
one.
The Court: All right, Any objection, gentlemen!
Mr. Spears: Your Honor, we didn’t feel like—The
Fuller School is being abolished; we use that school
—29—
entirely for administrative purposes. We didn’t
think it would make any material difference what
Offering of Exhibits
56a
that zone was in 1962; when they changed it and
did away with the school and made new zones, that
that was originally for that area.
The Court: All right, objection overruled. Let
the exhibits be received in evidence.
(The documents above referred to, heretofore
marked for identification, were received in
evidence as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibits C-64, C-l-64,
C-2-64, and C-3-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: The next exhibit, Your Honor, is the
map referred to in Paragraph 2 of the stipulation.
The base map will be offered as Exhibit D-64.
The Court: D will be that base map ?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, D as in “dog,” D-64.
(The map above referred to was mai'ked for
identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: Now the overlay—-Well, going back,
the Exhibit D-64 indicates the junior high school
attendance areas and has the same racial population
concentration areas marked in red as the previous
map.
The overlay will be marked Exhibit D-l-64.
—30—
(The overlay above referred to was marked for
identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-l-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: That indicates the location of the
two high schools in the city and contains an orange
line which it is stipulated “accurately outlines the
combined boundaries of the Shepard and Whitted
Junior High Schools which, under the proposed
Offering of Exhibits
57a
desegregation plan, will feed pupils to Hillside High
School. The orange lines separate the last men
tioned area from the areas of the other junior high
schools which, under the proposed desegregation
plan, will feed pupils to Durham High School.”
In other words, you have five junior high schools
in this area on the base map, and the overlay demon
strates the location of Durham High School and the
three junior high schools that feed pupils to it, and
the location of the Hillside High School and the two
junior high schools or areas that feed pupils to it.
So we would offer Exhibit D-64 and Exhibit D-l-
64. I believe there is no objection.
Mr. Jarvis: No objection.
The Court: All right, let them be received in evi
dence.
—31—
(The documents above referred to, heretofore
marked for identification, were received in
evidence as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibits D-64 and
D-l-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: We would like to call Mr. Lew W.
Hannen to the stand.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Thereupon: L e w W. H a n n e n was called as a witness on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and, being first duly sworn, was
examined and testified on his oath as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. State your name and position. A. Lew W. Hannen,
Superintendent Durham City Schools.
58a
Q. Mr. Hannen, at the outset I would like to clarify a
few things I don’t understand about the answers to the
interrogatories. I show you my copy, which I believe— Is
that your signature? A. Yes, it is.
Q. I direct your attention to the first page of attach
ments which has the heading “Exhibit 1” and—well, per
haps if I make a preparatory statement, it will save us
time. There is one column which indicates “ Capacity.”
Well, take Durham High School.
—32—
Mr. Nabrit: Has Your Honor been able to locate
a copy of what we’re talking about?
The Court: Yes, I have it in front of me.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. The first line has Durham High School listed and it
has capacity 1770 pupils; correct? A. Right.
Q. And it has excess enrollment in the next column, plus
26? A. That’s correct.
Q. That would lead me to assume that the combination
of those two figures gives you the enrollment, 1796. A.
Yes, sir.
Q. However, what I couldn’t understand was that the
totals of the numbers of pupils given in the other part—
well, on Exhibit Number 2—gave me somewhat different
answers, and I was wondering why that was. A. The
reason—
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. Nabrit: Well, so that I can point out to the
Court what I am talking about, if Your Honor will
look at the document called Exhibit Number 2, it’s
59a
in answer to Question 1-c. It starts out, entitled
“Number of Negro Pupils at Each Grade Level
1963-1964.”
The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Well, that first page indicates at Durham High
School a total of 22 Negro pupils; correct? A. That
would be the total here.
—33—
Q. And turning over two pages, you have by my arith
metic a total of 1662 white pupils; and I wish you would, if
you would, confirm if my arithmetic is right. Could you do
that? A. Do you mean adding 1662 and—
Q. No. The document doesn’t have the total number of
white pupils, but I— A. 1662 would be the total of 535,
619, and 508.
Q. So that adding 22 and 1662, I get 1684 pupils at Dur
ham High. Now is the difference between those two num
bers caused by a different date or what is the reason for the
—Were these figures taken at a different time from the
others or what happened? A. That’s correct. You see, at
the time we were asked for these figures another school
month had transpired; and from the time the first sheet
that was made on the basis of the eighth-month report,
school was concluded and we had a ninth-month report by
the time they got around to doing the other sheet, so they
are not comparable inasmuch as during the last school
month you have a shifting of pupils. You have some com
ing in, you have pupils dropping out, but I think that in
each instance you will find that they are roughly compa
rable.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
60a
Q. I find such large and significant differences that I
think perhaps we ought to have fully understood which are
—34—
the most recent figures. For example, with Durham High
School there is a difference of over a hundred pupils. I
won’t go through all this but I find, you know, large dif
ferences for each school. In order to have, you know, con
sistent figures, I think we ought to.
Would you tell us which are the more recent ones! A.
I would assume that the high school—at the high school
level, the more recent ones would be the lower figures.
Q. The lower figures? A. I would assume that to be
true.
Q. Well, what about the elementary schools; do you
know? A. I wouldn’t see in them a very great difference.
If there is, there is a typographical error I think, if there
is any great difference at the elementary level.
Q. Well, just picking them at random and starting at the
bottom of the list, George Watts, one figure would be 399
and the other figure would be 429. Southside, one figure
would be 185, another would be 166. Y. E. Smith, one figure
would be 551 and the other would be 609. So I mean there
are differences; that can make a difference.
Would you assume that the figures given in Exhibits
Number 2 and 3 where we have a grade-by-grade breakdown
are representative, and that the excess enrollment column on
the first page is probably out of date? A. To the best of
my knowledge, that would be true; but I would have to go
—3 5 -
back, I think, to affirm that definitely and check the reports
submitted by the various principals. This material, as you
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
61a
must realize, was accumulated from tlie reports of the vari
ous principals. That, I did not have; but in general I would
conclude that that would be true, that these figures in Ex
hibit—what’s that number there?
Q. Well, it’s— A. Number 1?
Q. It’s Exhibit Number 1, in the excess enrollment col
umn. A. It’s 1 (a, b, e, f, and g).
Q. 1 (a, b, e, f, and g), I would assume, and the date of
the later one—
The Witness: Your Honor, this was simply a sin
cere effort in each case to figure out this material to
gether, to give them the most recent figures avail
able. At the time this work was done, secretarial
help of course was limited.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I would like to confer
with counsel about the most acceptable way to get
this in the record so it can be understood.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, perhaps I need the wit
ness’s help here also; there must be a typographical
error or something.
Mr. Hannen, would you come down, with the
Court’s permission?
—36—
The Court: We’ll take a brief recess.
(Thereupon, a short recess was taken.)
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, we’ve got a stipulation
on that and we’ll have it filed this afternoon.
The Court: All right.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
62a
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Now, Mr. Hannen, the Durham City School System,
who does the hiring of teachers? A. That is done jointly
by the principals of the various schools and the superin
tendent. After interviewing' the teachers, prospective
teachers, the superintendent actually affixes his signature
to the contract; and of coui’se all employees, professional
employees, of the school system are subject to approval by
the Board of Education.
Q. Do you know approximately how many new teachers
will be employed—that is, new teacher personnel—will be
employed for the next year? A. I don’t know.
Q. The coming 1964-65 school year. A. I don’t know. I
could say that usually we employ about a hundred teachers
new teachers a year; and by “new,” of course, we mean
additional plus replacements.
Q. Now is it still true, as you testified I think a year ago,
that teaching positions for the Durham school system are
allotted by the State Department of Education on a racial
—3 7 -
basis, that is, so many positions for Negro teachers and so
many for white teachers? A. That is correct.
Q. How does that work? Will you explain that? A. We
just take what they send us.
Q. Is it based on attendance or something? A. Based on
attendance, based on the actual number of days attendance
over a period of months during the year.
The Court: I ’m not sure that I understand that.
You mean the number of teachers that you can have
in the Durham City School System is determined by
some state board or agency?
The Witness: Yes, that’s right. These are allo
cated by the State on the basis of attendance records
63a
sent in at the end of the seventh month of the pre
ceding school year, under a certain formula. They
are allocated by race, white and Negro teachers, high
school and elementary separately; so you have four
categories. And then, of course, a number of the
school systems in the State—this would be a minority
of the school systems in the State—have local funds
with which they employ additional teachers, librar
ians and that sort of thing, which would not be pro
vided for adequately from the State.
The Court: What state agency prescribes the
number of teachers that a system has?
—38—
The Witness: . It’s called the Division of Teacher
Allotment.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Of what department? A. It’s a subsidiary or one of
the groups working under the State Department of Public
Instruction.
Q. And is the Durham City school system one of these
school systems which hires teachers in addition to the ones
provided by the State ? A. That’s right.
Q. So you are not limited by this, but this is all that the
State pays for? A. That’s correct.
Q. Well now, can you tell me whether or not you had a
sufficient number of qualified applicants, white and Negro,
for the positions for next year, September? A. Ordinarily
we do, prior to the opening of school.
Q. Some of the positions have not yet been filled? A.
That’s correct. And we will be getting other resignations
between now and the opening of the schools.
Q. Do you have any— About how much is your turnover
during the course of a school year? A. While school is in
session?
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
64a
Q. Yes. A. It will average perhaps 15 or 16 teachers a
year.
—39—
The Court: How many teachers in the Durham
school system were allocated by the State for this
past year?
The Witness: The State, would be between 550
and 575; and we have approximately 650 in round
figures, teachers and principals, as a total. Ordi
narily we have between 75 and 100 locally-obtained
teachers.
