Defense Fund Triumphs in Memphis School Case

Press Release
June 16, 1964

Defense Fund Triumphs in Memphis School Case preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Loose Pages. Defense Fund Triumphs in Memphis School Case, 1964. 71ae2792-bd92-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/20c58b02-78af-4dd5-b3fa-138764bd427a/defense-fund-triumphs-in-memphis-school-case. Accessed May 13, 2025.

    Copied!

    10 Columbus Circle 

New York, N.Y. 10019 
JUdson 6-8397 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
PRESS RELEASE 

’"Dr. Allan Knight Chalmers June 16, 1964 
Director-Counsel 

Jack Greenberg 
Associate Counsel 

Constance Baker Motley 

DEFENSE FUND TRIUMPHS 
IN MEMPHIS SCHOOL CASE 

MEMPHIS, TENN.-- The board of education was instructed to speed 

school desgregation, to redraw zoning lines and to consider a 

plan for integrating teaching staffs by a Sixth Circuit court 

here last week. 

The court acted on an appeal by the NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, 

Struck down was the board's previous desegregation plan, 

under which integration would not have reached all grades until 

after 1970. The new ruling requires that all elementary schools 

be integrated this September, junior high schools in 1965, and 

senior high schools in 1966. 

Defense Fund attorneys had pointed out that as of this year, 

only 294 of the 50,953 Negro youngsters in Memphis attended 

school with the 54,684 white students, Desegregation began 

with 12 students in 1961, after a year and a half of litigation 

by the Legal Defense Fund. 

The court further ordered that new school zones be set up. 

Fund lawyers had argued that when the board had done away with 

dual zone lines (separate maps applied to the two races), it had 

formed new zones by irregular lines or by gerrymandering, thus 

maintaining a high degree of segregation. 

Two other arguments made by the Defense Fund were heeded by 

the court. In outlawing the board's minority transfer plan, the 

judges ruled that the plan was designed to perpetuate segregation 

by allowing pupils to switch from bi-racial schools. 

(mare) 

Jesse DeVore, Jr., Director of Public Information—Night Number 212 Riverside 9-8487 



Defense Fund Triumphs -2- June 16, 1964 
in Memphis School Case 

In addition, the court cited its own decision in a case 

brought by the Legal Defense Fund against the Chattanooga Board 

of Education, in which it ruled that "assignment of teachers by 

race may impair the students’ rights to an education free from 

any consideration of race." The judges asked the federal district 

judge to determine whether the Memphis Board should submit a 

plan for teacher desegregation. 

Arguing the case for the Legal Defense Fund was Assistant 

Counsel Derrick A. Bell. He was joined in the action by Fund 

Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg and Associate Counsel Constance 

Baker Motley of New York, and Fund cooperating attorneys R.B. 

Sugarmon Jr. and A.W. Willis Jr. of Memphis. 

Also participating in the suit were cooperating attorneys 

B.L. Hooks, H.J. Lockard, and B.F. Jones, all of Memphis. 

= 30s

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top