The Court: Does the State pay for anything in
the operation of your school system except to the
number of teachers allocated?
The Witness: Yes, you have an allotment for
coal and that sort of thing.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Well now, so we don’t have confusion about this, the
State Board doesn’t do any hiring for you; the local Durham
city authorities hire all the teachers? A. That’s correct.
Q. And you place all the teachers in schools? A. That’s
correct.
Q. I mean you decide which school they teach in? A.
That’s right.
Q. The State provides you with a number of teachers
indicating how much they are going to pay fo r ; essentially
that’s their role? A. That’s correct.
Q. To date, isn’t it correct to say that there have been
- 4 0 -
no Negro teachers teaching white pupils in the system?
A. That’s correct.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
65a
Q. Isn’t it also correct that, there are no white teachers
in any of the schools that have an all-Negro student body?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now has the School Board given you any directions—
that’s in your job as superintendent—with respect to al
lotting teachers or assigning teachers to schools on a non-
raeial basis? A. To the best of my knowledge, no official
action has been taken in that matter.
Q. Have you made any recommendations to the School
Board that they adopt any policy of assigning teachers on
a nonracial basis? A. I have not.
Q. So that what has happened is— Is it fair to state
that what has happened is that the School Board has con
tinued to assign Negro teachers to the Negro schools and
white teachers to the predominantly white and formerly
all-white schools under the pattern that existed before
there was any desegregation? A. That’s right.
Q. The total number of teachers in the system—or the
number of teachers in each school is listed in the answer to
Interrogatory Number 3, which is called Exhibit 4. Bo
—41—
those figures include people other than teachers as well?
A. They include all professional personnel, which would
mean librarians, music teachers, who do not have home
rooms, and principals.
Q. So that the totals at the bottom of that page reflect
the entire professional staff that’s located in the school
building? A. Now the entire professional staff that works
in any or all of those schools. In some instances, you
would have located in that compilation a music teacher
perhaps that would work in a number of schools or a super
visor who would work in a number of schools.
Q. Now do you happen to know how many personnel
will be assigned to the Shepard Junior High School which
Lew W. Ilcmnen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
66a
is to open next year and is not on this list? A. That has
not been determined.
Q. Do you have an estimate as to the number of posi
tions you are trying to fill over there? A. We have de
layed formulating plans for assigning teachers there pend
ing the distribution of pupils following this hearing.
Q. Have any teachers been hired for that school? A.
Well, it won’t be a matter of hiring; in most cases, it will
be a matter of transferring because we transferred teachers
with pupils to go down there from Whitted Junior High
School, to a large extent.
—42—
Q. Well, have any of them been notified that they are
going to be transferred? A. They have not, because we
don’t know yet how many are going to be down there. We
don’t know how many pupils there are going to be. These
principals are waiting.
Q. Has a principal been hired for Shepard? A. Not
officially.
Q. Unofficially? A. There isn’t such a thing as unoffi
cially. He’s either hired or he isn’t, and the Board takes
action on that. I have in mind some people that I would
feel competent—would be competent for that position; and
when the Board of Education meets at its next regular
meeting, I will have a recommendation to the Board for
the principalship of that school. No action has been taken
on it up until the present time.
Q. Has there been any decision as to whether or not
there will be any white teachers or whether Shepard will
have an all-Negro faculty? A. No decision has been made
because none of them have been named yet.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
67a
Q. Do you have any plans to recommend assigning any
white teachers to the staff over there! A. I haven’t com
pleted plans for the assignment of those teachers.
Q. Has there been any activity designed to determine
—43—
whether or not any Negro teachers would be willing to
teach in white schools or white teachers would be willing
to teach in Negro schools! Has there been any effort
to ask them what their feelings are about it? A. Infor
mally.
Q. I mean systematically. A. No. But individually
from time to time this has been discussed, and ordinarily
you will find some that would and some that wouldn’t.
Q. Has the School Board had discussions on the subject
of nonracial placement of teachers at any of its meetings?
A. As I recall, there was some discussion along this line
at the time D. Eric Moore was on the Board; I think it’s
not a matter of record.
Q. That was prior to his death last year? A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Hannen, I am informed that the voters of the
community recently approved a bond issue for school con
struction which was based on a proposal or recommenda
tion of the School Board, is that correct? A. Some of the
voters approved.
Q. What you mean is that a majority— A. A majority
approved.
Q. Now are you in a position to tell what new buildings
or additions to buildings the School Board plans to make
—44—
with this money? How much money has been authorized?
A. Three and a half million dollars.
Q. How do you propose to use the money, what build
ings? A. We issued a—
Lew W. Hcmnen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
68a
Mr. Spears: Just a minute. Let me interrupt.
Has the Board taken any official action about how
this three and a half million is to be spent?
Mr. Nabrit: Is this an objection or a question?
Mr. Spears: Your Honor, it’s an objection, unless
they have taken some action.
The Court: Well, he would know. Objection over
ruled.
Mr. Spears: Well, he hasn’t asked him that ques
tion.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Would you indicate the present proposal for spend
ing these funds? A. The present proposal was to build
new buildings or to renovate or add to buildings when we
felt that it was necessary to add additional facilities be
cause of increased school population. The Board of Educa
tion has just one site at the present time; that’s out on
Cornwallis Boad and it was proposed building this school
on that site. We have no other site at the present time for
any additional building. It is contemplated that some of
this building will be contingent upon the time or the com
pletion of the throughway through Durham, which I think
—15—
is what Judge Spears was referring to, that all the plans
are very indefinite at the present time except that it’s fairly
well determined that there will be a school placed on the
one site that the Board of Education has. But at the pres
ent time no architects have been employed. The Board has
taken no action. There has been no approval by the State
Division of School Planning or the local building inspec
tor. We are just in a period of planning at the present time.
Lew W. Hannevr—for Plaintiffs—Direct
69a
Q. Well, in connection with the bond election, didn’t the
School Board indicate a great number of projects that it
had in mind using this money for to the voters? A. Yes,
we did; and it was stated a good many times both by the
City Board of Education and the County Board of Educa
tion that funds, however, would not be available from this
bond issue to do all of the things that we wanted to do,
that were stated.
Q. Well, let’s take these one by one. Perhaps there are
different situations. In your answer a moment ago you
mentioned a school site on Cornwallis Road; what’s that
for, a junior high school, is it? A. That has been pro
posed as a site for a junior high school.
Q. Can you show me where Cornwallis Road is! Would
you point to the site? A. The site is right here (indicat
ing).
—46—
Q. You describe it as at the southern part of the city
right near the school district line? A. That site lies—-
Q. Cornwallis Road is the street which marks sort of
the south boundary of the map? A. It’s on the southwest
ern part of the city, and part of that site is inside of the
city school district, part of it is outside.
Q. That’s to be a junior high school to serve part of the
area now served by Carr? A. I believe—
Q. It’ll serve part of the area now served by Carr? A.
No determination has been made yet for a boundary line
for that school. There have been some requests made
that the boundary line be drawn to incorporate some of
the area now served by the Shepard Junior High School.
Q. A request by Negro students? A. Yes.
Q. Well, in any event, you are building a new junior
high school down there? A. That’s the intent.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
70a
Q. Is it proposed to use some of this money to replace
the Y. E. Smith School? A. Yes, that’s going to be neces
sary because that building has been declared unsatisfac
tory for future use, and we have a recommendation from
—47—
the State and also from the local building inspector that
this building be replaced at the earliest possible time.
Q. Has it been determined where that school will be
replaced? A. It has not been determined. There is some
discussion about locating it almost exactly where the build
ing is at the present time, and up to now we have made
no determination at all where that school will be located.
There has been no additional property acquired anywhere
for it.
Q. Now is it planned to build another new school within
the area served by Burton School now somewhere near a
new housing development? A. That has been discussed.
Q. Would you indicate how far is that, approximately,
from the Y. E. Smith School, that site? A. I would say—
Ho you mean the distance between the two schools?
Q. Well, tell me where the— Perhaps you had better tell
me where this new housing project is to be built. A. The
new housing project is located south of Burton School.
Q. Do you know the streets or can you tell them? A. I
don’t recall the exact location.
Q. So the plan is to build two elementary schools in this
—4 8 -
area? A. That’s correct. Both of those schools are very
large at the present time.
Q. Now is there a plan to increase the size of the Shep
ard Junior High School that was just built? A. That is
under consideration, but no action has been taken on it.
Lew W. Ilannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
71a
Q. But it is contemplated that even though there is
going to be a new junior high school on the Cornwallis
Road, you might add more rooms to Shepard Junior Sigh
School? A. That has been under study and, as a matter
of fact, it has been discussed at our Board a number of
times, but no steps can be taken there until we have some
idea of what enrollments are going to be after the school
has opened. Here again we are in a state of uncertainty
here; it’s almost impossible to plan the size of schools and
allocate teachers when you don’t know how many pupils
you’re going to have.
Q. Is there a planned proposal to close the Southside
School and add onto the E. K. Powe School to take care
of that? A. That has been proposed for some future
time.
Q. Was it proposed by you? A. Right. At some future
time, because of the fact that when and if the throughway
is completed, it will go within approximately 20 feet of
the back of the Southside School right near the playground,
which will make it impossible for us to continue to use that
—49—
school. The school, by the way, was built in almost iden
tical fashion with the old Lakewood School, the roof of
which fell in during a snowstorm here a few years ago.
The architecture is identical.
Q. And the proposal is to add to the E. K. Powe School?
A. The proposal is not to add to the E. K. Powe School,
but to replace an old part of the E. K. Powe School that
is already there.
Q. I see. But to increase its capacity? A. No, it will
not increase its capacity if you would consider the old
dilapidated part of it as a part of the building. Of course,
we don’t use it.
Lew W. Ilannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
72a
Q. You don’t use it now? A. Don’t use it, no.
Q. Well, that will increase its effective capacity! A. It
was used a few years ago. We don’t consider it active
at the present time.
Q. Now is there a proposal to— Well, I take it you have
already taken steps to remodel Fuller for administrative
purposes and to close it as an elementary school; right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And a six-room addition to Lakewood School pro
posed by you? A. That’s correct.
Q. And remodeling Burton School? A. Pardon?
—50—
Q. Is that proposed? A. Well, remodeling to the ex
tent of putting on a new roof over the front sections and
some other minor alterations, which is not a considerable
sum in the total bond fund.
Q. I ask you if you can identify this as containing a
statement approved by the Board of Education for the
City of Durham as to its building plans. A. Yes, this is
a folder that we presented to the voters prior to the elec
tion.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. Nabrit: I offer this leaflet, Your Honor, as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E-64.
(The leaflet above referred to was marked for
identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: Is there an objection?
Mr. Jarvis: There is no objection but we would
like to point out, Your Honor, that this deals also
to some extent with the Durham County system.
The Court: All right, let the exhibit be received
in evidence.
73a
(The leaflet above referred to, heretofore
marked for identification, was received in
evidence as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E-64.)
—51—
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Mr. Hannen, has the School Board given yon any
directions or general instructions that when you plan
new facilities, you are to do so so as to locate schools
in order to promote desegregation, or anything like that?
A. That has not been discussed.
Q. I take it you would agree with me that—it’s obvious
I guess, I would think—that the location and size of a
school has an influence or determines what area it might
serve, or at least in part? A. That would be one factor,
yes, sir.
Q. I meant to ask you: Is the school proposed in the
Burton area, is that going to be located in an all-Negro
residential area, the site of this proposed school? A.
That Burton area is not an all-Negro area at the present
time.
Q. I ’m asking you about the particular site, the neighbor
hood of this proposed new school. A. I don’t know. There
has been no approach about this site or no negotiations
for a site for the school.
Q. Is this in connection with the public housing project?
A. We assume that when that public housing project is built
that the pupils in that housing project will attend this
school, but we do not at all anticipate that these will be the
only pupils that might attend that school.
Q. Is it anticipated that in furnishing the site for the
—5 2 -
public housing project that the government agency that
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
74a
handles that will also give you a school site? A. No, I ’m
not aware of any negotiation along that line.
Q. Has that occurred in other areas in your city, they will
build a housing project and give you a school site in connec
tion with it? A. No, we have been very unfortunate in that
respect. No one has ever given us anything along that
line.
Q. A while ago I read to the Court a stipulation which
explained how pupils are assigned to high schools. Is it
the effect of the Board’s proposal for assigning pupils to
Durham High School that all those who live in the Brog-
den area, the Carr area, and the Holton area will be initially
placed in Durham High School? Isn’t that what the plan
says? A. Up to the present time that has been true.
Q. That’s what the plan says, the proposed plan? A.
At the present time.
Q. And the proposed plan says that the pupils in the
Whitted area and the Shepard area will be assigned to Hill
side High School, is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. And what is your understanding as to— Perhaps we’d
better look at the exhibits here. I was going to ask you
whether Durham High and Hillside High were both close
to capacity during the past year. A. That’s right.
—53—
Q. And next year they are both expected to be— A.
They will both be close to capacity.
Q. I think your initial assignments at Durham High—
the initial assignments at Durham High were in excess
of capacity, the ones already made for this coming Sep
tember? You already have more pupils at Durham High
than the capacity figure? A. The prospective enrollment
and the capacity figures were very close, as I recall, very
close to being the same.
Lew W. Hcmnen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Q. Well now, by arithmetic— Well, I don’t suppose we
need to go into this now, but I got 24 Negro students and
1834 whites initially assigned to Durham High next year.,
That would 1858, capacity is 1770? A. Yes.
Q. So in effect the initial assignments would not leave a
great deal of room for transfers of those two high schools,
if transfers were limited by your capacity figures that you
have here? A. That’s correct. However, pupils who show
up on prospective enrollment in a good many cases don’t
enroll in the fall, and we have no way of knowing that
until the first day of school. Almost invariably the fall
figure will be less than the prospective figure.
Q. You mean the estimate is probably an overestimate!
A. It would probably be somewhat more, rather than some-
—54—
what fewer pupils; that’s correct,
Q. The estimate now is slightly over? A. The esti
mate would be fairly accurate; but if it were inaccurate,
it would almost surely be in the direction of being slightly
too large.
Q. Now prior to this year, taken in terms of assign
ments made for the school year that just ended, Whitted
was the only all-Negro junior high school? A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. And it served— Did it have a zone? A. No, we
didn’t establish junior high school zones, as I recall, until
we submitted this plan.
Q. This map before us then is the first— A. That’s
the initial attempt to—
Q. The first junior high school map? A. That’s right.
Q. And Shepard is a brand-new school, is it? A. That’s
right.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
76a
Q. Now were there zones for say prior to—when yon
still had school zones, were there zones for Brogden, Carr,
and Holton? A. No, we had a feeder system; certain
schools went to certain junior high schools. For example,
all the pupils from Edgemont, Holloway Street, and Y. E.
Smith Schools went to Holton Junior High School.
—55—
Q. Under that feeder system—
The Court: Well, you’re going over to another
map now.
Adjourn Court until 2 :00 o’clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:40 o’clock P.M., the Court
was recessed until 2:00 o’clock P. M.)
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
—56—
A f t e r n o o n S e s s i o n
2:00 o’clock P. M.
Mr. Nabrit: May I proceed, Your Honor!
The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Mr. Superintendent, approximately when—approxi
mately when was the Crest Street School, the present
school, built? A. Approximately eight years ago, I be
lieve, eight or nine; about nine years ago, as I recall.
Q. Has that been an all-Negro school— A. Yes, it has.
Q. —since it was built? Was there a previous building
on that? A . Yes. The frame building was replaced by a
brick structure.
77a
Q. And the previous building also was an all-Negro
school! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was the size of that school determined by the Negro
population in the neighborhood, expected need? A. I ’m
not sure on that point. I could presume that. I ’m not sure
of that because I was not superintendent at the time that
that building was planned or constructed. I assume that
it, as any other school, was built to house the school popu
lation that was anticipated in that area.
Q. Before desegregation began in Durham, did the Crest
—5 7 -
Street School serve Negroes in the neighborhood imme
diately adjacent to it as indicated on the map? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now the Walltown School, do you know about when
that was constructed? I think one of the exhibits— A.
Yes, you have it there.
According to this city study it was 1948, and I assume
that’s correct.
Q. And has that always been a Negro school? A. Yes,
it has.
Q. Have any rooms been added to that school since it
was built? A. One addition was built to it. Actually rather
it would be more exact to say the school was built in two
parts, rather than substantial additions made to it.
Q. Again before there was any desegregation, did that
school serve the Negroes in that neighborhood immediately
adjacent to the school? A. That’s correct.
Q. Is pretty much the same thing true with respect to
Lyon Park; that is, before desegregation it served the
Negroes in that area adjacent to it? A. That’s right.
Q. When was Lyon Park built? A. That’s one of our
older schools; 1928.
—58—
Q. Has that always been an all-Negro school? A. To
my knowledge it has, yes.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
78a
Q. Now what year was East End School built! A, East
End was built in 1928.
Q. A large part of it was rebuilt this present year! A.
A large part of it was built a year ago when half of the
structure had been destroyed by fire.
Q. Was it enlarged at that time? A. It was replaced
almost exactly the way it was before, except that one large
room that was used as an assembly room was converted
into two classrooms.
Q. Now with that addition of classrooms—was that oc
casioned by the fact that there were more Negro pupils
in the area than there was space for? The school had been
overcrowded before? A. It was occasioned by the fact
that the school population there was growing slowly, but
it was occasioned also by the fact that we took one class
room in the basement and converted it to part of the cafe
teria. Unless some provision had been made for restoring
that, the school would have been smaller than it was be
fore.
Q. Wasn’t the planning though based on the Negro pop
ulation of that neighborhood? A. The planning was based
on the need for additional facilities in that area.
—59—
Q. Prior to desegregation— When was the first deseg
regation, 1960, ’59? A. ’59.
Q. In ’59 there was one pupil or something? A. It
started with one youngster and then there were others
added shortly thereafter.
Q. Well, prior to that time— Well, during the period
when you had separate zones for Negro schools, did the
East End School serve the Negro population in this area
that surrounds the school? A. It did, but that, of course,
didn’t imply that this change at this latter date contem-
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
79a
plated that this condition would continue to exist indefi
nitely. I think there was no connection between the two,
the fact that it had been an all-Negro school and the re
arrangement of classrooms; I think that was not con
sidered.
Q. It still is an all-Negro school? A. Yes, it is. That’s
true.
Q. There is a Negro residential area that’s located in
between—well, in between the Walltown School and the
Lyon Park School near the Southern railroad track. Where
do those children attend school—prior to this map where
did they attend? A. Where did they attend prior to the
time the schools were integrated?
— 60—
Q. Yes. Lyon Park? A. Lyon Park School. And of
course now they are going to George Watts School and
Southside School, which are predominantly white.
Q. Now, Mr. Superintendent, when you look at the map
and the school attendance lines on the map, there are
places where the boundary lines are drawn along a street
and there are other places where the lines are drawn par
allel to the street but behind it. Now am I correct in under
standing that where the line is on the street, one side of
the street is in one zone and the other side of the street
is in the other zone? A. That’s right, sir.
Q. And where the line is behind a street, that means
that the actual line is perhaps behind the property line of
the houses facing on that street? A. That’s right.
Q. So that if we just take an example of the northern
boundary of East End School which runs parallel to Geer
Street, the families on both sides of Geer Street are in the
North Durham zone? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now I have another question about the interroga
tories. I direct your attention to the answer to Question
Lew W, Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
80a
6-c; it’s called Exhibit Number 8 and it’s headed “Number
of White Pupils Initially Assigned,” and it represents cur-
—61—
rently the number of white pupils who were initially as
signed in June of ’64 to all-Negro schools; is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now how is it that this reflects substantial numbers
of pupils between grades two and six and in grade eight
and nine, when my impression was that those pupils were
to be reassigned to schools they were already attending?
Is that a mistake now or— A. I think this was a matter
of assigning pupils according to the map.
Q. But as I understood the plan, the plan contemplated
that pupils already attending a school who would be in
grades two through six next year would be placed back
where they had been placed before; so none of these white
students were attending Negro schools last year so they
probably were not initially assigned to Negro schools,
isn’t that right? A. I ’m not sure on that point. I don’t
have the plan here. At that time—these apparently are
pupils who were in that attendance area and were in the
attendance area and assigned on that basis.
Q. Well, there’s another answer that gives that informa
tion and that’s why I—
Mr. Jarvis: Pardon me, Mr. Nabrit, Would you
mind speaking a little louder? Occasionally we have
difficulty in hearing your questions.
—62—
By Mr. Nabrit-.
Q. The answer to Question 5a and 5b, which is called
Exhibit 6 in the interrogatories, lists the number of pupils
residing in each attendance area? A. Yes.
Lew W. Hcmnen—-for Plaintiffs—Direct
81a
Q. But all of them wouldn’t be initially assigned to the
school where they reside because some of them would be
placed—would be initially placed where they attended
last year. Well, what I am suggesting is that perhaps this
other answer to Interrogatory Number 6c is mistaken, be
cause there wouldn’t be that many new pupils; would there?
A. I don’t know. You see, this was mimeographed and
submitted to the various principals; these are the figures
that they reported. As I stated this morning, we did not
have time to do any checking on any of this before the
deadline. We had perhaps a half a dozen days, a week or
ten days, to get all this material together. I ’m not sure
that those figures are accurate.
Q. I wasn’t making any criticism, Mr. Superintendent; I
was just trying to get it clarified.
Mr. Jarvis: May I ask— I’m sorry, I missed your
other question when you referred to specific an
swers.
(Discussion of counsel off the record.)
Mr. Nabrit: I don’t know if Your Honor follows—-
was Your Honor able to follow what was the prob
lem?
Mr. Spears: Just a minute, Mr. Nabrit. I think—
—63—
The Court: Which exhibit are you looking at?
Mr. Spears: I think I can explain that.
The Court: I ’ve got the exhibits here if you’ll tell
me which one you are talking about.
Mr. Nabrit: Well, there are several pages with
the same number. It’s Exhibit Number 8.
The Court: Eight?
Lew W. llamien—for Plaintiffs—Direct
82a
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir, 8.
Mr. Spears: Mr. Nabrit, I think I can explain this.
Mr. Nabrit: It’s the page that starts out “ Num
ber of White Pupils Initially Assigned” to Hillside
High.
The Court: I ’ve got it.
Mr. Nabrit: It’s the third page of Exhibit Num
ber 8.
The Court: I ’ve got it. Now these are all pre
dominantly Negro students'?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes. Mr. Spears has just explained
what probably happened at East End. What hap
pened was that Fuller School here was discontinued
and some of these white children in that area were
assigned to East End; but I still don’t understand
why the children at Lyon Park were listed.
The Witness: That line, Mr. Nabrit, was changed
—64—
between Lyon Park and moved over east so that
the white children incorporated in there were not
in there the previous year.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. But that would only affect the first grades; it wouldn't
affect grades two through six, is that correct? A. I don’t
know.
Q. Well, I refer you to the plan; the plan says that,
Paragraph 2 I believe.
The Court: Are you referring to the amendment
to the plan or the original plan?
Mr. Nabrit: The original plan.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs■—Direct
83a
Lew W. Karmen—for Plaintiffs—■Direct
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. These initial assignments have already been made in
fact, have they not? A. That’s right.
Q. And they were made on the report card in accord
ance with the original plan which was filed with the Court
in April 1964? A. That’s right.
Q. So these assignments have actually been made. A.
But these figures are the exact figures submitted by Negro
principals in answer to requests that we made for in
formation compiled for the Court.
Q. Well, how would the Negro principals know how many
white students had been initially assigned to their schools
—65—
for next year? A. Because— No, I think we were dealing
with areas there rather than—
Q. So that information wouldn’t come from Negro prin
cipals? A. No, I think not. I ’m not sure.
Q. Well, Mr. Hannen, Paragraph 13 of your plan men
tions—wTell, it reads as follows: “All applications for re
assignment shall be made on forms to be furnished by,
and available at, the office of the Superintendent.”
In previous years there has been a rule that such forms
were only available during the 15-day transfer period and
that only one form would be issued per child, and they
would only be issued to the parent or guardian or someone
with the power of attorney, that they were to be available
only at the office of the superintendent, the pupils to call
for them in person, that they would not be distributed at
the school building. Do you still intend to follow that pro
cedure? A. I don’t know what we will follow from here
on out. I do know that this year there were some of those
forms given to one individual for the use of someone else
84a
who lived in the same house, or something of that fashion.
We did not strictly in every case adhere to giving just one
to each child or a given person.
Q. Well, another provision of your plan, Paragraph 12,
indicates that forms for application for initial assignment
- 66-
are available in the office of the principals of the various
schools. Why would initial-assignment application forms
be available in the principal’s office but you have to go to
the superintendent’s office to get a transfer? A. That’s
a good question. Of course, when you have this preliminary
registration during the spring, you have a good deal more
time to figure what your enrollment is going to be than
you do 15 days after school is out in the summer. Some
time I ’ve got to assign teachers and get these classes set
up. You can keep a very much more accurate record and
a day-by-day running account on what’s taking place if
you have this before you right in your office as they are
given out, to keep a record of them. Also, before this 15-
day period is out, the majority of your principals are
gone for the summer and the school is not even open.
Q. Well, I understood that there were summer schools
in almost all of your elementary school buildings; isn’t
that true? A. No. We don’t have but one elementary
school out of 19 that has summer school in it. The other 18
are closed.
Q. But—well, how long after— When does school close,
what date? A. Well, it varies; about the first of June,
roughly.
Q. How late—how long after the schools close do the
principals stay in their offices; another month, isn’t it?
—67—
Lew W. Harnien—for Plaintiffs—Direct
A. No, ten days.
85a
Q. Ten days f Why are forms only available during that
15-day period? Why aren’t they available the rest of the
year? A. Well, do they need them during the rest of the
year? That’s essentially the question. You have a 15-day
period at the end of the year, and actually you wouldn’t
know what grade your child was in until you know whether
he’s promoted or not; you wouldn’t know what classes he
was going to be taking the next year. It’s entire conceiv
able, for example, that the Hillside High School—a child
would want to take a second year in chemistry that he
couldn’t get; he could get it at Durham High School. But
he wouldn’t know until the end of the year whether he had
passed first-year chemistry or not. I can think of a number
of reasons for it.
Q. From your answers I gather that you have now de
cided that you do want to keep this system of making the
forms available only at your office, only one per child, and
only to people who actually physically come down to the
office to get it? A. From the standpoint of administration,
this has worked out very well. I can say this: I don’t know
of anyone that has been denied a blank under that arrange
ment.
Q. If he came now, what hours is the office open? A.
From 8:30 in the morning until after 5:00 o’clock. And
that brings out another reason: that this principal is there,
— 68—
he goes out to lunch and somebody comes in for a blank
when he’s off for his lunch hour; he can’t get it from the
principal if he isn’t there. We have enough clerks in our
office so there’s somebody there every minute of the day.
The principal goes home about 3:00 in the afternoon. We
are there until after 5:00.
Q. Well, you would acknowledge, I suppose, that there
are other people in the city, including parents, who work
Leiv W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
86a
8:30 to 5:00? A. Well, we are open on Saturday morning
and stay there until 1:00 o’clock on Saturday, and very
few people work after 12:00 o’clock noon on Saturday. I
do know this, Mr. Nabrit: There have been several occa
sions when people have called us and said, “We work until
5 :00 o’clock; we’ll be in after 5 :00 to get a blank.” We have
stayed there as late as 5 :30 and later in order to give them
those blanks. We have made every effort to serve the
people who are our patrons.
Q. Mr. Hannen, this controversy about accessibility of
transfer blanks goes back two or three years now. Why
don’t you make it easy for people to get a transfer blank!
A. We think it is easy.
Q. Well, at one point you required lawyers to have power
of attorney from their clients before they could get a
blank, isn’t that right! A. That’s correct.
—69—
Q. And when a large number of applications were filed
which were photocopies of your blank form, you wouldn’t
accept those; right? A. That’s correct.
Q. Do you remember how many transfer applications
you denied because they were on different paper? A. No,
I do not recall.
Q. There were hundreds, weren’t there? A. There were
several.
Q. There was over a hundred, wasn’t there? A. I think
that is true.
Q. I think you told me last year that you had to count
how many application blanks you handed out because you
use that in hiring teachers, is that right! A. I didn’t hear
you, sir.
Q. I thought you testified last year in depositions that
you kept a count of how many blank forms you handed out
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
87a
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Direct
because you use that count in hiring teachers, is that right?
A. I don’t recall making that statement. I could very well
have made it.
Q. Well, is that so? A. You determine the number of
teachers you have by the number of pupils you have; and
if you get up to a certain point, you’re going to have to
get additional help. These blanks would be a very definite
- 70-
assistance to us in knowing as early as possible whether
I need to employ another teacher to teach another section
of biology, or whether I have so many pupils in a given
fifth grade that I ’ve got to employ another teacher. And
the longer you wait to get that information, the less likeli
hood you have of getting a teacher that can do the job.
Q. Didn’t you have this same rule, Mr. Hannen, even
before you started counting the blanks? A. What rule?
Q. This same rule that only, you know, one per parent
and so forth, one per child. A. We’ve had the rule ever
since we’ve been giving the blanks out: that’s true.
Q. When did you start counting? A. I don’t recall.
Q. It was after it was brought out in this case that you
weren’t counting, wasn’t it? A. I think it—
Q. It was after the first trial in this case, wasn’t it?
A. I think it was after the number of blanks became signif
icantly large that it might change the number of teachers
that you would need. Up until that time I think there was
no occasion to use it for that, because the problem was not
that large.
Q. The Court’s order last summer directed you to send an
— 71-
application blank to all parents in grades one to nine. Did
you do that? A. Yes, sir. To the best of our knowledge,
we did that.
88a
Q. Your answer to Interrogatory— Well, strike that.
Mr. Hannen, during the month of June of this year when
these white pupils, a number of them at least—we don’t
know how many—were assigned to all-Negro schools, do you
know how many of them have applied for transfers to
other schools? A. I don’t know. I haven’t examined the
blanks except to glance at them occasionally to see that
they were being submitted.
Q. In previous years none of the white children residing
in the Negro attendance areas have actually stayed there;
they have applied for transfers out. I was wondering if
any of them had indicated they were staying there this
next year? A. Not to my knowledge, although there may
be some by the time they are all in. I ’m not sure on that
point.
# * * * *
— 100—
* # # # #
Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Mr. Hannen, what is the total school population? I
don’t think this appears, the total figures don’t appear
anywhere; but just for round figures. A. Approximately
15,400.
—101—
Q. And how many are Negro and how many white, in
round figures again? A. I guess this would be probably
7000 Negro plus, 8000 white plus.
Q. During the past school term there were 314 Negro
pupils attending white schools; right? That’s the total
figure given on— A. Yes, that’s right. I recall that figure.
Q. Now you referred to a Negro elementary supervisor.
What is her name? A. Mrs. Daniel.
Q. Mrs.— A. Mrs. Zelma Daniel.
Q. Mrs. Daniel? A. Yes.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
89a
Q. What school does Mrs. Daniel supervise! A. She
supervises the Crest Street, Walltown, East End, Lyon
Park, Burton, Pearson, Spaulding, and Fayetteville Street
Schools.
Q. So she is an administrative person who is in charge
of the eight all-Negro schools! A. That’s right.
Q. And is she the only Negro working in a supervisory
capacity in the school system! A. No. There are others.
— 102—
Q. Who are the others, principals or— A. Principals.
Q. But in terms of citywide, she— A. Citywide, she
would be the only one.
Q. Nowt looking at the map, the boundary-—the western
boundary of the Spaulding School follows a railroad track
until it gets to Boxboro Street, then it leaves the railroad
track. The railroad track actually crosses over part of the
Spaulding zone and over this Fayetteville Street zone, is
that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. The same railroad track? A. That’s correct.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Hannen, that there is an overpass
which crosses that railroad track where pedestrians could
cross without risk at Apex Street, right where I point here?
A. As I recall, there is just one in the whole length of that.
Q. Well, I understand there is also an underpass at Lake-
wood. A. There is an underpass at Lakewood.
Q. Would you confirm that I am pointing at the right
place here? Let’s see—
The Court: Lakewood is right at the top of that
line.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
90a
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs■—Redirect
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. So at Lakewood Avenue there is an underpass that
- 1 0 3 -
pedestrians could cross without crossing the railroad track
—-I mean could cross the railroad track without being at a
grade crossing! A. There is an underpass down in the
south part of the city there somewhere. I ’m not sure what
street it is.
Q. And Apex where I am now pointing, there is a pedes
trian overpass! A. That’s right.
Q. Can cars pass over there too! A. It’s wide enough
I think for one car, as I recall.
Q. It’s primarily for pedestrians, I gather!
Well, you are not sure whether automobiles use it or
not! A. Automobiles use it, yes.
Q. Automobiles do use it! A. Yes, sir. Yes.
Q. Now isn’t it true that you have actually two separate
railroad tracks running through the North Durham zone,
and you have one that runs roughly west to east and an
other one running northeast to southwest; is that correct!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that one of these railroad tracks runs right
through the East End zone and right through the Edge-
mont zone; right! A. That’s right.
Q. You have a highway, U. S. 70 and 15—is that a major
- 1 0 4 -
road, a divided highway! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that runs through the Club Boulevard zone,
doesn’t it! A. Yes, sir. Now the dividing line there did
follow that highway just a very few short years ago, but
as school population changed we moved it in order to ac
commodate pupils to a given school.
Q. And there is a railroad track that cuts across the
George Watts zone down here, isn’t there! A. That was
91a
changed just a couple of years ago. It used to follow the
railroad for many years.
Q. But now the railroad track divides the zone? A. The
shift in population again.
Q. The same thing at Southside, the railroad track di
vides the zone? A. Yes. It used to follow it up until two
or three years ago, just a few years ago.
Q. You mentioned Mangum Street, as being a busy in
tersection, but there are some places where it’s used as a
dividing line and other places where it’s not; isn’t that
right? A. That’s true. In this instance we were—
Q. Mangum Street is not a boundary in the North Dur
ham zone, but then it is a boundary between East End
and North Durham, and then it’s not a boundary as it cuts
—105—
across the Pearson zone; isn’t that right? A. That’s right.
In this instance we were concerned only with dividing the
Puller School district.
Q. Now I think you indicated in response to a question
by Mr. Spears that the lines down the middle of the blocks
followed natural boundaries, but aren’t there some cases—
there are some cases where that isn’t so, aren’t there? A.
I would assume that’s true. We were referring there par
ticularly to that one instance, the one that you pointed out
a little while ago.
Q. For example, at the top of Walltown district it comes
up to a point; that boundary ends in the middle of a block,
doesn’t it? A. Yes, I think that’s true.
Q. Do you happen to know that the last two houses in
that block are white families; the boundary falls just short
of them? A. I ’m not aware what families live there.
Q. And then that boundary, the Walltown School bound
ary on the east runs behind the houses of Buchanan Boule
vard; correct? A. That’s correct.
Lew W. Hannen-—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
92a
Q. So it would include the houses that faced on Lan
caster but not include the houses that faced on Buchanan
Boulevard; right? A. That’s correct.
—106—
Q. And isn’t it a fact that the houses on Lancaster are
Negro families and the houses on Buchanan Boulevard are
white families'? A. I ’m not sure. That’s the way they are
indicated on the map and I assume that’s true.
Q. The Fayetteville Street boundary down here, in sort
of the left-hand side of the Fayetteville Street boundary,
runs across an open field part of the way, doesn’t it? A.
Yes. There is no street connecting those two points.
Q, So that although this Spaulding boundary follows
the railroad tracks and Roxboro Street, the Fayetteville
boundary just runs across an open field; right? A. That’s
right.
Q. And by doing so it includes a Negro neighborhood on
the left side of Roxboro Street? A. And a white area
there too.
Q. I take it from your answers to the interrogatories
that there aren’t very many white pupils, where your an
swer to the interrogatories indicates no white pupils re
siding in the Fayetteville Street attendance area. That’s
Exhibit Number 6.
It’s apparently an open field. A. I think any families
that were in there, I think moved out, apparently.
Q. Did you testify—I ’m not sure I heard your answer—
did you testify in response to questioning by His Honor
—107—
that the lines were drawn so as to let children continue in
the same schools? A. No. I think I said that lines were
drawn to try to accommodate the number of pupils to the
number of seats that were available in a given school, and
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
93a
of course some of these schools have been here for a great
many years; and in general I think that has been the prac
tice all over the country, that you would tend to change
school lines not as much as possible, but you tend to be
conservative I think in changing that school line because
when a child is acclimated to one school, he hesitates and
I think his parents would hesitate to have him go to another
school. Ordinarily, I think that has been true in the Ameri
can history of education. If a child goes to the first, second,
third, and fourth grade, he wants to go on to the fifth and
sixth grade. I think that has been true.
Q. Well, under a plan like yours where there is a sepa
rate rule that says a child can stay in the school he is in
without regard to the change in the zones, you could afford
to change the zones a little more? A. Yes, I think you
could always afford to change them a little more. We are
changing them right along.
Q. The change of the zone lines doesn’t affect anybody
who is there already under this plan; remember? A. I ’m
not following you at that point.
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, I can’t really understand
—108—
Mr. Nabrit but from what I can hear that he said,
it appears that he is arguing with the witness; and I
don’t understand that they really object to that part
of the plan anyway.
The Court: Where are your junior high bounda
ries ?
Mr. Nabrit: Well, would you like to see them laid
over the elementary zones or by themselves?
The Court: Yes, over the elementary zones.
Now the green is junior high?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
Lew W. Ilannen-—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
94a
The Court: Let’s see. There are not but four
junior highs in the city, are there?
Mr. Nabrit: No, you have five, Your Honor. You
have the new one, Shepard.
The Court: Shepard?
Mr. Nabrit: Shepard’s zone here is all of Burton,
all of Fayetteville, and a little part of Spaulding.
But if you line these up with the marks, they pretty
much conform to these—some of the lines at least
conform to the elementary school lines.
The Court: Well now, the one up at the top is—
Mr. Nabrit: Brogden.
The Court: That is Brogden, and that’s—
Mr. Nabrit: That includes all of Club Boulevard
and part of—most of Powe, E. K. Powe, except this
- 1 0 9 -
little piece here and right here.
The Court: And all of Walltown.
Mr. Nabrit: All of Walltown and the northern
part of Watts.
The Court: Well now, where did Walltown form
erly go to school?
Mr. Nabrit: Well, all the Negro children, Wall-
town, Crest Street, and Lyon Park, all of them went
to Whitted Junior High School which is located—
The Witness: It’s on Umstead Street.
Mr. Nabrit: Umstead Street, right here.
The Court: Do you have a map showing the junior
high districts ?
Mr. Jarvis: Yes, sir.
Mr. Spears: Your Honor, I don’t want to inter
rupt Mr. Nabrit, but he said formerly there—Wall-
town has been going some to Brogden and some to
Carr, by requests for reassignment.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
95a
The Court: Well, I ’m talking about before there
was any desegregation.
Mr. Nabrit: Before desegregation, before 1959.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Now isn’t that correct, Mr. Superintendent, before
desegregation, before 1959! A. All the Negro pupils be
fore 1959 went to Whitted Junior High School.
— 110—
Q. From all the elementary schools? A. From the en
tire city.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
The Court: Then Carr has in it—
Mr. Nabrit: Perhaps it would be better if the
superintendent described it.
The Court: —North Durham—
The Witness: Part of George Watts, Southside,
and Crest Street; and down to the southwest, Lake-
wood, Morehead, and Lyon Park.
Mr. Nabrit: The Carr boundary, Your Honor, I
am tracing with the ruler.
The Witness: It’s the largest school in that sec
tion.
The Court: And then you have generally Whitted
and Shepard—Shepard is down at the bottom and
Whitted is just above it there.
Mr. Nabrit: Whitted is here.
The Court: Where are the lines on your map of
Shepard?
Mr. Jarvis: About halfway between Shepard and
Whitted there, Your Honor.
Mr. Nabrit: The Shepard—
96a
The Court: I can see that green one coming across
there now. How does it come down? I see that. Oh,
I see now. Now does Holton serve a predominantly
white area?
— I ll—
Mr. Nabrit: And a little bit of the East End area.
It serves part of the East End area, part of the
Edgemont area, all of Holloway, and all of Y. E.
Smith.
The Court: Now Whitted has some white resi
dential areas in it?
Mr. Spears: I don’t think so, Your Honor.
The Witness: North of the railroad, yes.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Is that correct, Mr. Superintendent? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: It shows some white areas right in
there where you have your pointer.
The Witness: Some very substantial white areas.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. The answer to Interrogatory Number 6 indicates
the number of white pupils living in the Whitted area as
how many, Mr. Superintendent? A. It lists 28. This in
formation I think—I’m not sure that this is accurate.
The Court: Well, it looks like there’s a sizable
area there at the bottom there where you have the
pointer, and just at the top of that school line that
there is an area. I don’t know how it’s populated.
Mr. Nabrit: Well, actually, Your Honor, the
houses along—I don’t know this area myself. I
have been told there’s some sort of ravine in there.
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
— 112—
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Do you know that to be so, Mr. Superintendent? A.
That is not thickly populated in there. The houses are
sparse, I think.
The Court: But you have let all of those white
children assigned to Whitted transfer out on re
quest?
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Jarvis: Of course, Your Honor, everyone had
freedom of choice last year.
The Court: I understand. Now let’s see your high
school map there. I want to ask Mr. Hannen about
that. Let’s see, that doesn’t show the two high
schools, doesn’t it?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, Your Honor, they are in orange,
Durham High and Hillside High. The junior high—
The Court: Well, let’s see those again now, the
orange. Oh, I see.
Now, Mr. Hannen, there you see the Durham High
School. You have—let’s see, in the Durham and the
Hillside— Maybe this is an unfair question. We’re
trying to get the facts. If all the children in the
Durham school system were white, do you think you
would place that like that and have some of them
coming down up there out of that upper neck com
ing down to Hillside, and then some to the east of
that area coming across to Durham High? Do you
- 1 1 3 -
see what I ’m talking about?
The Witness: We have had a serious problem
there.
98a
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, may I point this out?
Our stipulation agreed that the Board has not estab
lished those lines. The high school is on the feeder
system; it’s feeding those and those lines result from
the feeder, and he did not draw those lines.
The Court: Well, would you have set them like
that?
The Witness: Well, first, Your Honor, if we had
had freedom of choice involved, we would have had
a number of vacant rooms at the Hillside High
School and we would have had Durham High on
double sessions, some of them.
The Court: I understand that, but what we are
talking about here now, have you with this system
honestly eliminated color consideration from the en
tire Durham school system?
The Witness: I don’t know the answer to that.
The Court: Well, I won’t press it. All right, go
ahead.
# # # * #
—115—
* # # # #
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, we would also like to
introduce another exhibit which was also stipulated,
and they are two additional overlays which show
capacity and the number of pupils initially assigned
in each of the zones and the number of residents in
the zone. We will hand up the stipulation. I don’t
suppose the stipulation needs an exhibit number.
The Court: Now that overlay goes on—
—116—
Mr. Nabrit: There’s one that goes on Exhibit D-64
and another that goes on Exhibit C-64.
Lew W. Rannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
99a
The Court: Well now, would not that that you are
putting up now be Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-2-64?
(The overlay above referred to was marked for
identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-2-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: I might say since this is not perma
nently attached, Your Honor, I will state for the
record that there are marks in the corners which
indicate how to line these up, square marks.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Nabrit: So that, you know, they can be lined
up nice.
Your Honor, as the legend on the bottom of this
indicates, there are three abbreviations used. One,
“ Cap.” for capacity, and in each zone we have the
set of figures, we have “ Cap.” for capacity and a
figure next to it and the same figure, that figure
repeated twice, and below capacity on the left in
each case we have the letters “ T.I.A.” which stands
for total initially assigned to the school, the total
number of pupils initially assigned to the school.
And the figure beside that is taken from the answer
to Interrogatory Number—
—117—
Mr. Jarvis: Of course, we have stipulated to the
accuracy of those figures, Your Honor.
Mr. Nabrit: Well, in any event, Your Honor, this
is the total number of pupils initially assigned to
that school for September ’64, for next year; and
the other figure, total residents, “ T.R.,” is the total
number of pupils residing in the area, in the attend
ance area. And then we have done the arithmetic
with both sets; in other words, we have “ +144,”
that means that there are more pupils than there
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
100a
are capacity, and we have a minus figure, that means
there are more capacity than can he utilized by that
number.
Now we offer that as Exhibit D-2-64; may it be
admitted?
The Court: All right, let it be received in evidence.
(The overlay above referred to, heretofore
marked for identification, was received in
evidence as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-2-64.)
The Witness: Tour Honor, may I make an ob
servation on this to Mr. Nabrit at this point? Those
figures on the residents in the areas, some of them
are three or four years old because you have a
census taken on a rotating basis and you get around
—118—
to an individual school once every four years; and
in making comparisons I think we need to keep that
in mind, that while these are current figures in other
instances, the area figures are one or two or three
years old.
Mr. Nabrit: Now the next overlay has also been
stipulated, Your Honor. It will be designated as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C-4-1964 and is similar to the
last exhibit, except it deals with elementary schools,
and it shows the capacity and the total number of
pupils initially assigned.
(The overlay above referred to was marked for
identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C-4-64.)
Mr. Nabrit: Now I believe there is no objection
to this. May it be admitted, Tour Honor?
The Court: Tes, let it be admitted into evidence.
Lew W. Barmen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
101a
(The overlay above referred to, heretofore
marked for identification, was received in evi
dence as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 0-4-64.)
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Now, Mr. Superintendent, in looking at Exhibit
C-4-1964 I notice that the East End School, whether you
consider the pupils initially assigned or pupils who reside
in the area—you can use either standard—the East End
School is overcrowded while the adjoining schools, North
—119—
Durham, Holloway, and Edgemont—at least three of the
adjoining schools, North Durham, Holloway, and Edge
mont—are under-utilized. Are you aware of that? A. No,
I had not, I think, considered that that was true to any
great extent. As a matter of fact—I can’t read that from
here—but I think you will find that the figures are rather
small figures in several instances there.
Q. Well, the overcrowded figure for East End, if you
base it on the number initially assigned there next year,
is 116 overcrowded. It has a capacity of 720 and initially
assigned, 836. A. Well, that figure cannot be accurate I
think, because the school was accredited this year and there
is not that much change in it.
Q. Well, this is the initial assignment for September
1964, the coming year? A. Yes.
Q. And Holloway, Edgemont, and North Durham I as
sume are under-utilized. Do you have any reason to be
lieve that there were less children initially assigned there
than you indicated on your answers to the interrogatories ?
A. I don’t know.
Mr. Nabrit: Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Spears, were you
able to agree to the stipulation that that other ex
hibit be received?
Lew W. Hcmnen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
— 120—
The Court: Are there any further questions of
this witness?
Mr. Nabrit: I don’t have any. Let me ask my
colleagues.
Your Honor, we have another exhibit which is
stipulated to. This was designed to clear up the
difficulty we had earlier—confusion over the column
on the answer, the column called “Excess Enroll
ment” that appeared on that Exhibit Number 1 to
the answers to interrogatories. We have a stipula
tion which gives the capacity of each school, the
June 1964 enrollment, and then does the arithmetic.
The Court: Let me see it.
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, on that first page, that
was based somewhat on figures comprised of both
end-of-the-year and beginning-of-the-year figures,
and therefore it did not correspond with some of the
other figures in the answers to the interrogatories.
So the purpose of the stipulation is to show how it
existed at the end of the 1963-64 school year.
The Court: Well, these figures will be used rather
than the Exhibit 1 attached to the answers to inter
rogatories to the extent they are applicable. You
have “ Capacity” ; I suppose capacity on both are
the same?
— 121—
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
The Court: Then you have “June, 1964 Enroll
ment,” and on the Exhibit 1 you just have “Excess
Enrollment.”
Mr. Spears: Excess or minus.
103a
The Court: And then your right-hand column is
really your “ Pupils in Excess of or Under Capacity.”
Mr. Spears: The one under “Excess Enrollment,”
plus or minus, is the one.
The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Spears: Yes, sir. The other two are “Average
Class Size” and “Pupil-Teacher Ratio.” That
wouldn’t he changed.
The Court: The Durham High School can accom
modate 86 more students, in other words, and Hill
side High School could accommodate 49 more. So
overall there are 86 plus 49 more that could be ac
commodated in both high schools.
Mr. Jarvis: At the end of the year.
The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Nabrit: Well, Your Honor, so it won’t be
misleading, let me ask Mr. Hannen a question that
might clarify it.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Mr. Hannen, isn’t it true that during the school year
there were dropouts, so that these June enrollment figures
- 1 2 2 -
are probably lower in most eases than the figures in Sep
tember! A. That’s correct.
The Court: Do you think your September enroll
ment at both Durham and Hillside will be in excess
of the normal capacity?
The Witness: Yes, it would, Your Honor.
The Court: Do you have any plans to increase
the size of either of those high schools right away?
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
104a
The Witness: I think I misunderstood your ques
tion, sir. I thought that you were saying was the
September enrollment larger than the end-of-the-
year enrollment.
The Court: No. This indicates that you only had
room at Durham and Hillside for 86 plus 49 stu
dents; that would be about 135. Now if you had
135 more students, 86 more at Durham and 49 more
at Hillside, you will have reached capacity.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: If you had any more than that, you’d
be over capacity?
The Witness: Over capacity.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I don’t think you could
draw that inference directly, because to really under
stand the situation next September, these June 1964
—123—
figures don’t help you a great deal. You have to
look at the answer to the— You’d have to look at
the actual estimates for September 1964, which are
Exhibit Number 8, and they are different. And the
same thing on the two new overlays.
Your Honor, that last exhibit I handed you, I
would like to make that Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F.
The Court: Do you mean the stipulation?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
The Court: All right.
(The document above referred to was marked
for identification as: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F-64.)
The Court: That is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F-64, and
show it received.
# # =& #
Lew W. Hannen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
105a
—131—
Thereupon: H erman A. R hinehart was called as a wit
ness on behalf of the Plaintiffs and, being first duly sworn,
was examined and testified on his oath as follows:
The Court: Take a five-minute recess.
(Thereupon, a short recess was taken.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. State your name, Mr. Rhinehart. A. Herman A.
Rhinehart.
Q. What is your position in relation to the public schools ?
A. I am Chairman of the Board of the Durham City
Schools.
Q. Mr. Rhinehart, can you tell me—do you have any idea
what your Board plans to do about this matter of teacher
desegregation? A. There has been no formal discussion
on that question.
Q. Do you have any— Are you able to indicate anything
to the Court about what the Board might be prepared
to do? A. No, I could not.
Mr. Nabrit: That’s all I have.
Cross Examination by Mr. Spears:
Q. Mr. Rhinehart, how many members are there on the
School Board? A. Six.
Q. You are the Chairman? A. Yes, sir.
—132—
Q. And when a matter comes up, it is voted on by all
those present at the time? A. That’s correct, sir.
Mr. Spears: Stand down.
Mr. Nabrit: One moment. One more question.
Herman A. Rhinehart—for Plaintiffs—Direct—Cross
106a
Q. What was the vote on your present plan? A. On
the present—the plan that we submitted?
Q. To the Court, yes. A. Five to one, if I remember
correctly.
Mr. Nabrit: That’s all.
The Court: All right, come down.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Nabrit: We have nothing more, Your Honor.
The Court: Is there any evidence for the defen
dant?
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, there is no evidence ex
cept this, the amendment to the plan that was pro
posed to the plaintiffs since the original plan was
filed. We would like to have that marked as Defen
dant’s Exhibit A just for the purpose of having it
in the record. And we are not presenting it as an
amendment to the plan, Your Honor.
— 133—
The Court: You are not presenting it?
Mr. Jarvis: We are not presenting it as an amend
ment to the plan, because I understand that they
do not desire it. We just want it in the record for
the Court to see that we were willing to.
The Court: Well, if you are not presenting it,
how can I consider it?
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, we are offering it as
evidence of the Board’s good faith in the matter, and
that they withdrew their objection on it. We just
want to get it in the record. We are not amending
our plan proper.
Herman A. Rhinehart—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
107a
Colloquy
The Court: Well, I don’t understand. If you
mark an exhibit and introduce it into evidence and
you say you are not offering it, it’s a clear contradic
tion. I don’t know. How can it be considered if you
are not offering it?
Mr. Jarvis: Well, Your Honor, we could put a
witness on the stand and have him testify that the
Board had proposed to amend the plan in that re
gard subject to the approval of the plaintiffs and the
Court and that the plaintiffs did not approve it, did
not accept it, they rejected it; and therefore we
would just have it introduced for the purpose of
illustrating that person’s testimony.
—134—
The Court: Why do you not want to offer it as
an amendment to your plan?
Mr. Jarvis: Your Honor, I am advised that the
Board considers from an administrative standpoint
and for the proper education of the students in the
system, that they think that the original plan is the
better of the two, but they want the Court to under
stand that they are willing—if the Court should see
fit, that they are willing for that amendment to be
made to the plan.
The Court: Well, you have made it and if that
amendment to the other in its totality amounts to an
acceptable plan—
Mr. Jarvis: Yes, sir, if that in its totality amounts
to an acceptable plan, we offer it for that purpose.
The Court: And if it doesn’t, it doesn’t make any
difference.
Mr. Spears: It is not substantive evidence; it’s
only to show that the Board was willing to do that
if the plaintiffs would accept it.
108a
Colloquy
The Court: Well, what’s the difference between
that and the original plan? I can’t get the distinc
tion of how you want me to treat it. I don’t want
to consider something—
Mr. Jarvis: I think I can state it correctly. If
that makes a difference as to whether or not the
plan is acceptable or unacceptable to the plaintiffs,
it’s permissible to make that amendment to it.
The Court: But if it’s not acceptable—
Mr. Jarvis: If it’s not acceptable and does not
make any difference on whether or not the plan is ac
ceptable, it still would make some difference on
whether or not the School Board has acted in good
faith in this matter.
The Court: Well, that’s the reason I said that.
I don’t want to consider it for any purpose—if I
can consider it at all, it looks like I ’ve got to con
sider it for that purpose, the same as. the first plan.
It hasn’t been marked an exhibit. You submitted
the plan.
Mr. Jarvis: Yes, sir.
The Court: It’s a part of the record in this case.
Mr. Jarvis: Yes, sir.
The Court: There was an objection filed to it.
Then at the opening of the hearing today, you
amended that plan. You say this is an offer that
we amend the plan in this respect. Of course, the
plaintiffs have not yet had an opportunity to file their
objections to the plan as amended. I assume that
they will want that opportunity.
Mr. Jarvis: All right, sir. May I confer just
—136—
a moment, Your Honor?
The Court: All right.
109a
Colloquy
Mr. Jarvis: That’s correct, Your Honor. We have
submitted it as an amendment to the plan.
Mr. Marsh: We object. We object to the submis
sion of it as an amendment to the plan.
The Court: Objection overruled. I ’ll give you
an opportunity to file any objection that you care
to to the amendment.
Mr. Nabrit: I ’m sorry, Your Honor, but I didn’t
hear.
The Court: They offered this amendment. They
have filed an amendment today. I don’t know that it
deserves an exhibit number any more than the first
plan they offered, but they have handed up today an
amendment to their plan and you shall have an op
portunity to file objections to the plan as amended.
Mr. Nabrit: I would like—there has been so
much said about this amended plan, I would like
a clear statement now as to what the School Board’s
position is. Do they want this amended plan or not?
The Court: They say that they do. That’s what
the discussion has been about. They say that they
are offering this as an amendment to the plan
originally offered. In other words, the Court can con-
—137—
sider the original plan and the amendment to the
original plan as their offer to desegregate the Dur
ham school system for the coming year.
You objected to the original plan and now they
say in view of that that they are offering another
plan; they are amending their original plan.
Mr. Spears: That was submitted in a conference
that we had with the attorneys since the hearing on
June 15th or thereabouts.
110a
Mr. Nabrit: In that event, Your Honor, I would
like to call another witness.
The Court: All right.
Edward L. Phillips—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Thereupon: E d w a r d L. P h i l l i p s was called as a wit
ness on behalf of the Plaintiffs and, being first duly sworn,
was examined and testified on his oath as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. State your name and connection with the school
system, sir. A. E. L. Phillips. I ’m assistant superinten
dent.
Q. I show you a piece of paper and ask you if you recog
nize it. A. Yes.
—138—
Q. Tell us what that is. A. Mr. Spears called me when
Mr. Hannen was out of town and said that the attorneys
for the plaintiffs in this case wanted certain additional in
formation, and this was obtained from the principals of
the schools listed here.
Q. So this is a letter that you prepared? A. And I
wrote this letter to Mr. Spears giving him the information
he asked for.
Q. I have now what I think is the original with your
signature, is that right? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I offer this as a plain
tiffs’ exhibit.
The Court: That would be G.
(The letter above referred to was marked for
identification and received in evidence as:
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit G-64.)
111a
Colloquy
Mr. Nabrit: I have no other questions.
Mr. Spears: Come down.
Mr. Jarvis: No questions.
The Court: Come down.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Nabrit : Your Honor, I am advised that the
—139—
amended plan is in all respects identical to the plan
filed—the earlier plan filed in April, except for
Paragraphs 2 and 8; and I think our objections to it
would all be the same as those we have previously
made.
The Court: Well, don’t you want to formally with
draw your objections, your second objection to their
original plan, and comment on this? It would take
you only a—
Mr. Nabrit: What I was hoping was that I could
do that orally for the record right now so that the
matter might be submitted.
The Court: I haven’t studied this. It was just
handed in this morning. I have been trying to lis
ten to the evidence rather than read this plan, and
I do not know how it varies from the other plan. I
thought perhaps you would want to sit down and
study it and then comment on it; and then if that’s
all there is to it, why your comments would be very,
very brief.
Mr. Nabrit: I have read it several days ago.
The Court: Oh, you have? Well, I had just seen
it today.
Mr. Nabrit: Counsel just confirmed what I
thought, that the only difference is where—in Para-
112a
Colloquy
graphs 2 and 8. The reason I put in that last exhibit
was because that indicates the number of Negro
students who are now attending schools outside of
—140—
their zones, and who would be the ones affected—
would be among the people affected by the change.
The ground of objection would be the converse of
the objection we withdrew; that is, that these pupils
who have already chosen to go to the white schools
would be placed back in Negro schools and then
would have to choose again, going through the same,
you know, going through an administrative formality
to stay where they were. This was the reason that
led us to withdraw that objection. We reconsidered
it and thought we had made a mistake; that’s all
it amounts to.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Nabrit: So I don’t think, you know, we need
to have any elaborate formalities about the amended
plan.
The Court: All right. Now is there anything else
to the plan!
# # # # #
113a
Order
In the United States D istrict Court
F or the Middle D istrict of North Carolina
D urham D ivision-
No. C-54-D-60
--- — --------------- ------------------------------ ------------ -—
W arren H. W heeler, a Minor, by J. H. W heeler,
bis father and next friend, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
—vs.—
Durham City B oard of E ducation, a body politic
in Durham County, North Carolina,
Defendant.
No. C-116-D-60
C. C. Spaulding, III, a Minor, by C. C. Spaulding, Jr.,
his father and next friend, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
—vs.—
Durham City B oard of Education, a body politic
in Durham County, North Carolina,
Defendant.
This matter regularly came on for hearing on the plan
for desegregating the Durham City Schools, as filed by the
defendant on April 28, 1964, and the plaintiffs’ opposition
thereto, and the motion of the plaintiffs to allow attorney
fees to plaintiffs’ counsel. Evidence was taken on July 9,
114a
Order
1964, following which counsel for the parties were invited
to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
briefs. Oral arguments were heard on July 31, 1964.
After due consideration of the plan to desegregate the
Durham City Schools as submitted by the defendant, the
objections to said plan filed by the plaintiffs, the evidence
submitted by the parties, including exhibits, the proposed
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and briefs submitted
by the parties, and the argument of counsel,
It i s o r d e r e d , a d j u d g e d a n d d e c r e e d :
1. That the plan for desegregating the Durham City
Schools, including the amendment thereto, is disapproved
for the reason that the court is of the opinion that the
school zone boundaries, with respect to elementary and
junior high schools, in some instances have been drawn
along racial residential lines, rather than along natural
boundaries or the perimeters of compact areas surrounding
the particular schools.
2. That the Durham City Board of Education has made
substantial progress toward desegregating the Durham
City School System which has resulted in the integration
of the one formerly all white high school, all three of the
formerly all white junior high schools, and nine of the
eleven formerly all white elementary schools. The plan
submitted for the 1964-65 school year provides for a fur
ther desegregation of the school system by the rearrange
ment of school attendance zones.
3. That with respect to the 1964-65 school year, all
pupils in the Durham City School System shall be initially
assigned in accordance with the plan submitted by the de-
115a
Order
fendant on April 28,1964, which plan is incorporated herein
and made a part hereof by reference. Any pupil that has
not already been assigned under that plan shall be assigned,
and notice of the assignment given to the pupil and his
parents or guardian, within five days from the date of
this order.
4. That not later than August 10, 1964, the defendant
shall place a notice in all daily newspapers published in
the City of Durham, North Carolina, containing not less
than 50 square inches of space, notifying the parents or
guardians of all pupils assigned to any school in the Dur
ham City School System that they have the absolute right,
except as otherwise herein provided, to attend, during the
1964-65 school year, a school of their choice in the Durham
City School System teaching the grade to which their child
or children have been assigned.
5. That said notice shall, in substance, advise the parents
or guardians that, notwithstanding a prior assignment of
their child or children to a particular school, said child
or children have the right to attend any school of their
free choice in the Durham City School System; that for
such application to receive consideration it must be filed
with the defendant Board not later than August 25, 1964,
on a form furnished by the Board; that all applications
for reassignment will be granted in the order received by
the Board; that in the event a particular school becomes
overcrowded beyond its capacity to provide an effective
program of education for the children, the Board reserves
the right, subject to the approval of the court, after counsel
for the plaintiffs have been given an opportunity to be
heard, to assign a child to the next nearest predominantly
116a
Order
white school teaching the grade to which the child has
been assigned; that applications for reassignment will be
available at the office of the defendant Board, in the Fuller
School Building, corner of Cleveland and Chapel Hill
Streets, Durham, North Carolina, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on week days, and between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays; and that
a reasonable supply of the forms will be delivered to any
person requesting them.
6. That the application form referred to in the preceding
paragraph shall be simple and unambiguous, and generally
conform to the form referred to in and made a part of
the order of July 24, 1963.
7. That this order shall remain in effect until the defen
dant presents and, with the approval of the court, adopts
some other plan for the elimination of racial discrimination
in the operation of the schools of the City of Durham. If
such a plan has not been submitted, approved and adopted
by the end of the 1964-65 school term, each pupil eligible
to attend school during the 1965-66 school term shall be
given notice on his or her report card of the grade and
school to which assigned for the 1965-66 school term, which
initial assignment shall be made in accordance with the
plan submitted by the defendant Board on April 28, 1964.
The pupils shall be further notified, either on their record
card or on a form attached thereto, of their right, if dis
satisfied with their assignment, to attend another school
of their free choice upon making application for reassign
ment, and filing same with the defendant Board, within 30
days thereafter. The notice to be given each pupil, and
the form to be used in making application for reassignment,
117a
Order
shall generally conform to the notice and application form
to be used in connection with the 1964-65 school term. The
same procedure shall be followed with respect to all sub
sequent school terms until a plan which eliminates all
racial discrimination has been presented to and approved
by the court, and adopted by the defendant Board.
8. That if applications for reassignment for the 1964-65
or subsequent school years should result in a particular
school having a pupil capacity beyond its ability to afford
an effective program of education, the defendant Board
may apply to the court, upon five days notice to counsel
for the plaintiffs, for an order permitting the transfer of
certain applicants to another school on a non-diserimina-
tory basis. Enrollment in a particular school is to be per
mitted on a first come first served basis regardless of race,
but when a particular school is filled to capacity, the court
will give consideration to assigning applications on a sec
ond choice basis to some other school not then filled to
capacity.
9. That consideration of the request for injunctive re
lief with respect to the hiring and placement of teachers
and other professional personnel in the Durham City
School System is deferred until after the close of the 1964-
65 school term. In the meantime, the defendant Board is
required to make a detailed study of the administrative
and other problems involved. If the plaintiffs still desire
to pursue this relief, they may make a further application
to the court at any time after the end of the 1964-65 school
term, at which time both the plaintiffs and the defendant
shall be prepared to express themselves fully with reference
to all administrative and legal problems involved, includ
ing, but not limited to, the standing of the minor plaintiffs
to question the policy employed by the defendant Board in
118a
Order
the hiring and placement of teachers and other professional
personnel and how the minor plaintiffs are injured or
otherwise affected by such policy.
10. That the motion of the plaintiffs that attorney fees
be allowed is denied for the reason that the counsel seek
ing an allowance have already been adequately compen
sated for the services performed, presumably by persons
or organizations other than these plaintiffs, and for the
further reason that there are no special circumstances at
this stage of the litigation that would warrant the court,
in the exercise of its discretion, to allow attorney fees.
11. That the injunctive relief requested with respect to
the size and location of new school facilities is denied for
the reason that these are considerations for the defendant
Board, and are relevant to this litigation only to the extent
they have a bearing upon the good faith of the defendant
in eliminating discriminatory practices in the operation of
the Durham City School System. The court has the as
surance of the defendant that its school construction pro
gram will not be designed to perpetuate, maintain or sup
port segregation.
12. That this court retains jurisdiction of these causes
for such further proceedings and the entry of such further
orders as are necessary and proper.
13. I t is f u r t h e r o r d e r e d that the defendant pay the
costs incident to the further prosecution o f these consoli
dated cases.
/ s / E dwin M. Stanley
United States District Judge
August 3, 1964
119a
Order
The foregoing order is entered without making and filing
more specific findings of fact and conclusions of law be
cause of the time element involved. Every day between
the date of oral arguments and the opening of the 1964-65
school term is needed in order to afford the minor plain
tiffs, and others similarly situated, their constitutional
rights during the new school term. If counsel for either
party desire additional findings of fact and conclusions of
law, they shall file specific requests therefor within five
days from the date of this order. Meanwhile, counsel is
reminded that the provisions of Paragraph 3 of the order
of January 2, 1963, remain in effect.
A True Copy
Teste :
/s / E dwin M. Stanley
United States District Judge
H erman A masa Smith , Clerk
By:
August 3, 1964
W ayne N. E verhart
Deputy Clerk
%.
«̂ SS!§!*> 38